Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by MrChris

Great thread, nicely argued. One fly in the ointment is that there is apparently no proof that having recovered from Covid ensures immunity, according to WHO warning.

True, however it would be very strange if recovering from the disease did not convey immunity, at least for some time -- it does with regard to every other of the various coronaviruses.


If it doesn't after all -- then God help us.

[MrChris]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

True, however it would be very strange if recovering from the disease did not convey immunity, at least for some time -- it does with regard to every other of the various coronaviruses.


If it doesn't after all -- then God help us.

I would be more inclined to put my faith in the world science community in finding a vaccination or medication that works personally.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by MrChris

I would be more inclined to put my faith in the world science community in finding a vaccination or medication that works personally.

Vaccine won't work either, if there is no acquired immunity.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, if I cast doubt, then that's OK with me. Don't just swallow whatever policy is being implemented; dig into it, think critically, find out. Especially when it has such immense costs.

I don't think for a minute think all governments are idiots. It's more that there is no perfect solution that both saves lives and ensures a robust economy. Our economies are service economies, and are going to suffer with or without government guidelines.

And you are suggesting, without proof, that there is no scientific analysis going into government guidelines. I don't think that's true of any nation's approach.

I would suggest that there aren't absolute and concrete solutions that can be realistically implemented in time to save both lives and economy, so governments are having to implement something quickly that isn't perfect. They have to make tough choices.

There are known knowns, and known unknowns...

We all get that no solution is perfect right now. So what we all hope for is that governments sort of get it right. And that they get better. And that we find a solution.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The problem, of course, is that you're bashing the approaches governments are taking without offering an alternative. I don't for a minute think they're all idiots. It's more that there is no perfect solution that both saves lives and ensures a robust economy. Our economies are service economies, and are going to suffer with or without government guidelines.

And you are suggesting, without proof, that there is no scientific analysis going into government guidelines. I don't think that's true of any nation's approach.

I would suggest that there aren't absolute and concrete solutions that can be realistically implemented in time to save both lives and economy, so governments are having to implement something quickly that isn't perfect. They have to make tough choices.

There are known knowns, and known unknowns...

We all get that no solution is perfect right now. We also get that it isn't the critic who counts, but the man in the ring. The one who has to keep trying.

The only thing I'm bashing is the idea among non-professionals that it's a simple question and that we just take the boldest possible measure without serious thought. I'm not bashing any health authorities anywhere -- I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.



I'm not suggesting there is no science in any given set of measures -- I'm just asking people to be sure to ask about the science, and don't be so lazy as to just assume that what superficially looks bold and decisive is automatically the best policy, without asking those questions, and getting satisfactory answers.


I realize that all this may be too nuanced for some . . .



I do agree with you that it would be ridiculous to expect perfect policy. Making policy now without even really understanding much about how the disease works is a hell of a challenge. I think we can we can be really pleased if policy is even approximately right and avoids disastrous mistakes in one direction or another.

[letsgetsailing3]

The only argument I make is against knee-jerk, oversimplified answers based on flawed logic. Like just take the most radical action we can think of, just in case. The kind of thinking which caused a lot of people to ridicule the Swedish approach to the crisis, as if the right answers were so obvious, that people assume that the Swedish health authorities are idiots.

---------

Countries other than Sweden aren't being run by non-science-based idiots, either.

Sweden isn't going with the "highly directive" approach, but they did include a lot of social distancing (even if it was suggested, and not directed), and flattened the curve in a different manner than other countries have had to do. Part of that, though, was that they were in a different position than most other countries. Highly educated and prosperous citizens that were already somewhat physically distanced, and with time to prep the social distancing guidelines before they had hotspots. They were an ideal candidate for that approach.

While I think it's going to work out for Sweden, other countries didn't so much have that option without a whole lot of deaths happening.

The U.S. took a somewhat moderated approach, with different regions approaching it differently. All states have managed to lower their curves. The question, of course, is over how much herd immunity has been developed. Ideally, we'll have some effective and proven therapies developed, and soon.

The point is that it's a bit different trying to manage a country of 330 million, as opposed to a country of 10 million. The stakes are a bit different. Every country has it's own nuances. Italy may not be able to use the same approach as Germany, especially as they got caught flat-footed before they could respond.

This was a virus that you didn't want to be first in line for.

[GordMay]

Acquired Immunity Against Infectious Disease (AIID) and Vaccines:
Convalescence, from most infectious diseases, confers immunity, as do artificial means, such as vaccination.

In many cases, acquired immunity is lifelong, as with measles or rubella.

In other instances, it can be shorter-lived, lasting not more than a few months, such as with the seasonal beta viruses, that cause about 10 to 30% of common colds.

I think that, most/many/some respiratory viruses only give you a shorter period of relative protection. That happens, even though these viruses aren't as changeable as influenza, which mutates so quickly, that a new vaccine has to be developed every year.
It's still too soon to tell if the first wave of COVID-19 survivors will remain immune to the virus, for any appreciable length of time.
But, infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, thinks there's a good chance that people might gain lasting immunity, following COVID-19 infection. People who become very sick, may get an even longer-lasting immunity, because the disease then prompts a stronger immune response.
But, Dr. Greg Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic, says there's also reason to question the potential, for lasting immunity against COVID-19. “With the four seasonal beta coronaviruses that circulate and cause all the upper respiratory infections you see in your practice, those people lose immunity in months to a year or two”, Dr. Poland says.
He also notes that SARS and MERS, both coronaviruses, appear to produce immunity, that potentially lasts longer, but the data is limited, because both viruses have infected many fewer people, than the COVID-19 pathogen.
If the natural infection doesn't do very wel, in giving you immunity, what can we expect from the vaccine?
If natural infection does do very well, in giving you immunity, we can expect a vaccine to do just as well.

“The Time Course of the Immune Response to Experimental Coronavirus Infection of Man” ~ by K A Callow et al.
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2170159/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . Countries other than Sweden aren't being run by non-science-based idiots, either.

I never said that. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we should blindly trust any of them.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

.Sweden isn't going with the "highly directive" approach, but they did include a lot of social distancing (even if it was suggested, and not directed), and flattened the curve in a different manner than other countries have had to do. Part of that, though, was that they were in a different position than most other countries. Highly educated and prosperous citizens that were already somewhat physically distanced, and with time to prep the social distancing guidelines before they had hotspots. They were an ideal candidate for that approach.

I agree.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

While I think it's going to work out for Sweden, other countries didn't so much have that option without a whole lot of deaths happening.

The U.S. took a somewhat moderated approach, with different regions approaching it differently. All states have managed to lower their curves. The question, of course, is over how much herd immunity has been developed. Ideally, we'll have some effective and proven therapies developed, and soon.

The point is that it's a bit different trying to manage a country of 330 million, as opposed to a country of 10 million. The stakes are a bit different. Every country has it's own nuances. Italy may not be able to use the same approach as Germany, especially as they got caught flat-footed before they could respond.

This was a virus that you didn't want to be first in line for.

I agree. I had COVID-19 in January, and not one of those easy cases of it. I can assure you, you don't want it.

[DeepFrz]

The argument that there may be a much higher rate of infection seems to be a flawed argument as several studies have not done well when peer reviewed. There are at least 2 in the US that were flawed tests. Med Cram points out the flaws in that in one area the participants were not "randomly" selected as the tests were done in an area where many people were health care workers. The review also points out that the incidence of "false positives" is high in the tests used. That "test" was in Boston. Another test on the west coast had the same weaknesses in that participants were recruited via Facebook and the tests also have a high incidence of false positives.

I saw one report, not sure where now, that several EU countries returned their tests to the Chinese manufacturer because of "false positives" when testing for antibodies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO4xgcIaPeA

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

The argument that there may be a much higher rate of infection seems to be a flawed argument as several studies have not done well when peer reviewed.

There were also some reports of folks in South Korea who were identified as re-infections.

So either no resistance was developed during the initial infection, or something about the tests were flawed. I suspect the latter.

While there were problems with the initial rollout of testing in the U.S., at least they caught it and ultimately repaired it. I'm not aware of widespread problems with the current tests. But mistakes can be made even with good testing. None of them are 100% accurate. With a high number of tests, mistakes are going to sometimes be made by the people administering them or labs.

I don't know what your video indicates. While I'm curious, I'm not willing to invest 27 minutes into watching it. What's the conclusion?

If we're using testing as one of the prongs of our defense, I want to be confident that the tests are accurate.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree. I had COVID-19 in January, and not one of those easy cases of it. I can assure you, you don't want it.

When I said you didn't want to be first in line for it, I was talking about as a country, not as an individual. Though I suppose it's true from both perspectives.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not sure if there's deliberate skewing of the numbers going on, but have read reports (like we all have) of ongoing shortages of testing kits which are (quite rationally) being preserved for the living over the dead. Also as discussed, there are huge disparities in cases -- or at least those serious enough to require hospitalization -- in different parts of the world and within the US. In my own medium-sized US city, for example, one of the largest hospital groups are planning to lay off 300 health care workers due to not having enough patients.

Why would you let people go didn’t they do stuff before?

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree. I had COVID-19 in January, and not one of those easy cases of it. I can assure you, you don't want it.

Were you tested positive and later tested for antibodies?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Why would you let people go didn’t they do stuff before?

I can't speak for Exile's area but here in Oz, all elective surgery had been put on hold (public and private) as they (gubbermit) wanted to keep enough supplies of consumables (PPE etc) available for a possible overload of CV19 cases.

So many hospital staff had nothing to do in the meanwhile.

The supply lines of consumables have been firmed up and a larger stockpile now exists. Combined with a lower than expected serious CV19 cases (in Oz) has meant they are planning to allow certain elective procedures to re-commence.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Were you tested positive and later tested for antibodies?

Neither, so I don't assume 100% that I'm immune. I was perhaps the first case in Finland. I had no personal contact with anyone from the day I returned from Asia, several days before I became symptomatic, except with my doctor, so I don't think I was a spreader. Doctor says he is sure that it was COVID, and tested himself (negative). Symptoms were a perfect match, and it was not like the flu in several respects, and it was bad -- worst cough I ever had in my my life, slightly relieved only with narcotic cough syrup.



I will take the antibody test when it's available.