Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

[mango]

New Statesman: Sweden’s Anders Tegnell: We did not pursue “herd immunity” against Covid-19
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/...did-not-pursue-herd-immunity-against-covid-19

Sweden’s approach has not been cost-free: as of 18 October it had recorded the 15th-highest per capita death rate of any country (with 581 deaths per million people). This is still lower than the UK’s rate (655 deaths) but around ten times higher than neighbouring Finland and Norway.

In Sweden, as in the UK, around half of all Covid-19 deaths occurred in care homes. Care workers initially avoided wearing masks and gloves (some for fear of giving offence to residents) and were discouraged from admitting patients to hospital. “We did not manage to protect the most vulnerable people, the most elderly, despite our best intentions,” Prime Minister Löfven conceded.

Again, as in the UK, ethnic minorities were disproportionately affected by Covid. Of the first ten deaths in Stockholm, six occurred among the Somali community (which accounts for 0.84 per cent of the city’s population). Swedish authorities acknowledged delays in translating health information into other languages.

After so far avoiding a second wave on the scale of those seen in France, Spain and the UK, Tegnell is more bullish than in June but remains cautious (Sweden recorded 970 new Covid-19 cases on 14 October, the highest number for nearly four months).

“For once we need to be humble, it is still early days... We feel we have [the virus] under control but things might still be happening, this disease continues to surprise us.

Tegnell defended his decision not to prescribe mask-wearing. “We are worried that it would diminish social distancing, which is definitely the most important part.

They also say that Sweden's "impressive levels of social trust meant citizens were expected to behave responsibly without state coercion." The government dumps most of the responsibility (for controlling the spread of the virus) on us as individuals, but they don't believe we are able to wear a mask and keep social distance at the same time..? If that's how much confidence they really have in us (and maybe they're right), why would they not choose tighter restrictions that don't rely so heavily on people "using their common sense" (as they call it) and "behaving responsibly" voluntarily?

What's it like in other countries, do people really stop social distancing as soon as they put on a mask..? If not, why would they think Swedes would behave any differently? Is this really their best justification for going against the WHO's recommendations?

How about at least recommending masks in situations where social distancing isn't possible, please? I really do believe it would help.

 

[Wits_End]

It seems that the suspicions discussed on here previously about cold storage have turned out to be true.

"Chinese health authorities investigating a recent Covid-19 outbreak say they have discovered live coronavirus on frozen food packaging, a finding that suggests the virus can survive in cold supply chains."

That was supposed to be the cause of a recent outbreak in New Zealand, wasn't it?

 

[TrixieStix]

@mango In my small City (masks are required inside any business) I shop at the local natural health food store (a large store with plenty of room to distance) people are horrible about keeping at least 6' feet apart. Their customers tend to be educated, health conscious people and even they forget to do it. When I shop there I am constantly having people walk right up next to me while I am grabbing something from a shelf or picking produce. It gets ridiculous and I have to keep myself from saying something rude. The only place people consistently follow the 6' foot rule is when they check-out and that's because there is taped out spots on the floor to remind you to stand apart.

 

[TrixieStix]

That was supposed to be the cause of a recent outbreak in New Zealand, wasn't it?

Yes it was discussed as a possibility in the beginning, but NZ authorities later said they had ruled it out as the culprit.

This article below says that authorities at that time did not reveal any details about how or why it was ruled out but that they would release more info later in a report. I have not located that report.

https://fortune.com/2020/08/18/new-zealand-covid-new-cases-origin/

 

[TrixieStix]

"Scientists have come to realize that flu vaccines are less effective for people who are overweight or obese. Considering that excess weight affects more than two-thirds of the U.S. adult population, that's a significant shortcoming."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/24/782079520/excess-weight-can-weaken-the-flu-shot

I had no idea this was a thing! There is concern that a country such as the US with a high rate of obesity could possibly face this same problem in regards to a Covid-19 vaccine. You learn something new everyday.

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...id19-vaccine#Factors-that-can-affect-immunity

@Jonathan Edwards I would be curious to hear your take on the part where they discuss "inflammation" as the culprit. (in the latter healthline article)

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

@Jonathan Edwards I would be curious to hear your take on the part where they discuss "inflammation" as the culprit. (in the latter healthline article)

It looks meaningless to me.

 

[ladycatlover]

Just starting to try and catch up on the Forum after unexpected tooth extraction last Thursday, day after travelling back to Liverpool from Wales on Wednesday.

Brain not in good state, so although I've caught up on this thread, I can't tell if the recent stuff from FT has been put on here yet. It's a very long article, with clear graphics. It took me 3 days to read it as it's so complex! Well worth the effort though - at least I think it is.

 

[Keela Too]

I saw this thread on Twitter.
Are we perhaps closer to herd immunity than we think?

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I saw this thread on Twitter.
Are we perhaps closer to herd immunity than we think?

I think it may be more complicated.

Let us say that to have significant benefit from herd immunity interns of risk to the vulnerable we need 80% of the population immune.

If 30% are already immune we need to immunise another 50% by infecting them. But they need to be within the 70% non-immune group so we need to expose 71.4% of that 70% to notch up 50% of everyone. So in practice the job is reduced from exposing 80% of people to exposing 71.4% - not a bit deal.

And we cannot know who is immune in practice unless we expose them to virus and see so things are not much better than they would be anyway.

There is also the downside that if 30% of people are immune then exposure to the virus for those who are not is more dangerous than it might seem - 1.4x as dangerous maybe. This effect does not apply iff we are considering how dangerous it is to have full blown infection with virus excretion on test though.

Yes, there is likely to be a subpopulation with good enough pre-existing immunity to meet virus and never allow it to grow enough to be test positive. On the other hand the chat from Wokeman and Yeadon looks simplistic tome. There are other reasons why curves might turn quickly - in particular the role of super-spreader events.

It has also been said that the virus used, following Jenner, in 'vaccination' is not in fact a cowpox strain and nobody is quite sure where it came from. On a wider basis using examples like that to argue for general trends in immunology is highly suspect. Cross-immunity is very dependent on the class of virus.

 

[Keela Too]

Thank you @Jonathan Edwards, it’s difficult sometimes to untangle all the different factors at play. And of course there’s the wishful thinking part of me that really hoped this could be true!

 

[mango]

Cases keep climbing, but today Sweden loosens restrictions even further This is a big one.

FHM has repeatedly defended and stressed the importance of these particular restrictions since implementing them, saying that they have been very effective in saving many many lives. So, what changed??

Since 1 April, older people [above the age of 70] and risk groups have lived with stricter recommendations than others in society. They have been urged to limit their physical contacts, avoid public transport and avoid shopping in stores. But the Public Health Agency has decided to remove the special recommendations. From now on, everyone will be covered by the same general advice. The change is made, among other things, with regard to the mental and physical health of these groups.

https://www.krisinformation.se/nyheter/2020/oktober/lattade-rekommendatioiner-for-aldre

I don't get it What "signals" do they believe this is sending? Cases are rising dramatically in several parts of the country, and the main message they choose to send right now is that it's totally okay for people in risk groups to travel by public transport and go shopping in crowded supermarkets etc..? Why now, why this?

As usual, the added responsibility is dumped on the people:

The change means that it will now be particularly important for everyone to take responsibility and follow the general advice to prevent the spread of covid-19.

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se...d-andras-for-personer-som-ar-70-ar-och-aldre/

But FHM's own data shows that lots of people are no longer following the restrictions, and that more and more people tend to ignore the restrictions over time. Does FHM actually expect those people to suddenly start following the restrictions again? Does FHM have a plan to make sure "everyone" actually accepts this added responsibility and change their behaviour accordingly? (My guess is 'no'.)

I actually lost a friend of 11+ years a few days ago over this She shared a link to The Great Barrington Declaration (a call for herd immunity in the US) and added some celebratory comments. She doesn't live in Sweden but in another European country, so I asked if she had read up on how Sweden tried the "protecting the vulnerable" strategy but failed, which lead to horrendous consequences. I know she is very much into social equality etc, so I also asked if she had considered the fact that less restrictions for healthy/"low risk" people makes the lives of people in risk groups -- including myself, my parents and many of my friends -- much more restricted and unsafe. She immediately blocked me on all social media I don't understand what's happening... Perfectly reasonable people suddenly going completely bonkers??

Also, I saw this tweet earlier today. Sad but true:



ETA: FHM's tweet with the announcement, in case you are interested in reading the comments:

 

[mango]

In addition to loosening restrictions despite the current increase in cases, Sweden is also removing the temporary rules that made it easier to get sick pay/money from the social insurance when you are sick or if you have to stay home to care for a sick child. This will probably push people back to work/school/daycare earlier, regardless of symptoms

During the spring, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency decided to temporarily change the handling of the time limits for medical certificates when applying for sickness benefit and reimbursement for [staying home from work to care for sick children]. The purpose was to relieve the healthcare system that had a very high pressure during the pandemic. After dialogue with other actors, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency now assesses that healthcare has the capacity to handle the issuance of medical certificates and therefore returns to regular handling of applications and time limits. The return is valid from 1 November 2020.

https://www.forsakringskassan.se

The primary care doctors who are expected to be writing the extra amount of medical certificates (sick notes) do not seem to agree at all, according to comments on social media. There is still a massive so called "medical care debt", meaning that people who - because of the pandemic - weren't able to get the medical care they needed earlier in the year are still waiting for their turn. The wait lists are stillreally long.

In their statement the Socal Insurance Agency claims that the covid-19 related cases are decreasing (not true, and cases are expected to continue rising now that winter is coming), but putting that aside: what about all the other people, in particular people with so called "not urgent" complaints like chronic illnesses, who have been waiting since early this year? Many of their/our appointments have even been cancelled instead of rescheduled.

(I'm including myself here. I'm still waiting for the results from my neuro appointment and related tests in December 2019/March 2020. The other tests that were planned have been put on hold, haven't happened yet. My GP got very busy because of the pandemic, and prioritized other patients.)

What other supportive messures will be next to disappear? It feels as if they are really intent on pushing people back to "life as usual". I can't help thinking: if your house is on fire, is it really fair to push people to move back in before you have even made a serious attempt at putting the fire out..?

 

[mango]

Interesting article about the "face mask controversy" in Finland.

https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/forskare-om-munskyddsharvan-myndigheterna-ville-undvika-spektakel/

Google Translate, English

The Finnish authorities did not intentionally provide misleading information on face masks. But this spring's message was based in part on logical fallacies and fueled face mask skepticism, according to a research report.

A storm of criticism is raging over the government's handling of the face mask issue during the corona crisis. The debate is about the fact that the authorities in the spring downplayed the importance of face masks, but now issue general face mask recommendations.

A Finnish research group has studied the authorities' communication on face masks in a peer-reviewed report published on Tuesday.

According to the report, the reasons why there was no face mask recommendation this spring can be found in "cultural, historical, bureaucratic, political and medical discourses on the basis of which the communication network consisting of authorities, media and citizens made partly unscientific wrong conclusions".

In addition, "the authorities' way of informing has contributed to misinterpretations among citizens". The report nevertheless emphasizes that the authorities did not intentionally bring anyone behind the light.

Pasi Malmi, PhD in administrative sciences and one of the researchers behind the report, outlines the reasoning.

- The misunderstandings are partly about an overemphasis on the strict form of medical evidence, ie randomized controlled trials (abbreviated RCT). As there were not enough RCT studies on face masks, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in its investigation this spring concluded that the benefits of face masks are small or non-existent, says Malmi.

- It is a logical fallacy. The lack of one hundred percent safe evidence only proves that there is a lack of evidence, not that the face masks are unnecessary, he continues. [...]

 

[anciendaze]

Florida reports 5,557 new cases today and 57 deaths. Cases appear to be going up, but things are complicated by confusion earlier this week. The administration announced a new policy for reviewing reported deaths after one county reported 50, and Tuesday's reported case numbers were delayed for hours. Everything points to a spike in cases, but officially this is not supposed to result in more deaths. I see no actions to slow the virus, but considerable concern about reporting numbers.

If you were expecting concern over non-fatal sequelae of COVID-19, as reported elsewhere, this is not happening in Florida. (The concern is absent, no idea about the medical problems.)

 

[mango]

A Conversation with Ed Yong, Science Writer, The Atlantic

“No One Should Be Shocked”: The US COVID-19 Response Failure and More

 

[Cheshire]

The situation is not good here.

With record 42,000 new cases, France extends Covid curfew to cover 46 million people

With close to 42,000 new cases, France's health authorities registered a new record. 14,3 percent of people tested were found positive - up from 13,9 percent on 21 October. 165 people died in the last 24 hours, while the number of Covid-positive patients needing intensive care shot up to 1,627.

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20201022-france-extends-covid-curfew-to-cover-46-million-people

 

[TrixieStix]

CDC shortens window of exposure for contact with Covid-19 patients

"The updated guidance changes the definition of a "close contact" of a Covid-19 case to a person who has been within 6 feet of an infected person for a total of at least 15 minutes in a day. That includes multiple, but brief, encounters, one or two minutes at a time.

Previously, a close contact was defined as spending 15 consecutive minutes with a Covid-19 patient.

"Cumulative exposures can be as hazardous as 15 sustained continuous minutes of exposure," Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said."

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-changes-guidance-close-contacts-194340968.html

The CDC made the change after an investigation into a Covid-19 outbreak at a Vermont prison in which a prison guard became infected after having numerous brief exposures to prisoners infected with Covid-19 (in the eight-hour shift, the brief encounters added up to about 17 minutes total). Surveillance video of the encounters showed that the prison guard had spent just about a minute at a time within 6 feet of the prisoners who were later revealed to have been presymptomatic.

Because the prison guard's experience did not meet the CDC's criteria at the time for "close contact" with a confirmed Covid-19 case (closer than 6 feet for at least 15 minutes) he continued working rather than going into quarantine. He began to experience symptoms a week later.

 

[anciendaze]

Florida reported 3,689 new cases today and 73 deaths. This is probably close to the weekly average. Earlier in the week case numbers were displaced from one day to another while the reporting effort went through a shake-up. There is particular emphasis on reviewing cause of death to get the deaths blamed on COVID-19 down. The argument seems to be that the infection is not as dangerous as claimed. This is hard to accept when today's rate is equivalent to 2,000 deaths per month.

Added: Here's a second link to today's reported numbers.

Recent CDC documents estimate the U.S. has had nearly 300,000 excess deaths during the pandemic, only 2/3 of which have been blamed on the virus. Florida has reported 16,000 deaths, but has not gone looking for those that were not diagnosed in advance as caused by coronavirus. This is one source of disputes between county medical examiners and state government. If they had been looking for them, they might have blamed the virus for up to 24,000 deaths.

 

[Webdog]

CDC shortens window of exposure for contact with Covid-19 patients

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but the CDC move was also likely in part to stop the practice of "covid shuffles" in schools. This is where schools encourage students to move every 12-14 minutes, just before reaching 15 minutes of exposure.

The reasoning is, if a student has a positive covid test, the school can avoid quarantine since technically no single 15 minute exposure occurred with any other student. It's just gaming the system to ensure the school stays open, without regard for student safety.

https://desmoinesregister.com/story...estion-breaks-every-12-14-minutes/3457756001/

 

[Wonko]

It sounds like an extremely efficient way of making sure everyone gets infected, even if only one was to start with.