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

Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 361 posts

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#221

Post by ghaff »

ravenstine wrote: post #210
aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

Should we have an "end"? To play devil's advocate, clearly the world can handle a certain amount of locking-down, the social distancing, the mask wearing, etc., so it seems it is better if we just accept these restrictions indefinitely because we can save more people. Maybe we're fine not having mass gatherings, not eating indoors, and not leaving the house without a mask if it means saving the vulnerable. After all,…

The vast majority of people are not fine with any of those things for an extended period. In fact, in the US, once late spring/summer roll around people are going to be out and about.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#222

Post by choward »

aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

I agree completely. The only reason they used for shutting everything down at first was so hospitals don't get overrun. That's clearly not happening right now in most places. Also, it's not uncommon for the flu to cause hospitals to exceed capacity and we don't shut down for that.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#223

Post by ggm »

scrollaway wrote: post #159
garmaine wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? No. This is the "flatten the curve" logic which was a horrible misjudgment. Having the disease in circulation in the community is not only doing tremendous damage to many, many people (even if the hospitals aren't full), but is also allowing the virus to mutate and poten…

> Countries like Australia and New Zealand have shown that if you keep up lockdown measures for just a month or two after the hospitals free up (AND if you institute and keep real travel quarantine restrictions), you can get the virus to effectively ZERO community spread and keep it there. It's too late for that anywhere that isn't super remote like AU/NZ. Even South Korea and Japan, isolated as they are and with ver…

It's too late for that anywhere that isn't super remote like AU/NZ.

As an Australian citizen I often wonder how much this super distant story has to do with it.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#224

Post by malandrew »

Thinking more about headlines like this, I wish we could just replace the word "linked" with the words "correlates with"

Society really needs to use either the term correlation or causation more often so we can always have the "correlation does not imply causation" discussion and hammer that home until it's common knowledge and common sense.

The word "link" to me is a weasel word meant to plant the thought "causation" when only correlation is merited.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#225

Post by rflrob »

psychlops wrote: post #168
dragontamer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? Hospitalizations are weeks delayed from COVID# or %Positive spikes. Its a slow moving disease: taking 5 to 14 days before peopl…

I'm curious about your data set. The correlation of cases to deaths using data from covidtracking.com for the US over the past year is 0.28-0.3 when I ran it. I slid it by two, three and four weeks.

I'm not sure that a simple sliding correlation really captures how treatments, protocols, and behaviors have changed over time. Leaving aside the winter holidays case peak (which is much more multi-modal than the others), I see two peaks:

* A peak of cases around Apr 11, followed by a peak of hospitalizations on Apr 22, with a peak of deaths also around Apr 22.

* A peak of cases around Jul 22, followed by a peak of hospitalizations around July 26, followed by a peak of deaths around August 4.

If I were going to do a more detailed analysis, I would want to try breaking out individual states/counties (subject to some reasonable population minimum), such that multiple distinct trends nationally don't interfere with each other in the data.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#226

Post by drummer »

DenisM wrote: post #119
drummer wrote: post #104

> Roll-out of the first vaccine dose now needs to be accelerated globally to help overcome this terrible disease. In a publication in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data” (March 19th 2020), the researchers indicate that “there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses”. Fur…

Well, that's a year old now, isn't it? And the negative impact of the virus consists of both mortality and virality.

Data still shows the same. IFR is comparable to mild flu. 98% of people show no to mild symptoms. Virus is overhyped.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#227

Post by ptaipale »

erfgh wrote: post #217
ImaCake wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When something with ~30-50% mortality starts doing a COVID there won't be room for anti-vaxxers and anti-lockdown people. With COVID you can get sick and live. With something like ebola you get sick and die, or you go through the most traumatic event of your life. It doesn't leave a middle ground of disbelief. So I think there would be the political will for a second lockdown if our next global pandemic looks like eb…

Ebola does not spread as easily as COVID so a lockdown would not be needed.

Ebola has spread quite quickly, and there have been lockdowns to stop it.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#228

Post by smileysteve »

aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

> The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity

It depends which line you are considering; if wearing masks yes.

If "reopening and returning to normal" that remark is most resembles a hyperbole.

In the United States, on April 16th 2020, the Coronavirus task force outlined a 3 phase plan dependent on 3 criteria based on 2 week averages

1) Hospital Vacancy,

2) New cases decreasing (from where they were), and

3) Percent positive testing rate under 10% (that suggests that the tests numbers are close to accurate and not in community spread)(5% is the standard that Europe uses as a liberal goal, 2.5% is the recommended)

For an answer on those 3 in the US (today)

1) Hospitals are just now where they were on April 16

2) New cases is about 3x where they were April 16

3) We've been under 10% since 1/21 (now at a 7 day average of 5%)

So the goal posts haven't gotten harder. They did get easier; restaurants shouldn't have been open for socially distanced dining based on the plan until 1/21.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#229

Post by hinkley »

taeric wrote: post #117
hinkley wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that there's a strain that results in largely asymptomatic cases and there is not enough data on those people? That could result in a decline now due to competition, or the slope of the line is historically wrong due to invisible statistics. I know there has been some trouble identifying antibodies in people who were exposed months ago. So if you aren't really sick, you only get counted (maybe) if someone…

For myself? I have no idea. I think this would fall under a general data quality concern. I can say I have not seen this brought up too much on Twitter. With the caveat that I am not following everyone. :)

I do know that sometimes graphs with weird dog-legs are caused by either graphing the wrong derivative[1], or because there are more populations and someone is either being devious or is unaware.

[1] Developers are by and large flummoxed by S-curves for progress. An S curve for distance maps to a bell curve for velocity. If the sums don't make sense, look at the rates, or the rate of change. Don't keep staring at the S trying to fit trend lines.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#230

Post by JCM9 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #61
JCM9 wrote: post #19

Data is very encouraging. Presently this battle is essentially a race between the current vaccines (which data indicates are very effective against current strains) and eventual variants that will make the current vaccines less effective (or in the worst case ineffective). The mutations aren’t really a question of if just when. Vaccine data on some new strains is concerning and potentially an early warning of things…

Respectfully, I think the message you're presenting here is an endlessly shifting target that's going to seriously compromise vaccine takeup. The vaccine is highly effective and vaccinated people can safely resume normal life, although masks in public places will (and should) continue until anyone who wants a vaccine can get an appointment. Mutation risk is a legitimate concern, but not an overwhelming one that reall…

I think we’re mostly saying the same thing.

The end objective is to get the levels of COVID-19 down to as low as practical as quickly as practical with a population that has a high degree of immunity against current variants. If people are immune they won’t get infected and if they don’t get infected they won’t give the virus a chance to mutate via replication.

Post reply on HN