Coronavirus COVID-19

[BDKJMU]

Shocker. It looks like there is an association such that more educated people are more likely to wear a mask always or most of the time.

First time I checked on that question. I used the polling results at https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpndi3r0pc/ ... Report.pdf. The polling question is:

Unfortunately, they don't have education levels for every body. They just have it for White people, and you have to do a little math because they've do it by the groups White Men without college degrees, White Mean with college degrees, White Women without college degrees, and White Women with college degrees. Once you do the math, you can see that 43% of White respondents without college degrees said they wore a mask "Always" or "Most of the time" while 59% of White respondents WITH college degrees said they wore a mask "Always" or "Most of the time."

As an aside: 81% of Black respondents and 68% of Hispanic respondents said they wore a mask "Always" or "Most of the time." That's consistent with what I see when I go to the store and such. My own anecdotal experience has been to see a much higher proportion of Black people wearing masks than White people. My impression has been that White males are particularly likely to be without masks.

If I wasn't required to wear a mask, I wouldn't. I'd do what we all did before mask theater. Don't go out and isolate at home if I felt ill. Keep away from those obviously sick, and lastly, sneeze into my elbow if I had to.

Mask problems solved.

Where is your study proving asymptomatic transmission?

Same. I don’t wear it anywhere not required, and even in required places I sometimes ‘forget’..Stay away from others if feeling sick, and stay away from the obviously sick. Basically, live like its 2019..

[JohnStOnge]

If I wasn't required to wear a mask, I wouldn't. I'd do what we all did before mask theater. Don't go out and isolate at home if I felt ill. Keep away from those obviously sick, and lastly, sneeze into my elbow if I had to.

Mask problems solved.

Where is your study proving asymptomatic transmission?

It's not mask theater. The irony of the "mask theater" thing is that the ones using that insult are the ignorant ones. There is nothing worse than people who think THEY are in the know when they are horribly misinformed. And that's what we have here.

As for asymptomatic transmission: As is always the case, the only way one could infer that asymptomatic infection results in transmission would be a controlled experiment. But that's also true of inferring that symptomatic infection results in transmission. The nature of the beast is that we are not going to have controlled experiments. At this point, any REASONABLE person believes that there is asymptomatic transmission. Do a Google on "Evidence for asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19" and you will get plenty to look at.

I will link the one at https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118 because it's got a whole bunch of links to studies it is using for its meta analysis in the text.

[JohnStOnge]

Same. I don’t wear it anywhere not required, and even in required places I sometimes ‘forget’..Stay away from others if feeling sick, and stay away from the obviously sick. Basically, live like its 2019..

It's not 2019. Things are different now. The prevalence of attitudes such as that described is why we are having as hard of a time with this as we are having. If we had like 95% of the people fully vaccinated and 95% of the people wearing masks when they go out in public settings, this would be under control. It's not because we have a bunch of people acting in ignorant ways while thinking THEY are the smart ones. They're not.

[JohnStOnge]

I only shoot my mouth off when I know I’m correct.

That is pretty obviously not the case.

[SeattleGriz]

If I wasn't required to wear a mask, I wouldn't. I'd do what we all did before mask theater. Don't go out and isolate at home if I felt ill. Keep away from those obviously sick, and lastly, sneeze into my elbow if I had to.

Mask problems solved.

Where is your study proving asymptomatic transmission?

It's not mask theater. The irony of the "mask theater" thing is that the ones using that insult are the ignorant ones. There is nothing worse than people who think THEY are in the know when they are horribly misinformed. And that's what we have here.

As for asymptomatic transmission: As is always the case, the only way one could infer that asymptomatic infection results in transmission would be a controlled experiment. But that's also true of inferring that symptomatic infection results in transmission. The nature of the beast is that we are not going to have controlled experiments. At this point, any REASONABLE person believes that there is asymptomatic transmission. Do a Google on "Evidence for asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19" and you will get plenty to look at.

I will link the one at https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118 because it's got a whole bunch of links to studies it is using for its meta analysis in the text.

My study shows secondary attack rates in households was 18% for symptomatic and .7% for asymptomatic.

Precisely what I said. Very small amount is from asymptomatic and that concurs with WHO.

You really need to stop your pseudo science ways. You've been on the wrong side of science and Covid history almost the whole way.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315116/

Results: A total of 54 relevant studies with 77 758 participants reporting household secondary transmission were identified. Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%), higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV (7.5%; 95% CI, 4.8%-10.7%) and MERS-CoV (4.7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-10.7%). Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%), to adult contacts (28.3%; 95% CI, 20.2%-37.1%) than to child contacts (16.8%; 95% CI, 12.3%-21.7%), to spouses (37.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-50.5%) than to other family contacts (17.8%; 95% CI, 11.7%-24.8%), and in households with 1 contact (41.5%; 95% CI, 31.7%-51.7%) than in households with 3 or more contacts (22.8%; 95% CI, 13.6%-33.5%).

[CID1990]

The NFL has some interesting data on asymptomatic transmission

(spoiler alert… they haven’t observed any)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/n ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

The NFL has some interesting data on asymptomatic transmission

(spoiler alert… they haven’t observed any)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/n ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it just depends on whether you would want to assign more credibility to something like that than you would to something like this: https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefr ... -of-spread.

I tend to assign more credibility to something like the latter.

[AZGrizFan]

It's not mask theater. The irony of the "mask theater" thing is that the ones using that insult are the ignorant ones. There is nothing worse than people who think THEY are in the know when they are horribly misinformed. And that's what we have here.

As for asymptomatic transmission: As is always the case, the only way one could infer that asymptomatic infection results in transmission would be a controlled experiment. But that's also true of inferring that symptomatic infection results in transmission. The nature of the beast is that we are not going to have controlled experiments. At this point, any REASONABLE person believes that there is asymptomatic transmission. Do a Google on "Evidence for asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19" and you will get plenty to look at.

I will link the one at https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2109229118 because it's got a whole bunch of links to studies it is using for its meta analysis in the text.

My study shows secondary attack rates in households was 18% for symptomatic and .7% for asymptomatic.

Precisely what I said. Very small amount is from asymptomatic and that concurs with WHO.

You really need to stop your pseudo science ways. You've been on the wrong side of science and Covid history almost the whole way.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315116/

Results: A total of 54 relevant studies with 77 758 participants reporting household secondary transmission were identified. Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%), higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV (7.5%; 95% CI, 4.8%-10.7%) and MERS-CoV (4.7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-10.7%). Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%), to adult contacts (28.3%; 95% CI, 20.2%-37.1%) than to child contacts (16.8%; 95% CI, 12.3%-21.7%), to spouses (37.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-50.5%) than to other family contacts (17.8%; 95% CI, 11.7%-24.8%), and in households with 1 contact (41.5%; 95% CI, 31.7%-51.7%) than in households with 3 or more contacts (22.8%; 95% CI, 13.6%-33.5%).

Good luck with that, SG. He’s been on the wrong side of economics data analysis since at least 2016 and it hasn’t stopped him one bit. I’m fully expecting a “6.93” moment from him at any time.

[SeattleGriz]

The NFL has some interesting data on asymptomatic transmission

(spoiler alert… they haven’t observed any)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/n ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it just depends on whether you would want to assign more credibility to something like that than you would to something like this: https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefr ... -of-spread.

I tend to assign more credibility to something like the latter.

A mathematical model vs real world contact tracing. You've really gone off the deep end bro.

In the first mathematical model to incorporate data on daily changes in testing capacity, the research team found that only 14% to 20% of COVID-19 individuals showed symptoms of the disease and that more than 50% of community transmission was from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases.

The investigators also report that more than half of community transmission is from non-symptomatic cases – either asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases. “While we can’t estimate precisely how likely it is that an asymptomatic case will transmit disease, non-symptomatic cases as a whole contribute significantly to community transmission,”

In other words, pulling numbers out of their asses.

[kalm]

I guess it just depends on whether you would want to assign more credibility to something like that than you would to something like this: https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefr ... -of-spread.

I tend to assign more credibility to something like the latter.

A mathematical model vs real world contact tracing. You've really gone off the deep end bro.

In the first mathematical model to incorporate data on daily changes in testing capacity, the research team found that only 14% to 20% of COVID-19 individuals showed symptoms of the disease and that more than 50% of community transmission was from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases.

The investigators also report that more than half of community transmission is from non-symptomatic cases – either asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases. “While we can’t estimate precisely how likely it is that an asymptomatic case will transmit disease, non-symptomatic cases as a whole contribute significantly to community transmission,”

In other words, pulling numbers out of their asses.

How do you contact trace all of the asymptomatic?

[SeattleGriz]

A mathematical model vs real world contact tracing. You've really gone off the deep end bro.



In other words, pulling numbers out of their asses.

How do you contact trace all of the asymptomatic?

They start by asking the NFL player who they have contacted and then recommend they all get tested. If you turn up positive without symptoms, they start asking questions about who and when you contacted someone. Our CDC used to do this for breakthrough infections, but quit some time ago. I'm shocked they didn't want to investigate breakthrough cases!

I assume the NFL doctor is also seeing very little truly positive players without some symptom associated with COVID. The NFL is really watching the cycles for the test now, so they presumably are limiting false positives.

[SeattleGriz]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

[CID1990]

The NFL has some interesting data on asymptomatic transmission

(spoiler alert… they haven’t observed any)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/n ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it just depends on whether you would want to assign more credibility to something like that than you would to something like this: https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefr ... -of-spread.

I tend to assign more credibility to something like the latter.

Neither of those lacks credibility, John

That’s your blind spot.

The chief medical officer was able to trace every confirmed case of COVID to symptomatic spreaders. That’s fact.

Now, the NFL relatively speaking is a small organization and therefore this data could be arguably anecdotal. You yourself argue all the time for observational data - well, here’s some observational data for you. Unless you want to argue that it is falsified, then it does not lack credibility. The only problem with it would be sample size

Don’t take issues with factual data that don’t support your preconceptions, John. The fact that you didn’t go after it from the sample size angle is telling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

Your stats are akin to saying most people that die in the USA, are Americans. There are more people vaxxed than unvaxxed. Non-bs non-CNNEsque stats,, would ask what percent of vaxxed are infected? What percent of unvaxxed are infected?

[SeattleGriz]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

Your stats are akin to saying most people that die in the USA, are Americans. There are more people vaxxed than unvaxxed. Non-bs non-CNNEsque stats,, would ask what percent of vaxxed are infected? What percent of unvaxxed are infected?

I can't see where it tells you the total numbers. I think you can work the math back, but that isn't what this study is about. They broke people up into two main groups. Those vaccinated and those unvaccinated and then tracked who caught what from Nov 15th forward. You can easily see those that got the vaccine are more likely to catch Omicron after 90 days than the unvaxxed.

Now why do you suppose that is happening?

By December 12, 2021, there were 5,767 identified Omicron cases in Denmark with a median age
of 28 years (93% <60 years)

[Gil Dobie]

Your stats are akin to saying most people that die in the USA, are Americans. There are more people vaxxed than unvaxxed. Non-bs non-CNNEsque stats,, would ask what percent of vaxxed are infected? What percent of unvaxxed are infected?

I can't see where it tells you the total numbers. I think you can work the math back, but that isn't what this study is about. They broke people up into two main groups. Those vaccinated and those unvaccinated and then tracked who caught what from Nov 15th forward. You can easily see those that got the vaccine are more likely to catch Omicron after 90 days than the unvaxxed.

Now why do you suppose that is happening?

By December 12, 2021, there were 5,767 identified Omicron cases in Denmark with a median age
of 28 years (93% <60 years)

So many holes in your argument. Feel like I'm watching CNN, when I read it. You seam to be a good guy like SD. You appear the be falling for biased info.

[SeattleGriz]

I can't see where it tells you the total numbers. I think you can work the math back, but that isn't what this study is about. They broke people up into two main groups. Those vaccinated and those unvaccinated and then tracked who caught what from Nov 15th forward. You can easily see those that got the vaccine are more likely to catch Omicron after 90 days than the unvaxxed.

Now why do you suppose that is happening?

So many holes in your argument. Feel like I'm watching CNN, when I read it. You seam to be a good guy like SD. You appear the be falling for biased info.

Knock yourself out at pointing out the holes. It's a preprint, but seems to be a regular observational study. It aligns with all the other data of Omicron being more infectious.

But why the difference from the unvaccinated. Please inform me in why that is.

[Gil Dobie]

So many holes in your argument. Feel like I'm watching CNN, when I read it. You seam to be a good guy like SD. You appear the be falling for biased info.

Knock yourself out at pointing out the holes. It's a preprint, but seems to be a regular observational study. It aligns with all the other data of Omicron being more infectious.

But why the difference from the unvaccinated. Please inform me in why that is.

Is there any proof that all the tested people go to the same places, are exposed to the virus in the same way, same amount of exposures where they have ventured, and the list goes one? Highly doubtful this happens. Like herding cats.

[kalm]

So many holes in your argument. Feel like I'm watching CNN, when I read it. You seam to be a good guy like SD. You appear the be falling for biased info.

Knock yourself out at pointing out the holes. It's a preprint, but seems to be a regular observational study. It aligns with all the other data of Omicron being more infectious.

But why the difference from the unvaccinated. Please inform me in why that is.

Early benchmarks from Denmark on infections and hospitalizations are providing grounds for guarded optimism that highly vaccinated countries might be able to weather the omicron wave.

The developments, coupled with Denmark’s speedy rollout of booster shots, have raised hopes the country can avoid the dire coronavirus surge for which it has been bracing.

Compared with delta, omicron is far better at evading vaccines and causing infections in those who have been inoculated. But Denmark’s experience shows that a rapid booster rollout might be able to help cut down rising infection numbers. A team of scientists at the State Serum Institute said in a research paper this week that Pfizer-BioNTech booster shots appeared to provide a 55 percent protection against infections, compared with cases in those who had received two doses.

Even if that level of protection dips over time, boosters “can help us through the next months,” Grove Krause said.

According to Our World in Data, Denmark has issued the most per capita booster shots of any European Union country. Denmark said in its latest monitoring report, released Thursday, that 36.8 percent of its population had been boosted, more than double the level from two weeks earlier. Overall, 77.2 percent of the country’s population has received at least two doses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... S3t9cd2oek

[SeattleGriz]

Knock yourself out at pointing out the holes. It's a preprint, but seems to be a regular observational study. It aligns with all the other data of Omicron being more infectious.

But why the difference from the unvaccinated. Please inform me in why that is.

Is there any proof that all the tested people go to the same places, are exposed to the virus in the same way, same amount of exposures where they have ventured, and the list goes one? Highly doubtful this happens. Like herding cats.

First, you should read the study. Secondly, you should contact them and let them know what you have discovered. I'm sure they'd love to hear all your concerns.

When you're done there, make sure to call Pfizer and Moderna too, because they came up with the original vaccine effectiveness and didn't abide by your requirements. Double

[SeattleGriz]

Knock yourself out at pointing out the holes. It's a preprint, but seems to be a regular observational study. It aligns with all the other data of Omicron being more infectious.

But why the difference from the unvaccinated. Please inform me in why that is.

Early benchmarks from Denmark on infections and hospitalizations are providing grounds for guarded optimism that highly vaccinated countries might be able to weather the omicron wave.

The developments, coupled with Denmark’s speedy rollout of booster shots, have raised hopes the country can avoid the dire coronavirus surge for which it has been bracing.

Compared with delta, omicron is far better at evading vaccines and causing infections in those who have been inoculated. But Denmark’s experience shows that a rapid booster rollout might be able to help cut down rising infection numbers. A team of scientists at the State Serum Institute said in a research paper this week that Pfizer-BioNTech booster shots appeared to provide a 55 percent protection against infections, compared with cases in those who had received two doses.

Even if that level of protection dips over time, boosters “can help us through the next months,” Grove Krause said.

According to Our World in Data, Denmark has issued the most per capita booster shots of any European Union country. Denmark said in its latest monitoring report, released Thursday, that 36.8 percent of its population had been boosted, more than double the level from two weeks earlier. Overall, 77.2 percent of the country’s population has received at least two doses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... S3t9cd2oek

If you actually read the study, they show the freshly boosted still have around a 50% effectiveness.

I'm still at interested in the disparity that Omicron is showing for the vaccinated. Care to venture a guess?

[LeadBolt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... S3t9cd2oek

If you actually read the study, they show the freshly boosted still have around a 50% effectiveness.

I'm still at interested in the disparity that Omicron is showing for the vaccinated. Care to venture a guess?

Improved engineering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Is there any proof that all the tested people go to the same places, are exposed to the virus in the same way, same amount of exposures where they have ventured, and the list goes one? Highly doubtful this happens. Like herding cats.

First, you should read the study. Secondly, you should contact them and let them know what you have discovered. I'm sure they'd love to hear all your concerns.

When you're done there, make sure to call Pfizer and Moderna too, because they came up with the original vaccine effectiveness and didn't abide by your requirements. Double

All things are not equal in that study. If you believe that, it's your problem. The effectiveness study of the vaccines compared apples to apples.

[SeattleGriz]

First, you should read the study. Secondly, you should contact them and let them know what you have discovered. I'm sure they'd love to hear all your concerns.

When you're done there, make sure to call Pfizer and Moderna too, because they came up with the original vaccine effectiveness and didn't abide by your requirements. Double

All things are not equal in that study. If you believe that, it's your problem. The effectiveness study of the vaccines compared apples to apples.

Like I said. Take it up with the authors. I'm sure they'll retract the paper just because you don't like the results.

[SeattleGriz]

If you actually read the study, they show the freshly boosted still have around a 50% effectiveness.

I'm still at interested in the disparity that Omicron is showing for the vaccinated. Care to venture a guess?

Improved engineering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two possible concepts at play, of which, there isn't any solid proof, but the signals are starting to show.

Antibody Dependent Enhancement. This is where the virus has mutated enough that the antibodies your immune system makes from either vax or past infection, aren't neutralizing, but simply binding. When this happens, the virus is brought into the cell easier. The analogy is that of a Trojan horse. As Omicron isn't sending everyone to the hospital, some are doubting this is happening much.

The second is Original Antigenic Sin. This is where your body's immune system develops it method of attack on its first encounter and then uses the same playbook over and over. So the vaccine or even people's first encounter with COVID would set the playbook. When the virus mutates, it's able to sidestep the defenses because it has changed, but your body is still using the original playbook. This is the more believed concept at this point. On the flip side, there are positive aspects to OAS as well.

This is why I keep saying that I would prefer to catch Covid first. I would like to fully train my immune system with the whole virus as I am in a very low risk group.

As a note of caution, both of these sound scary as hell, but are really processes that naturally happen (look up dengue fever). That's why I find it interesting to see these studies and the differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed. It's been known for a long time that the vaccine trains the immune system differently than catching COVID.