Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#11

Post by JetSetWilly »

raphlinus wrote: post #8
JetSetWilly wrote: post #4

This paper seems to have every imaginable scenario of which 2022 is a worst case. But, now actual data is starting to come in - such as the extremely interesting serum testing in Scotland (1) - which suggests that the infection rate is much much higher than previously supposed. The Scotland serum testing shows that around 35000 people were infected at a time when only 110 cases were known officially, and strongly sug…

That's a lot of interpretation from 6 cases. There's a lot of serological testing being done right now, and we'll have hard data soon, but from what I see from expert epidemiologists (disclosure: I'm not one myself), the idea that we have a vast number of completely asymptomatic cases is wishful thinking.

Ah, but if you do a sample of 1000 then even low numbers of positives are still statistically significant. The poisson distribution on just 6 might be somewhat wide but you can give a reasonable confidence interval (ie 0.3-0.9%) - and either end of that interval still suggests a lot of undetected cases at a time when there was hardly any officially.

What you can't do - statistically - is say "oh there were just 6, that means it all could just be a coincidence and the prevlence is actually very low".

Especially when - if you dig into the numbers they make sense. First, they were spread over a 2 week period, with all the positives being in the second cohort - which is what is expected if there's an exponential explosion of cases going on. Secondly, 4 of the 6 positives are in the Edinburgh area which is the most internationally connected and affluent area of Scotland.

So I really don't think it can be breezily dismissed just because you don't like the data. But as you say, we'll have a lot more serological data before long so lets see.

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#12

Post by aaron695 »

It's mind blowing we are not putting more money, Billions of dollars, into why people are getting reinfected and around antibodies.

It is fully expected people will be able to get the disease again in years.

But it might be much sooner. And when you get it a second time it might not be as easy as the first. Your third winter and third time getting it might be death.

This variable turns SARS-CoV-2 from it's current media accepted 'mild' to very serious, and we don't know what it is, these 3 months into the disease.

Ok link talking about some of the issues -

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/coronavirus-immun...

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#13

Post by ceejayoz »

DennisP wrote: post #3
turdnagel wrote: post #2

"To avoid this, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022." Wow -- seems very unlikely to happen though.

Intermittent seems quite possible. Every time the death rate spikes, we'll have to lock down again. Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

> Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

I used to have a poster along these lines in my office. https://despair.com/products/mistakes

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#14

Post by ceejayoz »

eloff wrote: post #10
makomk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing human coronaviruses aren't the most well-researched things around, but as I understand it there's evidence infection with them might actually be pretty dangerous to at-risk people. They just can't cause a pandemic because too many people are immune.

The common cold is dangerous to people? The flu, sure, but I never heard of people dying from a cold. I'm sure it happens, but in comparable numbers though? I don't think so.

Certainly not the same mortality rate, but the common cold does kill people every year due to pneumonia, asthma attacks, etc.

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#15

Post by mikepurvis »

DennisP wrote: post #3
turdnagel wrote: post #2

"To avoid this, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022." Wow -- seems very unlikely to happen though.

Intermittent seems quite possible. Every time the death rate spikes, we'll have to lock down again. Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

That's happening right now with Sweden and it's sure to be a pretty interesting case study. Their health system hasn't yet been overwhelmed, but they've had a lot of cases (and a lot of deaths), especially on a per capita basis for a smaller country:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/sweden-coronav...

Of course, some right-wing media outlets have still been touting this as a success and a model for a less economically-damaging approach— this article is from nine days ago, but it's not hard to find other similar ones:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-...

It's probably much too early to say one way or another, but I guess there is some value in having multiple approaches be tried. Particularly in a world where guys like Glenn Beck have gone on record saying they'd "rather die than kill the country."

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#16

Post by _ea1k »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13
DennisP wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intermittent seems quite possible. Every time the death rate spikes, we'll have to lock down again. Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

> Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it. I used to have a poster along these lines in my office. https://despair.com/products/mistakes

This one might be relevant too: https://despair.com/products/consequence

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#17

Post by _ea1k »

Jeema101 wrote: post #5

This article brings up something I was thinking about when this all first started: cross-immunity with other coronaviruses and whether or not infection with one of them could at least give partial immunity to SARS-CoV-2. As the study points out, there are less harmful human coronaviruses which are thought to cause around 15% of common colds worldwide. I wonder if anybody has thought to research using these viruses as…

Its been thought of, but I think these kinds of things aren't considered acceptable today. I do wonder if there is some variant of Coronavirus that has been in circulation for a while that causes some immunity, though. There are some strange things in the data, IMO, but there are lots of other possible explanations too.

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#18

Post by ejstronge »

eloff wrote: post #10
makomk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing human coronaviruses aren't the most well-researched things around, but as I understand it there's evidence infection with them might actually be pretty dangerous to at-risk people. They just can't cause a pandemic because too many people are immune.

The common cold is dangerous to people? The flu, sure, but I never heard of people dying from a cold. I'm sure it happens, but in comparable numbers though? I don't think so.

You may already know this, but for the sake of others, it’s important to realize that many viruses cause what we refer to as ‘common cold’. Coronaviruses are only a minor component of this set of viruses, as low as 1-2% in a study I read (can’t find it now; this value also depends on lots of factors).

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#19

Post by solarkraft »

Jeema101 wrote: post #5

This article brings up something I was thinking about when this all first started: cross-immunity with other coronaviruses and whether or not infection with one of them could at least give partial immunity to SARS-CoV-2. As the study points out, there are less harmful human coronaviruses which are thought to cause around 15% of common colds worldwide. I wonder if anybody has thought to research using these viruses as…

You might be interested in this discussion about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22830320

Re: Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

#20

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ejstronge wrote: post #18
eloff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common cold is dangerous to people? The flu, sure, but I never heard of people dying from a cold. I'm sure it happens, but in comparable numbers though? I don't think so.

You may already know this, but for the sake of others, it’s important to realize that many viruses cause what we refer to as ‘common cold’. Coronaviruses are only a minor component of this set of viruses, as low as 1-2% in a study I read (can’t find it now; this value also depends on lots of factors).

FWIW this WebMD article I read a while back puts "colds" as being caused by Coronavirus 20% of the time, https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/common_cold_ca....
Post reply on HN