International COVID-19 Megathread

[Alcibiades]

People talk about herd immunity at 60%, but even at 15-20%, the virus will slow down travel considerably.

Yes - there was a paper out recently which modelled this and got the 20% figure. It is possible a significant proportion of people have T-cells from previous viruses; countries which have had bad flu seasons recently have had lower Covid death rates.

[Alcibiades]

I tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

LABORERGEBNIS

NEGATIVER BEFUND

INTERPRETATION

Die analysierte Probe wurde negativ auf IgM und IgG-Antikörper gegen das Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 getestet. Es konnte keine akute oder zurückliegende SARS-CoV-2-Infektion nachgewiesen werden. Bitte beachten Sie, dass diese Analyse einigen Limitationen unterliegt.

I paid for the test myself, sent in a blood sample last week and got the results today.

I was just interested and thought that I actually had the virus back in late March, but apparently not.

It is still very possible you had coronavirus in March, because:

a) Antibodies may disappear quite quickly.
b) Not everybody necessarily fights off coronavirus with antibodies. It is possible some do not need to produce them because they already have T cells.

[Alcibiades]

Would you say AfD scores higher than average for anti-vaxxers as well?

Most likely.

Interestingly, because those two parties usually aren't intersecting at all, I had the increasing feeling in the last couple of months that this is segment where the Greens are losing some of their support to the AfD. Historically, the Greens were affiliated with the anti-vaxxer scene, but this started to change over the last couple of years with a party leadership that is increasingly pro-vaccination. And Corona put the issue to the forefront.

A similar phenomenon to the leftie anti-vaxxers of Vashon Island?

[Alcibiades]

The resurgence in Europe is of a very different character to the initial spike in March. First off, it is nowhere near as rapid a spread, and it is also being driven by younger people, and as a result there is as of yet no noticeable increase in hospitalisations. The worry, of course, is that it spreads to the elderly.

[Alcibiades]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54000629

This could be part of the reason why deaths and hospitalisations continue to fall as cases rise in Europe. If you have a dead fragment of virus in your body, your test will come back as positive. So we could actually be overestimating the number of cases. Each type of data obviously shows different things, but I think deaths are the most useful as they are fairly inarguable.

[Alcibiades]

The government here having been making themselves look like tools (as usual) but does anyone here feel that the anti-lockdown people undermine their own arguments? They have some good points but its ruined by either a) Ridiculous hyperbole that this is the greatest invasion of civil liberties and human rights in recorded history or b) Responding to people's legitimate concerns about the safety of their loved ones with "Better start digging granny's grave! Here's the shovel!" No wonder that the general population is also in favour of whatever 'we need to do something, this is something, therefore we shall do this' crap the government have pulled out of their arse this time if the only other argument being given is that.

Exactly. There is a compelling case to be made that at this time more restrictions is not the way to go, and a more nuanced approach is needed, but most of the anti-lockdown folks are have zero nuance to their ideas and would oppose minor restrictions even if necessary.

[Alcibiades]

Neil Ferguson appears to be making the media rounds again, suggesting a second lockdown. Not to sound like a Covid-denialist, but I think there are legitimate reasons to be cautious of his projections, and for the gov’t to not almost exclusively rely upon his advice as they did in March. He has not got a great track record, modelling that 65,000 Brits would die from swine flue (when only 500 did), and has been making some distortions about the Swedish model (of which there are legitimate criticisms to be made, just not the seemingly hyperdefensive ones he has been making). Finally, his background is in theoretical physics, and very mathematical models of infectious diseases are inherently limited by these diseases’ erratic and unpredictable behaviour, while many epidemiologists with more medical backgrounds are more optimistic than him.

Not intended to be a character assassination on him, and the gov’t should still listen to his input, but perhaps diversify their advice a little.

[Alcibiades]

[...]
Finally, his background is in theoretical physics, and very mathematical models of infectious diseases are inherently limited by these diseases’ erratic and unpredictable behaviour, while many epidemiologists with more medical backgrounds are more optimistic than him.

Not intended to be a character assassination on him, and the gov’t should still listen to his input, but perhaps diversify their advice a little.

In my opinion there are many great mathematical (often probabilistic) models that can help to explain certain aspects of an epidemic.

The problem is that there are so many factors which can be relevant and not enough data to really calibrate something like a Grand Unified Model. And something like that would be needed to e.g. predict how many people would die under which policy.

It's interesting that among the pro-lockdown epidemiologists cited in German media there is a disproportionate part of theoretical physicists, too (Michael Meyer-Hermann, Viola Priesemann, Matthias Schneider, etc.). When reading interviews and publications, my impression is that they confound their simplicistic models with reality and fail to account for obvious objections (inhomogeneous exposure, re-imported cases, cross-immunity, etc.). And based on their results they try to give political advice.

Yes. This reminds me of a quote I saw, something along the lines of “all models are inaccurate, but some are helpful.” I do wonder if these theoretical physicists-turned-infectious disease modellers, while undoubtedly very quantitatively gifted, appreciate how statistics and data are treated very differently in the social sciences than the hard sciences.

[Alcibiades]

Austrian scientists have developed a drug that successfully cures Coronavirus without the need of vaccination:

Privately-held Austrian biotech APEIRON Biologics has announced that first, encouraging data with its clinical drug candidate APN01 (rhsACE2) to treat severe COVID-19 has been published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

The case report describes the first treatment of a person suffering from severe COVID-19 with APN01 in named patient use. The data published show the expected observations of an adaptive immune response, a rapid loss of virus load and reduction in inflammatory mediators, and the development of high titers of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 leading to a significant clinical improvement of the patient treated.

'Blocks and protects'

Josef Penninger, co-inventor of APN01, founder of APEIRON and co-author of the publication, said: “Providing first data on the effect of blocking the viral spike glycoprotein in patients with COVID-19 is of paramount importance. The data confirm the mode of action of APN01 specifically targeting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“Our findings from the first SARS epidemic and recent research have identified ACE2 as the entry door for both corona viruses, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, to infect human cells. The new data further support the ability of APN01 to locking the door for the virus. Importantly, in contrast to basically all other drug candidates, APN01 has a dual action – it blocks the virus and can protect the lung, blood vessels or the heart from injury via its enzyme function. The compassionate use findings provide essential data that this important enzyme function of APN01 is preserved in treated COVID-19 patients.”

Hopes for accelerated approval

Peter Llewellyn-Davies, chief executive of APEIRON, said: “We are delighted our drug candidate APN01 may have helped this patient to overcome the life-threatening disease and are confident to confirm these positive results in our ongoing and progressing pivotal clinical Phase II trial. The further scientific validation by this renowned journal encourages us in our efforts to providing an efficacious therapy against COVID-19 for the benefit of patients and society.”

It is possible that, if the current Phase II study is positive, accelerated market approval could be granted.

The company-sponsored Phase II study is ongoing in Austria, Germany, Denmark, UK, and Russia and is expected to be expanded to the USA. The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study aims to treat 200 patients with severe COVID-19 disease.

https://www.imba.oeaw.ac.at/research-highlights/case-study-confirms-effect-of-ace2-drug-candidate-against-covid-19/

Interesting, most of the focus has been on a vaccine so far rather than a highly effective treatment. A vaccine will still probably be needed to end the pandemic, but a drug like this would also go a long way in helping. If it continues to be successful in trials, do you know when it might get approval?

[Alcibiades]

1.800 new cases here yesterday.

In US terms, that would be +67.000 cases.

7 deaths were recorded, or in US terms, ca. 250.

Except for fatalities, these numbers are similar to the US. Is it known what's driving up these numbers? Is it parties and private events? I would assume so, since there is overall not much evidence public transportation or supermarkets are places of infection.

In England it's schools and workplaces.

And universities, much more than schools. (Unless you were using schools in the sense that our American friends would understand.)

[Alcibiades]

We found online learning wasn't working for most pupils.

Especially poorer and more disadvantaged ones.

[Alcibiades]

One thing I don't really get is announcing these arbitrary end dates. Like, one thing we can take away from last time is that they never actually wound up being relaxed when originally planned. At least the authorities here are honest enough to admit that they don't know how long it will take, and that the measures will stay open ended for as long as necessary.

I do think that there is some utility to announcing an end date; it means people are less likely to break the rules if they have an end goal, reducing ‘Covid fatigue’.

[Alcibiades]

One thing I don't really get is announcing these arbitrary end dates. Like, one thing we can take away from last time is that they never actually wound up being relaxed when originally planned. At least the authorities here are honest enough to admit that they don't know how long it will take, and that the measures will stay open ended for as long as necessary.

I do think that there is some utility to announcing an end date; it means people are less likely to break the rules if they have an end goal, reducing ‘Covid fatigue’.

Dunno, personally I'd rather have the authorities treat me as if I was an adult with the ability to understand that things are complicated, rather than promising a clearly fictional end date.

We had no end date set the first time round and people followed the rules because they trusted the government. I think that is probably a more important factor, and announcing an end date that winds up meaningless seems a pretty good way to break that trust.

Whether you are an adult or not, having a potentially unlimited restriction on many enjoyable things is pretty depressing. The point is, we could lockdown for as long as we want to if the goal was simply in and of itself suppressing the virus until other means are available, but in the UK’s case, it is to stop the current surge and have a semblance of a normal festive season. People ought not to trust their government on an indefinite lockdown, but can when the aim is clear.

[Alcibiades]

One thing I don't really get is announcing these arbitrary end dates. Like, one thing we can take away from last time is that they never actually wound up being relaxed when originally planned. At least the authorities here are honest enough to admit that they don't know how long it will take, and that the measures will stay open ended for as long as necessary.

I do think that there is some utility to announcing an end date; it means people are less likely to break the rules if they have an end goal, reducing ‘Covid fatigue’.

Dunno, personally I'd rather have the authorities treat me as if I was an adult with the ability to understand that things are complicated, rather than promising a clearly fictional end date.

We had no end date set the first time round and people followed the rules because they trusted the government. I think that is probably a more important factor, and announcing an end date that winds up meaningless seems a pretty good way to break that trust.

Wether you are an adult or not, having a potentially unlimited restriction on many enjoyable things is pretty depressing. The point is, we could lockdown for as long as we want to if the goal was simply in and of itself suppressing the virus until other means are available, but in the UK’s case, it is to stop the current surge and have a semblance of a normal festive season. People ought not to trust their government on an indefinite lockdown, but can when the aim is clear.

Except that it's basically make believe isn't it? We know how long it took for the lockdowns to work the first time round, starting from a similar starting point, and it wasn't 2-4 weeks. So what do you do in the UK and in France when you get to late Novermber and the case numbers and hospitalisations are plateauing, or only just starting to decline? Relax the restrictions knowing full well you are setting yourselves up for a disaster by New Year? Or keep them in place having failed to fulfil the promise you made?

This is one of the sides of neoliberalism that I am glad has not made it over the channel to be honest. Needing to set arbitrary targets for everything, because everything must be definable and measurable in order to assess whether it has been a success or not. "Competition" at every level of society, and obviously its become such a norm that its impregnated how people think about everything - and they apparently even need some target to be pulled out of thin air to even ensure that they behave properly.

Perhaps, I'm putting this out there, the problem is not that the people don't trust the government, it's that the government doesn't trust the British people? It's not surprising then, that people won't act trustworthily, if you treat them from the outset as if they can't.

The point is you can have a lockdown as long as you want depending on just how low you want to get cases. Indeed, the lag effect means that if a lockdown has had an effect, this may not show up in the stats for another couple of weeks. Suppressing the virus is a means to an end (reducing deaths and enabling more normal life), not an end in itself, and indefinite lockdowns risk doing greater harm to those two ends, even if they suppress the virus further. And yes, as horrible as it sounds, there is no reason for governments to trust people to follow unpleasant rules without an incentive to do so.

[Alcibiades]

But we can now be cautiously optimistic about a vaccine being available soon, after today's news.

If the vaccine does end up having 90% efficacy, then only 2/3 of the population will need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

[Alcibiades]

German virologist Christian Drosten says he is “everything but worried” about the new strain, and thinks it is perhaps more likely the strain ‘rode the wave’ in SE England which was caused by factors other than increased transmissibility, as the presence of the strain in the Netherlands does not appear to have caused an uptick in cases.

[Alcibiades]

Next stages in the UK vaccine rollout have been announced.

(though as an over-50, I am still waiting to hear when I will get my first jab)

My parents are both in their 50s, and they haven’t been told anything either about their jabs.

[Alcibiades]

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1379621738850422787
Read this thread just out what the Trump team did.

I mean, that was bad for the rest of the world, but given how fast the US are vaccinating compared to other places, it was good for the country.

It is basically a "Prisoner's dilemma" type scenario where in the end the US ended up with the big payoff.

There is a bit of a double standard about this I think. If the EU had stuck in export bans and priority or exclusion clauses (especially forcing Biontech to partner with, say Bayer rather than Pfizer) at the tme like the UK and US did, the current situation with vaccination in the EU would be rather different. As in, the 100m odd doses exported from the EU wouldn't have been exported, and a huge chunk of those went precisely to the UK and US - who both have have engaged in vaccine nationalism to the extent of priority clauses and refusing to allow exports (Biden has banned US exports as well fwiw, so it's not like he is any different to Trump in that respect).

Which makes it kind of questionable as to why EU vaccine nationalism or export blocks now is outrageous whereas other countries doing what amounts to the same thing, but earlier, was apparently fine. I mean, either the US and UK have behaved despicably, or the EU reciprocating is acceptable, but you can't honestly argue that neither is true.

Exactly. I don’t think it necessarily makes these threats by the EU right, but this aspect of a double standard is something that’s been missing almost entirely from the narrative here, even among normally fairly pro-European types.