Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Around the Campfire: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 96  
Prev  |  Next
MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/02/20 08:54pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/coronav......../covid-vaccinations-to-begin-this-month/

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Online
Posted: 12/02/20 11:22pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Mex,

Canada has an order in for the Oxford vaccine. But they have also ordered Pfizer, and Moderna.


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp hours of AGM in two battery banks 12 volt batteries, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/03/20 04:27am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Easily see their point. Both Mexico and Canada. First responders must be protected period. Medical personnel must be protected. Period. Older doctors and R.N.s are treasures in sophistication and knowledge and are most vulnerable to severe disease reactions.

Patients in critical care nursing homes are horribly vulnerable. They cannot wait for a domestic vaccine.

Then apparently 80 and up seniors.

Then 70+ seniors with vulnerability factors.

And so-on down the line. Teenagers last but I supposed all age groups are indexed for mitigating factors like athsma.

Children are said to not be scheduled.

And any and all ordinals can be modified by the alphabet agencies. Canada being quite similar.

It would be impossible to discuss México's general plan while avoiding political issues. When I convince myself of the availability of choice of vaccines then i will go for a jab. Many citizens have no proof of age or vulnerability. And there exists hundreds of thousands of indigenous who are incredibly superstitious and suspicious. Interesting times lay ahead.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/03/20 06:54am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Here is a recent preprint which discusses herd immunity for covid-19 using the same mathematical model that was used recently to estimate the threshold at 10% (using a assumption). Adjusting the assumption and recalculating yields >60% for herd immunity thresholds. This is such a good article I am posting most of it here. A longer supplementary article with the mathematical model, data used with the model, graphs (with error bars) of the calculated herd immunity thresholds, and references can be found at the ink.

The COVID-19 herd immunity threshold is not low: A re-analysis of European data from spring of 2020
Link
Quote:

The time course and burden of the COVID-19 pandemic will depend on the herd immunity threshold (HIT) of the virus, which is the fraction of the population that needs to be immunized for an epidemic to slow in the absence of mitigation efforts. Estimates for the COVID-19 HIT range from 6% to over 60%1,2. Given that roughly 10% of the global population has been infected3, the low end of this range implies that the pandemic should soon burn out on its own, while the high end paints a grim picture of future morbidity and mortality, in the absence of pervasive non-pharmacological interventions, efficacious vaccines, or life-saving drugs.

The recent publication of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), which calls for relaxing all public health interventions on young, healthy individuals, has brought the question of herd immunity to the forefront of COVID-19 policy discussions4,5. The authors state that “immunity in the population is playing a substantial role in controlling the spread,” tacitly referencing preprints by multiple GBD authors that posit HITs of 10-20%2,6. Evidence against this claim is mounting, including pandemic resurgences throughout Europe and the US and attack rates exceeding 50% in the hardest hit regions and congregate living settings7–9.

Given that this unpublished work is fundamentally shaping public discourse and global policy, reconciling its claims with the rapidly evolving state of the pandemic is paramount. To this end, we reevaluated the core model from the study and have identified a fundamental flaw that leads to underestimation of the COVID-19 HIT. The authors sought to identify the cause of the summer slowdown in four European countries by fitting an SEIR-like model of COVID-19 transmission to case count data up to July of 2020. The analysis is structured so that one of two explanations are possible. Either the pandemic is self-limiting (i.e., the HIT is low) or social distancing and other community mitigation efforts slowed transmission. However, teasing apart the contributions of these factors from the case data alone is statistically impossible. In other words, one cannot estimate the HIT without making assumptions about the efficacy of community mitigation, and vice versa (See supplement).

So the researchers made a strong assumption about community mitigation efforts in Europe in the spring and summer of 2020. Roughly, they assume that Europe locked down throughout April and then returned to normal (linearly) by the end of August (Figure 1A - Blue). By assuming that interventions disappear steeply, the model concludes that the pandemic must be fading due to immunity buildup, and thus estimates low HITs. As it turns out, the derived HIT is highly sensitive to the assumed timeline of mitigation (Figure S2-S3) and we have good reason to believe their assumption is flawed. The authors use mobility traces to justify their pattern2, but other precautionary policies like school closures, wearing of face coverings, and social distancing have likely kept transmission repressed far below the pre-April baseline (Figure 1A - Black). When we plug this plausible scenario into the Aguas et al. model2 (Figure 1A - Green), the COVID-19 HIT estimate increases six-fold for Belgium, three-fold for England, ten-fold for Portugal, and six-fold for Spain (Figure 1B). A range of alternative scenarios produce similar estimates (Figure S2-S3). If policymakers were to adopt a herd immunity strategy, in which the virus is allowed to spread relatively unimpeded, we project that cumulative COVID-19 deaths would total almost 650,000 (95% CI: 500,000 - 780,000) across all four countries through the end of the pandemic under the revised HIT estimates, roughly five-fold higher that projected under the original low HIT estimates (Figure S4).

The fragility of the Aguas et al. study2 undermines a key premise of GBD and other recent calls for “herd immunity” strategies. To their credit, the authors clearly demonstrate that population heterogeneity in susceptibility to infection can dramatically lower the herd immunity threshold10. However, their model can only disentangle the impacts of heterogeneity versus interventions on COVID-19 transmission when approached with sufficient data and validated assumptions. Our rough, but arguably more plausible, re-estimates of the COVID-19 HIT corroborate strong signals in the data and compelling arguments that most of the globe remains far from herd immunity. Moreover, abandoning community mitigation efforts would jeopardize the welfare of communities and integrity of healthcare systems.


BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/03/20 07:11am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

CovidRisk: An evidence-based online COVID-19 risk calculator
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.01.20241646

Quote:

We propose an online app Link to app which calculates the risks of COVID-19 infection for a person coming into contact with a group of individuals characterized by a specified prevalence rate. The user provides the size of the group, the number (and duration) of contacts and the level of precautions. For a well-documented September 2020 White House event the app predicts that with an assumed 3% prevalence rate one's risk of infection was almost 5 % and seven of the 150 guests would become infected - as actually happened. The tool, destined to the general public, can thus quantify the risks of infection in special populations (social gatherings, prisons, etc), but also in general ones (stores, stadiums, etc.).


silversand

Montreal

Senior Member

Joined: 09/12/2004

View Profile



Posted: 12/03/20 09:19am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BC Snob:

....that Covid calculator is quite interesting. Thanks for the link.

The "real probable prevalence" is quite interesting, and very important when inputting the % infected in "a group". This could vary from 2x to 10x, however a given example of 4x was used here, under "Inputs":

"In Section 4 we detail an exemple with North Dakota which had on Nov 12 an incidence of 175 per 100,000. This means a crude 1.75% estimate, with a real value probably closer to 4×1.75=7%."

....I have not checked this yet, however, an Android (and/or, Apple) phone app would be useful, using the phone's GPS/location, dynamically recalculating the user's risk of Covid infection; this served up as the user physically traverses urban area/County polygons (already pre-seeded by several levels of Government with infection data). Changing the granularity to include encounters with building barrier footprints mapped to time/visit algorithms, would be exceedingly useful (every building in the US (and indeed, practically the entire human environment of the World) already digitized and categorized by the DOI (and, OSM) for some years now, and available via WMS / WMTS (not medical WMTS telemetry, but web mapping tile services) geospatial feeds). This highly-granular version would be perfect for first responders (medical, police, military, critical infrastructure)....and also for Border Services, airlines, public transport with the ability to make travel-history risk assessments on in-coming human traffic.


Silver
2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD 4x4 6.0L Ext/LB Tow Package 4L80E Michelin AT2s| Outfitter Caribou

dturm

Lake County, IN

Moderator

Joined: 01/29/2001

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Online
Posted: 12/03/20 09:32am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

The problem with modeling is that it relies on data that could be inaccurate. When the incidence is calculated on # of positive/population size we are relying on incomplete testing. The CDC recently estimated that we're only catching 1 in 8 positives ( I've seen estimates of 1 in 10). Our testing has been so inadequate that at best these calculators are a guess.

Keeping track of positivity rates locally and the direction they are going and monitoring hospitalization rates and numbers and the way they are going tells me whether or not risk is increasing.

I've heard doctors say the safest approach is to assume every person you contact out of your "bubble" is infected.


Doug & Sandy
Kaylee (12 year old Terrier of some sort), Sasha 3 yr old Golden
Kaiya at the Rainbow Bridge
2008 Southwind
2009 Honda CRV


Check out blog.rv.net


MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/03/20 10:19am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Public opinion shaped by erroneous assumptions can throw a tweak into herd immunity predictions that no model can forecast. Take for example a family of five with partners in their late thirties and factor x for almost adult children. Their decision to become immunized may skewed by a late decision to skip innoculation because of prevalent "gossip". Absolute no bearing on reality. How does one factor this into a model?

The preponderance of assumptions must take into consideration a bell curve of age groups, mitigating factors that I mentioned in an earlier comment (what effect modifiers, diabetes, COPD, like athsma, diabetes, and conjunctive illnessnes like influenza has on overall data. This is supposed to be an upcoming extremely light influenza season based on Australian figures.

Lastly, The issue of penalization of Oxford AstraZeneca "accident" with initial dosage then admission that further proofing involved using a younger age group should not be construed as deception but rather to my raised eyebrows a deliberate move within the R & D cadre to prove a point. Perhaps Ill conceived but an attempt to avoid an efficacy percentage that would have forever dimmed the perception of the value of AZ inoculation. Why senior administration adamantly held to a 70% efficacy value is beyond me. It would have relegated not only AstraZeneca to a substandard reputation but Oxford University as well. The politics behind this is beyond fascinating in my humble opinion.

The conception and mechanics behind the unique Oxford vaccine approach appeals to me. There is no hazard of my outlook influencing anyone as geographical influence determines which vaccine will predominate. My personal choice has to do with immunological longevity as well as efficacy. As far as reality is concerned speedy and safe immunizations remains in the forefront.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 12/03/20 10:51am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

silversand wrote:


....I have not checked this yet, however, an Android (and/or, Apple) phone app would be useful, using the phone's GPS/location, dynamically recalculating.....
In MD we have (and I am using):

MD COVID Alert

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Online
Posted: 12/03/20 11:08am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Canada has a Federal tracker--but most folks are NOT using it. I wish they would.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 96  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.