This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II

[sktarq]

But the present is now the past, and the future is now.

Col. Sandurz: NOW. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
Lord Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
Col. Sandurz: What?
Lord Dark Helmet: THEN!
Col. Sandurz: I can't!
Lord Dark Helmet: Why not?
Col. Sandurz: We passed it!
Lord Dark Helmet: When?
Col. Sandurz: Just now!
Lord Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Col. Sandurz: SOON!



in other news there is another variant of that the UK gov is worried about (now in the west of country - not the B117 "Kent" one)

[snowblizz]

in other news there is another variant of that the UK gov is worried about (now in the west of country - not the B117 "Kent" one)

Blasted British. They insist on having 4 national football teams that all get (to try for) a place in the world cups. They won't be happy until they each have their own corona strain too.


This and things like it is why I keep saying just because there's a vaccine we are not going back to normal just yet.

[pendell]

Meanwhile, XKCD explains mRNA vaccines . With thanks to other GITP posters who pointed this to me.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

I've said it before, but hollywood has done us a dis-service. "The government/church/corporation has a secret plan to kill us all" is a staple of science fiction since forever. Da Vinci code is one example, and the video game series/novel tie-in Rainbow Six actually had a scheme to kill 90% of the world's population with a live virus vaccine as the plot, which the heroes had to stop. We don't trust each other, or our institutions, and feeding that distrust has been a major income source for decades. Now we reap the consequences of that action.

This hasn't sprung up in a vacuum. Plenty of events have happened that are reason for distrust or fear. Consider things like the Tuskagee Syphilis Study, in which unknowing people were intentionally given STDs.

This study continued for 40 years.

The specific claims that antivaxxers advance are generally not factually correct, but the emotion behind it all comes from somewhere. Events such as those where people earn a definite E on the alignment chart have a lot of repercussions.

You get folks that are distrustful, looking for reasons, in a field they perhaps do not understand.

For people to have faith in each other and institutions, well, those things have to actually be trustworthy, and trust is earned slowly and lost swiftly.

For better or worse, this does not seem to be critical right now, as supply of vaccines/ability to vaccinate seems to be lagging behind people's willingness to get it. Doesn't seem to be much need to worry about convincing the skeptics when you have people literally lined up waiting for shots that aren't there.

I should also point out that some people may refuse for reasons other than conspiracy theories. For instance, the scarcity may mean that people eligible by virtue of position rather than risk may feel that they would rather take the risk of illness than someone in a worse circumstance. So, they may pass on the vaccine initially so that others get it, but pick it up later once supply catches up. Alternatively, they may have already had the illness, and feel no urgency to get vaccinated as a result.

I've tried to disturb bits of paper my breath with and without masks, and used that test to compare a couple different masks when I was first shopping around to basically see how far my breath retained force for (repeating the experiment right now with a flour pile and an ordinary mask I have on hand, I couldn't make the flour move a centimeter from my face with the mask, but I could from about half a meter away without it; I'd try with an N95, but I can't get much closer than 1cm...).

That's probably not an ideal test. You don't want a mask to impede airflow, you want it to filter. The two properties are not identical.

Look I just want to know the progress to make the vaccine 100% effective and I know it's very effective with the science and the medical technology. Like medical history has proved itself time and time again. I was just only asking a simple and basic question if we're making progress to have the COVID Vaccine 100% effective so that way people will get less sick and not continue spreading COVID. And more importantly, I know how science works when it comes to vaccines and immunities.

Essentially no vaccine is ever 100% effective. However, as the population grows more and more resistant, either from having had the disease or becoming vaccinated, it will become harder for it to spread.

You can stop 100% of the cases with a 90% effective vaccine, if your coverage is good enough.

Mutations can sometimes circumvent this protection, but yeah, epidemics/pandemics can burn out. That's basically what happened to the Spanish Flu. Just burned through the population, then vanished. Everybody getting it isn't an ideal way to get resistance, but the resistance does appear.

[farothel]

That's probably not an ideal test. You don't want a mask to impede airflow, you want it to filter. The two properties are not identical.

You also want the mask to stop the air from going too far. That way the particles that do get through (as most masks don't filter 100%) don't get to the next person. A good mask does both.

Essentially no vaccine is ever 100% effective. However, as the population grows more and more resistant, either from having had the disease or becoming vaccinated, it will become harder for it to spread.

You can stop 100% of the cases with a 90% effective vaccine, if your coverage is good enough.

Mutations can sometimes circumvent this protection, but yeah, epidemics/pandemics can burn out. That's basically what happened to the Spanish Flu. Just burned through the population, then vanished. Everybody getting it isn't an ideal way to get resistance, but the resistance does appear.

I thought that the WHO rule was 60%. There are vaccines out there with about 50% protection, for instance one of the malaria vaccines. It is still better than nothing and it will prevent a lot of illness and death.

And yes, mutations can alter the effectiveness of vaccines. Which is why all current and projected vaccines have to do a variant analysis to test efficacy against the different variants currently out there. It's going to be more and more tricky to test new or adapted vaccines though, as more and more people will already be vaccinated.

[Tyndmyr]

You also want the mask to stop the air from going too far. That way the particles that do get through (as most masks don't filter 100%) don't get to the next person. A good mask does both.

Some accomplish this by deflection, but filtration is superior to deflection if you can manage it. Deflection can certainly be helpful, but the ideal mask filters just about everything while impeding airflow extremely little. It's possible to have a mask that is on the other end of that extreme. Consider a nearly impermeable fabic. Plastic, perhaps. The flow just goes around the sides.

This is better than projecting it straight at whoever you're talking to, but you're not getting much filtration at all. So, testing solely for airflow isn't going to rate things accurately.

I thought that the WHO rule was 60%. There are vaccines out there with about 50% protection, for instance one of the malaria vaccines. It is still better than nothing and it will prevent a lot of illness and death.

And yes, mutations can alter the effectiveness of vaccines. Which is why all current and projected vaccines have to do a variant analysis to test efficacy against the different variants currently out there. It's going to be more and more tricky to test new or adapted vaccines though, as more and more people will already be vaccinated.

Depends on the r values. The multiple strains(four at present, I think?) are not quite identical, and it appears the vaccines don't protect equally against all of them, so specific numbers can be...complicated.

That said, even high r-value diseases like measles can be addressed via imperfect vaccines.

The WHO rule is...probably an estimate at best. I wouldn't sweat it much. We're certainly well short of enough vaccinations for practical immunity at present, we definitely need more.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Four confirmed variants, possibly 3 more have been reported.

[NichG]

That's probably not an ideal test. You don't want a mask to impede airflow, you want it to filter. The two properties are not identical.

It's enough to show that there should be a positive effect on source control assuming you're not spending a long time in a small place with stagnant air volume and long residence time of aerosols (in the sense that, for passing encounters that deflection of airflow is like adding a meter of distancing worth of protection for others without having to actually be a meter apart)

[pendell]

Some good new: Apparently the new mRNA vaccines hinder transmissibility . A more substantial link as well.

So now it's a race to get needles into arms. Pity we're having a significant percentage of people refusing to take the vaccine because they believe it's "rushed". Our health department has some PR work to do, seemingly

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[monomer]

I thought that the WHO rule was 60%. There are vaccines out there with about 50% protection, for instance one of the malaria vaccines. It is still better than nothing and it will prevent a lot of illness and death.

I don't think there is a WHO rule with a minimum efficacy percentage. The WHO notes that the percentage of people required to be immune is different for each infection.

I mentioned this upthread, but the rule of thumb for herd immunity is 1 - (1/R). So if R = 2, the herd immunity can be reached if 50% of the population is immune. At 90% vaccine efficiency, that means that 56% pf the population would have to be vaccinated., while for a vaccine with 60% efficiency, 83% of the population would need to be vaccinated.

Now, if R=4, to reach herd immunity with a 60% effective vaccine, 125% of the population would need to be vaccinated, which isn't possible. In this example, 83% would need to be vaccinated using a 90% effective.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Both of my in-laws have gotten their first dose. Really sore arms seems to be the only side effect thus far.

[Bartmanhomer]

Both of my in-laws have gotten their first dose. Really sore arms seems to be the only side effect thus far.

Sore arms are very common for any vaccination. I got a sore arm when I take my first COVID vaccination.

[sktarq]

Meanwhile, XKCD explains mRNA vaccines . With thanks to other GITP posters who pointed this to me.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Since at times I'm a pedant I'm not sure how much I agree with that comic.
Because it is not like the mRNA vaccines actually get your cells to build non-functional viruses. or even incomplete viruses. They only code for the spike protein. So one could argue that the viruses that are the common cold corona virus with patched on Cov-Sars-2 spike proteins are closer to what the comic shows. Even if its more a sensor thing than a thermal exhaust port (using antibodies to properly flag down the body's weapon systems)

But the general principle is correct.

[Rogar Demonblud]

All members of my family over retirement age have now gotten at least their first dose. It actually feels like I can breathe again. I had no idea I was carrying this much tension.

[sktarq]

Sigh...hopefully this will turn out just to be a better safe than sorry story. Just another variant of concern to keep an eye on.

[King of Nowhere]

Some good new: Apparently the new mRNA vaccines hinder transmissibility . A more substantial link as well.

So now it's a race to get needles into arms. Pity we're having a significant percentage of people refusing to take the vaccine because they believe it's "rushed". Our health department has some PR work to do, seemingly

Respectfully,

Brian P.

have you tried with "yes, ok, it is a bit rushed. but is it going to be more dangerous than the virus?"
because that's the argument people around me are using. even an unsafe vaccine would be good as long as it caused less deaths than it prevented.
I think we didn't have any realistic healt threat in decades and we've grown complacent. we fell victim of the nirvana fallacy. everything must be perfectly sure and safe and tested, or we don't even consider it. previous generations would have been much more accepting of a "as long as it's less bad than the alternatives, everything goes" emergency mentality.

I wonder: if we really had cut short testing, and we really had released unsafe vaccines, would we have reduced deaths? as far as i understand, a few countried did just that, and it allegedly worked. but those countries have a poor reputation for free information, so every official data they declare is suspicious.
the question stands, though.

[halfeye]

have you tried with "yes, ok, it is a bit rushed. but is it going to be more dangerous than the virus?"
because that's the argument people around me are using. even an unsafe vaccine would be good as long as it caused less deaths than it prevented.
I think we didn't have any realistic healt threat in decades and we've grown complacent. we fell victim of the nirvana fallacy. everything must be perfectly sure and safe and tested, or we don't even consider it. previous generations would have been much more accepting of a "as long as it's less bad than the alternatives, everything goes" emergency mentality.

I wonder: if we really had cut short testing, and we really had released unsafe vaccines, would we have reduced deaths? as far as i understand, a few countried did just that, and it allegedly worked. but those countries have a poor reputation for free information, so every official data they declare is suspicious.
the question stands, though.

Rushed testing isn't good. Testing got tougher after Thalidomide, that was tested, then released, then started messing up babies, when I was a kid there were a lot of Thalidomide kids around, they're mostly dead now, and kind of almost forgotten, but it was a big deal at the time.

[comicshorse]

I have an appointment for Monday to get vaccinated !

[Keltest]

I have an appointment for Monday to get vaccinated !

Nice! Im only on a waiting list myself. With any luck, it will be soon, and i can finally start considering seeing my grandparents again.

[King of Nowhere]

Rushed testing isn't good. Testing got tougher after Thalidomide, that was tested, then released, then started messing up babies, when I was a kid there were a lot of Thalidomide kids around, they're mostly dead now, and kind of almost forgotten, but it was a big deal at the time.

yes, i know about that. rushing testing is bad. in normal times. my point is that those are not normal times. this is not a "we may kill people if we rush things, and there is no hurry" situation. this is a "we may kill people if we rush things, but we may also kill people if we do not rush things". the risk vs reward scenario is completely different.

and by the way, thalidomide was not the result of rushed testing and would have never been found with testing. not even today. it had a malformation rate of roughly one in ten thousands, if taken by pregnant women. to detect that, you'd need to test it on 100000 pregnant women, which is completely irrealistic and not required even now.

[Rogar Demonblud]

In fact they try not to test pregnant women. Also why they tell you not to take something if you are pregnant, may become pregnant, planning to get pregnant, could get pregnant...basically if you are a reproductive age female.

The fun bit? Thalidomide wasn't even something pregnant women should have been taking. Doctors were just writing prescriptions for the placebo effect on morning sickness.

[farothel]

That's true. Being pregnant is always an exclusion criterium in just about all clinical trials. And pregnancy tests at the start and during the trial are also common (unless it's an early phase 1 study where you stay in the hospital, then only at the start). In First in Human studies, even men have to use protection during and some time after the study because they don't know how things might interact with sperm cells.

And no pharma company wants another Thalidomide scandal, that's for sure.

[snowblizz]

have you tried with "yes, ok, it is a bit rushed. but is it going to be more dangerous than the virus?"

That's unlikely to work, especially on those who were told or are told they belong to the basically riskfree groups.

even an unsafe vaccine would be good as long as it caused less deaths than it prevented.

The problem is, the risk is personal and the benefit societal. I take a risk with the vaccine and other people benefit. Or I could do nothing and let everyone else take all the risks and then benefit from it.

I think we didn't have any realistic healt threat in decades and we've grown complacent. we fell victim of the nirvana fallacy. everything must be perfectly sure and safe and tested, or we don't even consider it. previous generations would have been much more accepting of a "as long as it's less bad than the alternatives, everything goes" emergency mentality.

It's not a Nirvana fallacy when barely 10 years ago there was a big drummed up health scare of exactly a virus (Swine flu and drummed up in the sense the media took it and ran with it, people were scared), a rushed vaccine that people took which then caused, seemingly*, an uptick of narcolepsy in young people. What also happened was that 1) vaccine companies were not held to account, because naturally they got such an exemption and 2) the government(s ? can't speak for all of them only most am familiar with) dragged their feet in taking on the burden for those who were seemingly* affected by narcolepsy to the people who did as they were told and got vaccinated. People still got issues with trying to get care.

* I say seemingly because I think the cause/effect is still disputed, which naturally becomes reason 3) blame shifting, even the fact there is someone challenging leads to a problem of trust


I have a lot people who when asked about it go "yeah, but remember the swine flu vaccine, I'm not going to be the one they test it on" and frankly I can't effectively refute it. They are right. The swineflu was rushed, those responsible shift the blame, those who suffered the consequences are getting shafted. What they are worried about isn't a hypothetical, there is an exact series of events to point to. The main difference is covid-19 is massively more wide-spread than swineflu ended up being.

[Rogar Demonblud]

There's also the point that we've had several million people worldwide who've been vaccinated by this point. The only issue beyond standard I'm aware of is the allergic reaction, which is easily worked around.

Anyway, the J&J vaccine cleared another hurdle in the review process.

[comicshorse]

The UK has vaccinated over 15 million alone

[sktarq]

There's also the point that we've had several million people worldwide who've been vaccinated by this point. The only issue beyond standard I'm aware of is the allergic reaction, which is easily worked around.

Anyway, the J&J vaccine cleared another hurdle in the review process.

Yeah but side effects may take longer than a year to show up. You can't prove there are no side effects long term because long term has not existed yet. So for people who have seen the system fail and act in ways they don't trust they have reasons to act the way they do. It's not just ignorance driving the opposition to a lot of this it is knowledge and experience. And berating people for looking at those experiences (swine-flu, FDA making safety councils filled with people with a financial stake in the outcome, non-publication bias of problematic results...etc etc etc) is not really effective, logical, or IMO moral.

[halfeye]

thalidomide was not the result of rushed testing and would have never been found with testing. not even today. it had a malformation rate of roughly one in ten thousands, if taken by pregnant women. to detect that, you'd need to test it on 100000 pregnant women, which is completely irrealistic and not required even now.

That's not true. When I was a child there were a lot of Thalidomide kids about, it was way more than 1:10,000, I would guess it was more like 1:50, or if most women didn't take thalidomide (since it cured morning sickness this is unlikely) 1:10.

Thaldomide kids were present in most schools, possibly most classes in the particular year, not in the USA according to Wikipedia because it wasn't given permission to be sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

[NichG]

That's unlikely to work, especially on those who were told or are told they belong to the basically riskfree groups.

The problem is, the risk is personal and the benefit societal. I take a risk with the vaccine and other people benefit. Or I could do nothing and let everyone else take all the risks and then benefit from it.

Welcome to Prisoner's Dilemma, since if enough people use that logic and decides not to take the vaccine then you don't get the benefit either (and worse, even if you then do decide to take the risk, that decision wouldn't be enough to prevent distributed consequences such as business closures or lockdowns from affecting you).

[snowblizz]

Welcome to Prisoner's Dilemma, since if enough people use that logic and decides not to take the vaccine then you don't get the benefit either (and worse, even if you then do decide to take the risk, that decision wouldn't be enough to prevent distributed consequences such as business closures or lockdowns from affecting you).

All of that still affects me right now whether a vaccine exists or not however. So really there is only the downside actually taking an untested vaccine in it. People not taking a vaccine ends up the same as people doing it. With a lot of sick people in between. But naturally that won't happen to me personally, only other people. Because that's how the human mind works.

Media, politicians, even science have all traded in credibility for short term gains and here we are in a world where apparently you can't trust anyone. I still remember a world where you could.

[NichG]

All of that still affects me right now whether a vaccine exists or not however. So really there is only the downside actually taking an untested vaccine in it. People not taking a vaccine ends up the same as people doing it. With a lot of sick people in between. But naturally that won't happen to me personally, only other people. Because that's how the human mind works.

Media, politicians, even science have all traded in credibility for short term gains and here we are in a world where apparently you can't trust anyone. I still remember a world where you could.

The nature of Prisoner's Dilemma is that people using purely individual logic leads to the worst outcome for everyone including them. The solution in practice is social action rather than individual action in order to change the payouts. For example, punishing people for defecting by ostracizing them or rewarding them for cooperating or helping to offset the cases where they take a risk in order to cooperate and it goes badly.

That is to say, you can't escape the trap purely by thinking about what you and only you should do.