Best Posts in Thread: The smallest possible sample

Just read this: "Last Wednesday, the Department of Health reported that the more infectious variant of the deadly virus has reached the Philippines after samples from a Filipino who arrived on a flight from the UAE posted positive genome sequencing results.

Asked about the condition of the patient, [person X] said the Filipino was found to be asymptomatic and already recovering.

"Hindi nga natin nailipat sa hospital e. This proves that while mas nakakahawa ang new variant, ang effect hindi naman mas grabe," she added.

[Translation: We did not even transfer him to the hospital. This proves that while the new variant is more contagious, the effect is not more severe.]"

So the conclusion that the effect of the new variant is not more severe is based on a sample of one! With that thinking the virus will be around these parts for years.

 

This seems to be a pretty comprehensive study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0

They conclude the most effective intervention: "The most effective NPIs include curfews, lockdowns and closing and restricting places where people gather in smaller or large numbers for an extended period of time."

They found that measures aimed at disinfecting and cleaning surfaces in public places was ineffective contrary to what WHO says.

 

I read the article, and this is what does not make sense to me, their conclusion is: "Researchers collected data from the 50 countries with the most cases and found lockdowns were not associated with mortality reductions in critical COVID-19 cases, although factors such as obesity, smoking, and life expectancy were."

They are saying that the number of critical COVID cases that end up in death is not effected by whether there is a lockdown or not. Huh? Why in the world would you expect that it should? This seems to me to be a case of an author of the paper who had an opinion and searched for a way to present data that on the surface seemed to support what he wanted to claim. It is completely meaningless to compare the percentage of critical cases that end up in death.

 

The problem is (without seeming too negative and depressing people) they have shown that the vaccine will produce immunity against the virus - but don't know if it will stop spread. In other words, will the immunity stop (or reduce) the virus causing illness but allow this person to hold virus (probably in the upper respiratory tract) and so spread it?

Also, a short testing period cannot answer the question: How long will immunity last? Will it be long or brief for everyone or very different in different groups (based on age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine received, health, etc)? Many countries are finding it tough to afford one round of vaccinations so what if they need to be repeated every 6 months, annually?

And then the most worrying part - is this virus going to constantly mutate and make the vaccines ineffective? I know they say they can alter the vaccines (and having systems set up to manufacture and distribute puts them ahead of where they were until recently) but can the World afford to keep producing new vaccines on a regular basis? Can it afford to keep shutting down? Some will say 'Don't shut down next time but let it run its course' but they don't know if something emerges from mutations or recombinations which is more deadly or affects different age groups.

The story is far from over.

 

Here's an article I found today about the effectiveness of lockdowns.

https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

The offer of money to isolate sounds like a pretty good plan, but without a mechanism to prove they isolate themselves, I guess we'll just be hoping they're good people. In Kuwait, there is an app that prompts you to take selfies multiple times per day, grabbing your location, when you've been told to self isolate. Most Western cultures would consider that an invasion of privacy.

 

It must depend on how strictly the lockdown is followed. Every lockdown in the UK has resulted in a decline in the R value (transmission rate) only to climb again after rules are relaxed.

I am still a great believer in masks as they are a version of 'personal lockdown' and their CORRECT use could have avoided many lockdowns - which, I accept, have very damaging side effects.