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

Post by loftyal » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #30

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…

And also a similar study in Germany with similar results [1]. The result is of course to mechanically reduce the fatality rate to a number close to that of the flu (the problem for hospitals being not so much the fatality rate than the high number of infections), and well within the 0.1-1% range that US health authorities have been advertising for a while. Regarding models, it seems 0.15% is the new basis [2]. Even o…

Post by guscost » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #40

guscost wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happens all the time, in exactly the same sense that people are dying “from” COVID-19 (i.e. usually combined with other morbidities). How much of this pandemic is due to the disease actually being worse than other coronavirus diseases, and how much is simply due to the rapid spread/no pre-existing immunity, remains to be seen. Who else here remembers learning that AIDS patients (people with acquired immunodeficien…

I disagree. I'm unable to find any source with numbers. At best I've seen the statement "it's rarely fatal except in very rare circumstances". Like the flu, you don't die from the flu, but really it's the last straw on top of other issues that pushes people over the edge. But the flu is far more deadly than the common cold, it's misleading to talk about them together like that.

Post by cm2187 » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

loftyal wrote: post #41

cm2187 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also a similar study in Germany with similar results [1]. The result is of course to mechanically reduce the fatality rate to a number close to that of the flu (the problem for hospitals being not so much the fatality rate than the high number of infections), and well within the 0.1-1% range that US health authorities have been advertising for a while. Regarding models, it seems 0.15% is the new basis [2]. Even o…

NYC population is 8.4 million. Their death rate is 6,589 (Apr 13). 0.1% of 8.4 million is 8400, that would mean almost everyone in NYC has been infected, I'm not sure that is feasible at the moment. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-d...

Post by ummonk » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

Post by ummonk » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #6

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…

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.