Bad news about the new UK variant
-
@jon-nyc said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Another thing to think about, a more infection virus means the bar for herd immunity will be higher. We've been assuming 70, but it could be closer to 90..
Fauci has all but said that already
@bachophile said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Fauci has all but said that already
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html
"How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?":
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
Of course, the herd immunity threshold is just an estimate, and the precise figure is contingent on population mixing and a host of other assumptions that may vary from location to location. The same threshold may be different in Rome than in Montana. For these reasons, Fauci has some wiggle room. But, the two undeniable admissions in the Times article are 1) Fauci is, to some degree, basing his statements on what he thinks the public will accept, and to what degree his rhetoric might help vaccination efforts, and 2) this is the absolutely stunning part, he is admitting this openly to a reporter for the New York Times!
I can totally get saying something different when it comes to the science, with new information coming to light that makes you change your mind.
But, when you change your statement because of what the public might do, to say, "I can nudge this up a bit" is amazing.
To say "my gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what I really think" is even more amazing.
This, from a scientist.
-
@bachophile said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Fauci has all but said that already
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html
"How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?":
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
Of course, the herd immunity threshold is just an estimate, and the precise figure is contingent on population mixing and a host of other assumptions that may vary from location to location. The same threshold may be different in Rome than in Montana. For these reasons, Fauci has some wiggle room. But, the two undeniable admissions in the Times article are 1) Fauci is, to some degree, basing his statements on what he thinks the public will accept, and to what degree his rhetoric might help vaccination efforts, and 2) this is the absolutely stunning part, he is admitting this openly to a reporter for the New York Times!
I can totally get saying something different when it comes to the science, with new information coming to light that makes you change your mind.
But, when you change your statement because of what the public might do, to say, "I can nudge this up a bit" is amazing.
To say "my gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what I really think" is even more amazing.
This, from a scientist.
@george-k said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
@bachophile said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Fauci has all but said that already
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html
"How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?":
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
Of course, the herd immunity threshold is just an estimate, and the precise figure is contingent on population mixing and a host of other assumptions that may vary from location to location. The same threshold may be different in Rome than in Montana. For these reasons, Fauci has some wiggle room. But, the two undeniable admissions in the Times article are 1) Fauci is, to some degree, basing his statements on what he thinks the public will accept, and to what degree his rhetoric might help vaccination efforts, and 2) this is the absolutely stunning part, he is admitting this openly to a reporter for the New York Times!
I can totally get saying something different when it comes to the science, with new information coming to light that makes you change your mind.
But, when you change your statement because of what the public might do, to say, "I can nudge this up a bit" is amazing.
To say "my gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what I really think" is even more amazing.
This, from a scientist.
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/6149/i-liked-science
-
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
I definitely recall several months ago several articles that discussed a more infectious strain. I took interest in it wondering if it had a different mortality rate. Then, it disappeared from the news and now is back with a vengeance.
I agree it’s likely widespread by now.
-
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
@george-k said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
Bach posted about a model showing that 50% higher R0 would result in more deaths than a 50% increase in IFR.
Makes sense, since death rate is linear and R0 is exponential.
-
@george-k said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
Bach posted about a model showing that 50% higher R0 would result in more deaths than a 50% increase in IFR.
Makes sense, since death rate is linear and R0 is exponential.
@jon-nyc https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/
To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.
-
Just came across this article about a mutation found in South Africa:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-south-africa-variant-1.5860585
Anyone have more details?
-
It's fighting back!
