Covid-19 #37: Mississippi Worming

[Mlle. Zabzie]

42 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Really, people? Dolly Parton singing a parody of 'Jolene' ('vaccine, vaccine' in case anyone was curious) while getting the Moderna vaccine she partially funded is not the clear winner?

I’m really hoping when they give it a name they do something smart and call it “Partonia”, or “Dollyvax” or something.

[The Anti-Targ]

75 new cases today. An increase from Monday and Tuesday, but still down from the current peak. 22K tests vs 16K the previous two days. Not great news, but still hopefully indicative of a downward trend.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I am personally totally fine with 3 lockdowns per year.

That really comes down to how severe and long the lockdown is. 3 x 1-2 week lockdowns is one thing, once lockdowns start passing 1-2 months its a whole different story. I guess if you do succeed at eliminating this delta outbreak then it gives us a data point on how long that actually takes.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

 Not 100% sure what Tonga is like but I'm pretty sure it's close to a tropical paradise compared to where I've been during the pandemic.

This story about a lady stuck in the virus free Tonga for 18 months.

Sounds like some awesome fortune, oh and she's in a beach house the whole time!

https://www.insider.com/tourist-stuck-in-tonga-covid-19-pandemic-2021-8?amp&utm_source=taboola

Better Tonga than Fiji anyway.

The thing to remember about Tonga (and Samoa) is that Polynesia has folk memories of the Spanish Flu. Keeping the disease out would be a priority for them (which in turn means that they want New Zealand clean, because they need tourism).

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

That really comes down to how severe and long the lockdown is. 3 x 1-2 week lockdowns is one thing, once lockdowns start passing 1-2 months its a whole different story. I guess if you do succeed at eliminating this delta outbreak then it gives us a data point on how long that actually takes.

I personally would be fine with level 3 or 4 lasting a month (level 3 = level 4 with take out, so both are lockdowns). This time around, for everyone not in Auckland I am picking we will be in level 2 (not a lock down, everyone open for business, but with limitation on public gathering size, distancing with seating at restaurants) after 3 weeks. Auckland is likely to be at least in level 4/3 lockdown for 5 weeks or longer. I think if we eliminate this time around we could maybe learn a few things to get on top of future outbreaks a bit faster. For instance, in future outbreaks the South Island (since almost all future outbreaks will originate in Auckland) should move to level 2 faster than it will this time. But 3 lockdowns lasting up to a month each still means 9 months of a year of being completely or mostly open and disease free. That is a price I personally am willing to pay. But I may be in a minority, or a majority that is not quite large enough for this to be a workable solution.

Culturally, geographically and administratively NZ is in a better place than most countries to implement such an approach. Since all regulatory control required to manage public health rests with the national government there is only one point of authority making decisions. Countries with states, territories and regions with autonomous public health regulating powers have a harder time trying to achieve a public health outcome at a national level. As a highly agriculture dependant country we are used to having disease and pest control measures being imposed on us from time to time. Albeit it is usually animal and plant pests / diseases that are being controlled, the fact is these controls still put restrictions on the general public, and we cooperate because it's in the best interests of the country to cooperate. As a small population with not all that many degrees of separation between any 2 individuals even if a particular problem doesn't affect us individually, we will almost certainly know someone who is affected. So it is fairly easy to feel a sense of community across the whole country.

The key thing is, NZ needs to have a conversation about what we want to do and where to from here. It's too big, momentous and possibly spanning governments of different stripes to be left to the govt of the day to make the call on everyone's behalf. I doubt the govt will do that though.

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I personally would be fine with level 3 or 4 lasting a month (level 3 = level 4 with take out, so both are lockdowns). This time around, for everyone not in Auckland I am picking we will be in level 2 (not a lock down, everyone open for business, but with limitation on public gathering size, distancing with seating at restaurants) after 3 weeks. Auckland is likely to be at least in level 4/3 lockdown for 5 weeks or longer. I think if we eliminate this time around we could maybe learn a few things to get on top of future outbreaks a bit faster. For instance, in future outbreaks the South Island (since almost all future outbreaks will originate in Auckland) should move to level 2 faster than it will this time. But 3 lockdowns lasting up to a month each still means 9 months of a year of being completely or mostly open and disease free. That is a price I personally am willing to pay.

Yeah I think around the 1 month mark is the threshold for when I started to really feel it. It's also the point at which you start to have more confidence around whether its going to succeed at bringing numbers back down or not, and the increased stress I started feeling probably can't be separated from that being when I started to realise we weren't going to eliminate it this time. 1 month is much easier to handle if the second half is on a nice downward curve that feels like you're achieving something.

I still absolutely support the lockdown just for the sake of flattening the curve and keeping our hospital system online, but its not as potent psychologically. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

AZ and Australia managed to delay things until most high risks folks who wanted a vaccine got one right?

I guess if delta did not show up things would have worked out pretty well.

[rotting sea cow]

This popped up in my news feeds

Two senior FDA vaccine leaders step down as agency faces decision on boosters

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/31/health/fda-vaccine-officials-step-down/index.html

Following the trail, I got the following

Quote

A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

https://endpts.com/breaking-in-a-major-blow-to-vaccine-efforts-senior-fda-leaders-stepping-down-report/

A very bad signal. This is what happens when politicians think that a pandemic is too important to be left in the hands of scientists.

 

 

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/vaccine-passports-will-make-hesitant-even-more-reluctant-to-get-jabbed

Quote

Vaccine passports will make hesitant people ‘even more reluctant to get jabbed’

Data comes as No 10 vows to press on with plan to make vaccination a condition of entry for nightclubs

Imposing vaccine passports is likely to make hesitant people even more reluctant to get Covid jabs, research involving more than 16,000 people has found as Downing Street vowed to press ahead with the plan within a month.

...

The survey was carried out in April when most people were either unvaccinated or had received only one dose of a vaccine. It suggested the groups that are less likely to get vaccinated – including the young, non-white ethnicities and non-English speakers – also view vaccine passports less positively.

“This creates a risk of creating a divided society wherein the majority are relatively secure but there remain pockets of lower vaccination where outbreaks can still occur,” the authors wrote in the paper, which is currently in preprint form.

The analysis involved 16,527 people, of whom 14,543 had not yet had both vaccine doses. In this group, the vast majority (87.8%) indicated their decision on being jabbed would not be affected by the introduction of passports.

However, of the remaining 12.2%, about two-thirds suggested they would be less likely to get vaccinated if passports were introduced, while the rest said they would be more inclined. Vaccine passports were viewed less negatively by this group if they were only required for international travel rather than domestic use.

Seems an odd conclusion to me, even though it's what the pure data (as of April) suggests - there is absolutely a wider discussion to be had.
88% said they would not be affected either way if vaccination were made a pre-requisite for clubs / holidays etc - the vast majority of the would have been intending to get vaccinated otherwise, most of the rest are probably lying to themselves when answering a hypothetical versus a real-world question with direct implications.
4% have said that introducing a vaccine passport will make them more likely to get the vaccine. In reality, this number is bound to be significantly higher - as demonstrated by other countries like France, who saw a massive increase in vaccination once passports were introduced.
8% are not vaccine-hesitant, they are anti-vaxx, and there is no reaching them.

The vaccine-hesitant, are hesitant - willing to be convinced. They "just" need the right encouragement to do the right thing; passports are a part of that.
Bowing to the demands of the 8% would be letting the perfect be the enemy of the achievable.

[Impmk2]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The key thing is, NZ needs to have a conversation about what we want to do and where to from here. It's too big, momentous and possibly spanning governments of different stripes to be left to the govt of the day to make the call on everyone's behalf. I doubt the govt will do that though.

I think this is really on point. As you've said before you really need unity on this - it only takes about 10% of the population to decide they're not going along with a lockdown to blow up an elimination strategy with Delta, so you really need everyone on board.

I'm in the half of Australia without any covid (touch wood), so in a semi-similar position. Though at this point we're just trying to hold for as long as possible to get the vaccination rates up as faras possible. I think everyone knows this can't last.

[Heartofice]

Well the case for vaccine passports is diminishing by the day the more we learn about the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection and the immunity given. I’d be very surprised if the government here ever tried to introduce them now, and it would be voted down I’m sure even if they tried.

But it’s worth understanding why vaccine passports would simply reinforce many of the assumptions the vaccine hesitant already have: that it’s all big pharma, authoritarianism and mass servitude. I personally noticed a big change in attitude and direction by some of the people I know who post up that anti vaxx crap after vaccine passports were mentioned for night clubs. Even people who were pro vaccine suddenly started to think twice about their position from what I saw.

Part of the problem is that we’ve been told repeatedly that it wouldn’t happen in this country, but also because the benefits of it are harder to define.

[The Anti-Targ]

The way things are being talked about in Europe it would go against what a lot of health officials and practitioners are saying to introduce vaccine passports in countries where the disease is endemic. A vaccine passport and a negative PCR test should still be essential to get into countries that are free of the disease. The vaccine still makes you 50% less likely to become infected if you are exposed, and a negative test isn't a guarantee that you aren't incubating. But combined they may provide enough assurance to allow incoming travelers to forgo 14 days of quarantine. Though I would still want a negative test 3 days after arrival as well. And if visitors don;t show up for their 3 day test then they should be hunted down and deported without delay or appeal.

We are reasonably quickly getting towards the vaccination rates (first dose at least) seen in other countries. 54% of the eligible population have been vaccinated at least once, and a further 14% have their first vaccination appointment booked. Close to 90% of 65+ age group have had at least one dose, and a majority have had 2. 60-64 is almost at 80% with at least one dose. 55-59 is almost at 70%.

[Padraig]

59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The way things are being talked about in Europe it would go against what a lot of health officials and practitioners are saying to introduce vaccine passports in countries where the disease is endemic.

There actually has been an increasing trend towards vaccine passports.  Germany is an obvious holdout but a lot of other countries are using them.  There might be a more up to date article somewhere on the net though.

https://www.thelocal.com/20210728/europe-how-does-use-of-health-passes-compare-in-europe-2/

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Vaccine passports will make hesitant people ‘even more reluctant to get jabbed’

That's a very badly choosen headline.  Poor again from the Guardian.  The correct headline is "Vaccine passports will make little difference to hesitant people" but they are trying to get the clicks.  Focusing on the 8% of people who say they will be negatively affected is silly.

As you noted, this coming from April is important too.  People change their views on vaccines.  Now, maybe people are even more resistant now but the point about France is a point against that.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Well the case for vaccine passports is diminishing by the day the more we learn about the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection and the immunity given. I’d be very surprised if the government here ever tried to introduce them now, and it would be voted down I’m sure even if they tried.

I'm not sure i'd agree with a lot of this.  The effectiveness is a little unclear given Delta (I think it partly depends on when you got vaccinated, so you could be well protected for months but it could fall to 50% eventually) but even 50% effectiveness makes a big difference.  And there is also a range of questions about whether vaccinated people can pass on the disease as much as non-vaccinated people.  For a while people were saying yes (given COVID), now there is more nuance in that argument.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But it’s worth understanding why vaccine passports would simply reinforce many of the assumptions the vaccine hesitant already have: that it’s all big pharma, authoritarianism and mass servitude. I personally noticed a big change in attitude and direction by some of the people I know who post up that anti vaxx crap after vaccine passports were mentioned for night clubs. Even people who were pro vaccine suddenly started to think twice about their position from what I saw.

Sure.  That is an argument.  But there also is an argument that if this is really serious, then there should be some measures in place to protect people's lives.   If these people can only say the paranoid view, i'm not sure how to discuss things with them.

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Looks like the white flag is truly being waved in parts of Europe and in the UK.

Why do you say that?  The plan was always to get people vaccinated and then remove restrictions (there is a seperate argument about whether that is a good idea and maybe that is what you are talking about?).  You can argue that the UK went early but the overall idea is unchanged.  Unless i'm missing something.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Why do you say that?  The plan was always to get people vaccinated and then remove restrictions (there is a seperate argument about whether that is a good idea and maybe that is what you are talking about?).  You can argue that the UK went early but the overall idea is unchanged.  Unless i'm missing something.

The original plan was to get to herd immunity and then drop restrictions. Some initially thought to get there by infection alone, until they realised that would cause way too many deaths to be politically palatable, most wanted to hold out as long as possible and have a vaccine get them to herd immunity for most people. Pretty much every country has now given up on herd immunity and so will be removing restrictions while there are still large proportions of the population still fully susceptible. If COVID-19 hadn't become so politicised and been a fertile ground for conspiracy and a significant rise in opposition to vaccination herd immunity even with Delta may have been on the cards. It could also have been made reachable if the pharma industry started going all out to develop 2nd generation vaccines that would prevent breakthrough infection to a much higher degree. But it looks like a countries are starting to decide that it's no longer worth trying to achieve any further goal ,other than keep on getting people vaccinated, everyone is going to wind up getting it anyway.

Delta changed the game, but govts didn't have to decide to give up on their original end goals.

[Zorral]

"Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say"

A long, detailed report on this massive, randomized study, done in Bangladesh.  The paper itself is under peer review, and authors were given an advance look.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/01/masks-study-covid-bangladesh/

Quote

 

The authors of a study based on an enormous randomized research project in Bangladesh say their results offer the best evidence yet that widespread wearing of surgical masks can limit the spread of the coronavirus in communities.

The preprint paper, which tracked more than 340,000 adults across 600 villages in rural Bangladesh, is by far the largest randomized study on the effectiveness of masks at limiting the spread of coronavirus infections.

Its authors say this provides conclusive, real-world evidence for what laboratory work and other research already strongly suggest: mask-wearing can have a significant impact on limiting the spread of symptomatic covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

“I think this should basically end any scientific debate about whether masks can be effective in combating covid at the population level,” Jason Abuluck, an economist at Yale who helped lead the study, said in an interview, calling it a “a nail in the coffin” of the arguments against masks. . . .

. . . . The study is under peer review with the journal Science. The authors granted journalists an early look at the results because of their potential importance in global public health debates.

Independent experts that were asked to look at the research praised its scale; some suggested that it might be the most convincing argument yet for mask-wearing.

“This is an incredibly challenging but important study to pull off,” said Megan L. Ranney, an emergency medicine physician and professor at Brown University who was not involved with this research. “Anti-mask people keep saying, ‘Where’s the randomized controlled trial?’ Well, here you go.”

“It’s not just modeling or looking back at studies,” said Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, who also was not involved. “This is the gold standard of scientific knowledge.” . . . .

 

 

[Filippa Eilhart]

People might find vaccine passes authoritarian, but when France introduced the requirement to present a pass to go into a cafe, the vaccination rate  which was seriously stalling jumped up by 20 percentage points.

 

eta: which was mentioned upthread. Shame on me for not reading everything, lol.

[Fragile Bird]

I have to admit this title worked out even better than expected.

Farm suppliers in Alberta are reporting they are getting more and more calls about Ivermectin. Alberta and Saskatchewan are the provinces in Canada with the lowest rates of vaccination, with communities in both provinces with rates of 15 to 20%. They both have vaccination rates 8% below the rest of the country.

And now I see a story about Australian pharmacies reporting an uptick in prescriptions for Ivermectin showing up. And it’s usage has swept across Latin America and India.

And speaking of India, a story popped up in my Google search that attributes the huge drop in Delta cases to the use of Ivermectin. If you are giving hundreds of millions of people Ivermectin and the cases drop dramatically, someone should actually pay attention, shouldn’t they?

[rotting sea cow]

What the supporters of the vaccine passports (not the proponents, I'm talking of the common folk) don't get is they aren't happening in a vacuum. We are living in a world with increasing surveillance and decreasing privacy spaces. You will soon have digital identity, digital money, digital health status, etc, which can be linked together in a straightforward way. There are proposals to even link your internet activity to your credit ranking.

and as @The Anti-Targ well said, they are at best a risk mitigation to control the infection rates. If you think that because everybody around you is vaccinated you are safe, you should well think again.

These are two long articles by knowledgeable people that discuss some these these things. I reckon I didn't read them fully.

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06357-4

https://voxeu.org/article/best-policies-fight-pandemics-five-lessons-literature-so-far

 

[Week]

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And speaking of India, a story popped up in my Google search that attributes the huge drop in Delta cases to the use of Ivermectin. If you are giving hundreds of millions of people Ivermectin and the cases drop dramatically, someone should actually pay attention, shouldn’t they?

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-data-available-to-suggest-a-link-between-indias-reduction-of-covid-19-cases-and-the-use-of-ivermectin-jim-hoft-gateway-pundit/

Was it a Gateway Pundit story?

Quote

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

...

The R number for India was estimated at 1.46 on 16 April 2021 and decreased to 0.97 as of 15 May 2021. Given that fewer new cases of infection were occurring, we would expect to observe a reduction in reported cases, as seen since 8 May 2021. Since R began decreasing before the new guidelines were issued, the reduction in cases cannot be due to ivermectin treatment. This observation contradicts the claim by Gateway Pundit.

 

If ivermectin had an effect in curbing the spread of COVID-19, one might expect to only see limited contagion in countries that officially recommended this drug. Peru recommended ivermectin for mild COVID-19 as early as 8 May 2020. Official support for this drug also occurred in other countries in Latin America. However, these countries have experienced multiple waves of COVID-19 cases and deaths throughout 2020 and 2021 despite the ivermectin recommendation in place (Figure 3). Peru withdrew its recommendation in March 2021.

 

[rotting sea cow]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And now I see a story about Australian pharmacies reporting an uptick in prescriptions for Ivermectin showing up. And it’s usage has swept across Latin America and India.

The first time I heard from Ivermectin was from Bolivia mid 2020. Drug cartels were quick in start trafficking and adulterating this and other drugs (HCQ, etc).

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And speaking of India, a story popped up in my Google search that attributes the huge drop in Delta cases to the use of Ivermectin. If you are giving hundreds of millions of people Ivermectin and the cases drop dramatically, someone should actually pay attention, shouldn’t they?

I don't give much credence to this reports. India just had a huge wave, with some people estimating up to 2 millions of deaths, far below the the official count. This means 200 millions infected assuming the standard IFR, maybe more if we take into account that the Indian population is overall younger. Waving is a completely normal phenomenon in epidemics as is related to social behavior, heterogeneity and super spreading individuals.

The fact that many countries are using the drug (Peru still uses btw, it's impossible to forbid something there) is another thing that should be look with attention and maybe concern.