Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Jason said:


I'm not sure you understand what is meant by transmissibility - if a variant is more likely to pass from one person to another (all other things being equal), then it's more transmissible. This is a property inferred from case statistics - not calculated from an inherent viral property. There are different reasons why a virus can be more transmissible, such as causing higher viral loads, or being better at evading the immune system etc.

It's also worth noting that the higher transmissibility of the delta variant hasn't just been inferred from case statistics but also numerous cases of transmissions occurring with only fleeting contact, something that wasn't observed with the original variant.

It doesn't make sense to say that the "delta variant is not more transmissible as such". The only way this could be true would be if somehow in every single country where we've seen it spread faster, this was an artifact of random chance (some superspreader went to a huge wedding etc.) and not because it is actually more likely to transmit. But at this point, given the scale of the spread and how many countries we've seen it in, that is vanishingly unlikely - essentially impossible.

What the aforementioned paper provides is an explanation of why the variant is more transmissible.


thanks. 
 

in around 2 months my country will be 83/80% ~ ish vaccinated(1st and 2nd jabs) with Pfizer/Moderna. Lets see if that is enough for herd immunity. That would set a standart for the rest of the world(who properbly won`t ever reach these number) to reach

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jason said:


I'm not sure you understand what is meant by transmissibility - if a variant is more likely to pass from one person to another (all other things being equal), then it's more transmissible. This is a property inferred from case statistics - not calculated from an inherent viral property. There are different reasons why a virus can be more transmissible, such as causing higher viral loads, or being better at evading the immune system etc.

It's also worth noting that the higher transmissibility of the delta variant hasn't just been inferred from case statistics but also numerous cases of transmissions occurring with only fleeting contact, something that wasn't observed with the original variant.

It doesn't make sense to say that the "delta variant is not more transmissible as such". The only way this could be true would be if somehow in every single country where we've seen it spread faster, this was an artifact of random chance (some superspreader went to a huge wedding etc.) and not because it is actually more likely to transmit. But at this point, given the scale of the spread and how many countries we've seen it in, that is vanishingly unlikely - essentially impossible.

What the aforementioned paper provides is an explanation of why the variant is more transmissible.

 

I'm an engineer, transmission and transmissibility define the conduit from one place to another. Putting more down the conduit doesn't make it more transmissible at the singular virus level, to be more transmissible it would need to be able to traverse the conduit easier, which it doesn't (until a research paper shows that it does).

 

For instance some (including the WHO) have been blaming increased social contact and relaxation of measures for increased transmissibility, that's not correct, it increases transmission but only a viral genetic change can increase transmissibility.

 

Increased transmission != increased transmissibility

 

The terminology has been misappropriated. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by AndyK
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AndyK said:

I'm an engineer, transmission and transmissibility define the conduit from one place to another. Putting more down the conduit doesn't make it more transmissible at the singular virus level, to be more transmissible it would need to be able to traverse the conduit easier, which it doesn't (until a research paper shows that it does).

 

For instance some (including the WHO) have been blaming increased social contact and relaxation of measures for increased transmissibility, that's not correct, it increases transmission but only a viral genetic change can increase transmissibility.

 

Increased transmission != increased transmissibility

 

The terminology has been misappropriated. 


The same word can mean different things in different contexts, something that I'm sure you're aware of. In the epidemiological context, transmission occurs when the infection is transmitted (not merely a single virus particle), and transmissibility is the likelihood that an infection transmits from an infected individual to a non-infected individual, all other things being equal.

It is correct to say that social contact and relaxed measures increase transmission, but not transmissibility. However, the basis for stating that the delta variant is more transmissible than other variants hasn't been a comparison to its rate of spread now compared to other variants earlier, but rather comparing the rate of spread of the different variants against each other in the same general location and at the same time.

Given that this has been occuring all around the world, it has already been abundantly clear that the delta variant is in fact more transmissible than other variants - that is, all other things being equal, there is a greater likelihood of transmission occurring than for other variants.

There is simply no other way to measure transmissibility except to infer it from the rate of spread in a population, controlling for other factors as much as possible. You cannot calculate it by measuring viral replication or other viral properties because the interplay between a virus and its host is far too complicated. It's even possible (although unlikely) that a virus with faster replication rates might be less transmissible if it were impaired in some other way (a stronger host response, a reduced ability to infect specific types of cells etc.)

Edited by Jason
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

 

this is bad


It’s bad but I’m glad the county is taking action to knock the numbers back down. But maybe we should be a little slower to open everything up next time… or require proof of vaccination. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Austria, access to nightclubs will be more restricted again starting next week, a full vaccination or a negative PCR test not older than 3 days will be compulsory. That means a lot of testing since most young Austrians are still a few weeks away from their 2nd jabs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK hit 42k vases and a further 63 deaths. Our cases are spiking yet we ease all restrictions on monday. The government have been under alot of pressure to get back to normal and it seems people are willing to just live with it 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The virus had to have been with us long before the so say 'case zero'. For unvaccinated people, the death rate was around 1% (likely less taking into account people with no symptoms). The virus seems to double every 10 days even with minor restrictions so I'd only assume an unsuspecting population would spread this fast, maybe doubling every 7 days. By the end of March we had 2k deaths, by the end of April we had 27k deaths.  

 

To get 2k deaths, that would require around 200k cases by the time we were half way through march and well over 1m by mid april. If this virus doubled every week then getting to 200k cases would have taken around 18 weeks which would bring us all the way back to November, potentially earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said:


It’s bad but I’m glad the county is taking action to knock the numbers back down. But maybe we should be a little slower to open everything up next time… or require proof of vaccination. 

They shouldn't have drop it in the first place. I mean, what is there to loss to wear a mask? Especially it is getting clearer that delta is way more transmissible.  What a faulty governance. 

 

As for proof, I am supportive, anti-vax should get penalty in some form for dragging the entire nation down. Want freedom? Earned it, or else please go to China

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

They shouldn't have drop it in the first place. I mean, what is there to loss to wear a mask? Especially it is getting clearer that delta is way more transmissible.  What a faulty governance. 

 

As for proof, I am supportive, anti-vax should get penalty in some form for dragging the entire nation down. Want freedom? Earned it, or else please go to China

That's a bit much. You can give people incentive to get vaccinated e.g require proof of vaccination to be able to attend hospitality venues or travel abroad but you can't FORCE people to get it, especially in the US where some blindly believe they are the most 'free' nation in the world (despite ironically having more people locked in prison than any other country on the planet)

 

Edited by Chicago
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chicago said:

That's a bit much. You can give people incentive to get vaccinated e.g require proof of vaccination to be able to attend hospitality venues or travel abroad but you can't FORCE people to get it, especially in the US where they blindly believe they are the most 'free' nation in the world (despite ironically having the highest percentage of people locked in prison than any other country on the planet)

 

Yes I agree, government shouldn't force people taking it but they should deny anti-vax group access to certain medical benefit or welfare. That is, in a way a "penalty". I am not saying they should be in jail. Also it is too much to ask American to think functionally nowadays, maybe their past generation suck out too much of wisdom and intelligent already.

  • ...wtf 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my 2nd shot two days ago and these last two days have been absolutely terrible. Yesterday I had a fever and really bad muscale aches and today I'm still seriously fatigued and have been staying in bed for practically the whole day. Besides a pain in the arm for a day, the 1st shot didn't wasn't bad so I wonder why the 2nd shot had a worse effect on me.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Got my 2nd shot two days ago and these last two days have been absolutely terrible. Yesterday I had a fever and really bad muscale aches and today I'm still seriously fatigued and have been staying in bed for practically the whole day. Besides a pain in the arm for a day, the 1st shot didn't wasn't bad so I wonder why the 2nd shot had a worse effect on me.

That's pretty common. Aside from some sleepiness the night of and soreness at the injection site, my first shot didn't impact me too much. I was bedridden for most of the day after my second one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Got my 2nd shot two days ago and these last two days have been absolutely terrible. Yesterday I had a fever and really bad muscale aches and today I'm still seriously fatigued and have been staying in bed for practically the whole day. Besides a pain in the arm for a day, the 1st shot didn't wasn't bad so I wonder why the 2nd shot had a worse effect on me.

Which one you get?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Pfizer

Ah same as me, I don't get my part 2 until the end of August because of how we're spacing it out here. anecdotally i've heard a few people who felt much worse after the second one not looking forward to it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got my first shot a few months ago (Moderna btw) I was perfectly fine but when I got the second a few weeks later I literally felt like saying "Mr. Stark I don't feel so good" for the next 2 days after that. Friends/family members of mine that have had either Pfizer or Moderna had similar reactions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2021 at 6:50 AM, Chicago said:

The virus had to have been with us long before the so say 'case zero'. For unvaccinated people, the death rate was around 1% (likely less taking into account people with no symptoms). The virus seems to double every 10 days even with minor restrictions so I'd only assume an unsuspecting population would spread this fast, maybe doubling every 7 days. By the end of March we had 2k deaths, by the end of April we had 27k deaths.  

 

To get 2k deaths, that would require around 200k cases by the time we were half way through march and well over 1m by mid april. If this virus doubled every week then getting to 200k cases would have taken around 18 weeks which would bring us all the way back to November, potentially earlier.


It's well documented that the rate of growth in a population without restrictions is at least a tripling every week, closer to a quadrupling (The R0 of ~2.5 is for a transmission time of about 5 days, extend that to a week and you get about 3.6x)

When you use the correct exponential growth assumptions you need only about 9-10 weeks to get to 200,000 cases. That also assumes only a single introduction at the very beginning, which is unlikely. Increasing the number of introductions in the first week from 1 to just three cuts off an entire week from that estimate, if you have around 10 initial introductions in the first week, that cuts the estimate by 2 weeks.

First introduction was unlikely to have been earlier than late December.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Got my 2nd shot two days ago and these last two days have been absolutely terrible. Yesterday I had a fever and really bad muscale aches and today I'm still seriously fatigued and have been staying in bed for practically the whole day. Besides a pain in the arm for a day, the 1st shot didn't wasn't bad so I wonder why the 2nd shot had a worse effect on me.

 

It's totally normal.  Make sure you drink fluids, keep your salts/electrolytes up, and take an ibuprofen to tamp down your inflammatory response if you start feeling too bad.  It should mostly pass by tomorrow...

Edited by TwoMisfits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.