I know two people who had covid and who right now have a second covid infection by the british mutation. One of them also had their first vaccination.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that prior infection reduces your risk of future infection by 95%. That's a far sight better than most the vaccines, enough so that a 2nd infection would be noteworthy on a personal level. But then, since this is an Internet forum, we need to throw the law of large numbers at the situation. Those figures still mean that there are perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of people out there who are known to have caught it twice. Which then translates into a certainty that there will be quite a few people mentioning it as an interesting anecdote on public forums like this.
Then you throw a novelty effect on top of that. Say that prior infection actually confers 99% immunity. Fewer people will get re-infected, but each of those re-infections is more noteworthy, which makes it more likely that someone will want to talk about it. So the actual rate of re-infection and spread by people who've caught it gets a lot smaller, but the rate of people talking about it on the Internet, and the resulting perception people might infer of how likely it is, might stay about the same.
(Disclaimer: I do mean, "for the sake of argument." Until some firmer science on the subject is forthcoming, AFAIC it's still within the realm of possibility that prior infection doesn't confer much practical immunity at all. This study is promising, yes, but I've been around the block too many times to get all that excited over something that doesn't amount to a whole lot more than an in vitro study.)
For the sake of clarification, I was more meaning to say, for the benefit of others, that we need to be cautious about extrapolating from stories like this. Because, where it's a global pandemic affecting 7 billion people all at once, even the unlikeliest of outcomes are guaranteed to happen. So we can't necessarily collect stories from a bunch of different individuals, connect the dots, and expect the result to be an accurate version of the big picture. Perhaps prior infection confers imperfect immunity, perhaps it confers none at all, perhaps it's better than any vaccine. I'm not sure we know yet, but I am pretty sure that your experience is compatible with all of those possibilities.
tho the vaccination was less than ten days in the past, so it might not have been active yet
source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-eff...
As of today, there are only 84 confirmed cases of reinfection worldwide, with three deaths. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...
There's a lot of context missing.
Like the fact that 3% of the population are hypochondriacs.
I have no clue if they were different variants or what caused her to not be immune, or how unlucky she were(this might be exceedingly rare) but for me it's been a good anecdote to tell people who think they don't need the vaccine because they already had covid.
Get vaccinated!
The real problem is that despite all their talk of science and facts they're not going to be convinced. That's just window dressing for their wrong beliefs.
The value of vaccines is for society as a whole but the majority of us who get vaccinated do so for very selfish reasons: we don't want to get sick, we perceive the risk worth it, etc. The vast majority of anti-vaxers are still driven by the same base needs, we just haven't found the motivator that triggers action. Something as simple as vacinne passports would probably do it.
Let me fix it for you:
"Something as simple as restricting the freedom of movement of healthy individuals who committed no crime, in violation of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would cause people with WRONG BELIEFS (sic!) to behave in ways that I like. Namely, I want them to give up control of their bodies for the greater social good, which is defined by their government. So long as the government agrees with me, naturally, which I expect them to do forever.
The unwashed masses are in need of some enlightened herding. The human rights are there only for times of no consequence; but these are extraordinary, revolutionary times!"
And people wonder where do totalitarian regimes recruit their support base from.
If we ever get a Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini in this country it will be truly scary how many people will happily follow the narrative and support hurting others who don't.
It's a little disingenuous and black and white thinking of you to label them as the same.
It would be like me calling you a Covid fanatic and a member of a Covid cult. It's extreme caricature of your views.
Your friends likely got sick twice, maybe once from covid and PCR tested positive twice. This is what the current literature understands - it's not impossible that you'recorrect, but unlikely.
I keep hearing this argument, but it's unconvincing. Here in Alberta we've seen positive cases and hospitalizations and deaths move in relation to each-other. If the false positive was so high we wouldn't be able to make out that pattern from the noise, but it's incredibly obvious. Also, in the early days we saw case rates much lower than the false positive rates I saw talked about, and so that doesn't hold water either.
here's a study showing above CT 32 not a single live virus was able to be cultured [1]
[1] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
(image from the study) https://i.imgur.com/AaZZIXM.png
How do you explain this? How do you explain record ICU numbers and uncharacteristically large groups of the young being stricken by a respiratory condition in May, long after cold and flu season and matching record COVID case numbers?
But I can offer up some explanations regardless, just for the sake of conversation. Any respiratory infection that gets hospitalized with high CT covid tests is capable of being a misdiagnosed CV19 infection. I'm unsure about CA, but in the US there are huge financial incentives to misdiagnose a patient as cv19+
As for record number of patients (I'll take your word for it as in the US the actual ICU numbers are lower for 2020 than 2019 and hospitalizations countrywide 2020 at no point were higher than 2019) - I think that a much more logical conclusion is that people were scared to go to the hosptial - preventative visits/treatments were delayed and now you're dealing with the predictable rise in illness due to disruption to healthcare from government regulations and overall hysteria keeping people from the hospital that would've otherwise been there.
Disruptions as small as daylight savings changes is associated with large spikes in heart attacks - it's really not surprising that global disruption will have negative health repercussions.
Just to remove doubt, the ICU has been record setting[1]. As an aside, that article even discusses your claim about bad PCR tests.
And are you saying that people have delayed their care to the point where they are now in the ICU, just under half of who are sub 50, and all those happen to be because of a respiratory infection? In addition, those peaks of ICU numbers have started to come down. It must be a coincidence that case counts have been dropping for a while here - how does that make sense if it's just people delaying care? It really doesn't meet any sort of sense that the peaks are always linked.
Alberta has put together a great data portal[2], complete with tracking case counts and severe cases. It's easy to see, based upon the actual data, how the cases, hospitalizations, and ICU are related.
[1]https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-icus-treat... [2]https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm...
Yes, I'm saying people avoided preventative care because they were scared to go near hospitals - this is not a controversial topic, it's clear that is true.
I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident.
No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get false positives with high CT - there have been multiple studies confirming this fact at this point, it's not a controversial statement as far as I'm aware.
> No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get false positives with high CT - there have been multiple studies confirming this fact at this point, it's not a controversial statement as far as I'm aware.
But these positives come BEFORE the hospitalizations and deaths. I don't feel like you're understanding the order of events - high cases AND then hospitalizations after weeks. You keep describing events where people are retroactively proven to have COVID - this isn't the case. These are people who test positive and then later enter hospital.
covid spread increases -> hospitalizations go up - we both agree on this point
covid spread increases -> false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals (we do know that other coronaviruses have cross immunity with cv19 so it's not uncommon to be asymptomatic due to preexisting immunity)
Ok, so it sounds like you're making the argument that a patient, who has COVID in their system, but is asymptomatic and tests positive would be considered a false positive, even though they can still spread the virus?
I wasn't even aware that there was doubt that asymptomatic spread was a thing. I realize now the issue - I believe that someone who has a COVID 19 infection, symptomatic or not, is someone infected with COVID 19, and you've decided that they aren't until they show symptoms. How do you feel about HIV?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asympt...
However, I am very familiar with the study you've linked. If you can even call it a study - it's more like a fantasy model based on the data of other studies the researchers appear to not even have read! They cite numbers from multiple papers that can't be found in those papers anywhere. There might not be a more embarrassing study I've read than this one.
There first citation to Lee et. al. claims the paper found 100% infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals, yes 100%. here's a quote from the actual paper
> Although the high viral load we observed in asymptomatic patients raises a distinct possibility of a risk for transmission, our study was not designed to determine this
(you'll note at nowhere in the paper is there anything resembling 100% spread in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic...this number is purely fabricated from thin air)
another citation from that paper is a citation to char et. al. that says the paper claims 40-140% infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals...again let's read the actual paper they cite
here's a quote from the paper
> In the household setting, symptomatic case-patients had 2.7 times the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their close contacts, compared with asymptomatic and presymptomatic case-patients
so the above paper deals with household settings and finds roughly 1/3 in a household setting...this paper very generously makes up numbers again to cite to this paper...embarrassing.
the cite mc evoy et. al. as having a finding of 40-70% which they got right! horray!
so 2/3 papers they use to determine their asymptomatic infectious number for their modeling are just garbage citations that don't resemble the findings of the source paper at all
this paper is worse than useless.
again, their model sets the infectiousness rate of asymptomatic individuals based on 3 citations - 2 of which are fabricated...garbage...utter garbage.
Are people who have died in car accidents counted as COVID-19 deaths?
ANSWER:
No. There is a two-level system in place to make sure death counts are accurate.
www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/covid-deaths-car-crash-comorbidities-coronavirus-death-total-counts-john-hopkins-study/65-e3842ed2-f753-4a15-8b97-c2ae75c2b2ce
either way the context of the conversation is about early trends so my point still stands and is validated by the article you've linked, even.
Early trends showed severe undercounting when later compared to excess mortality, probably due to low testing capacity at the start. See here for some more information on the undercounting: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
You’ll have to point out in the previous article where it agrees with your point on car crashes counted as covid deaths, it does not show this in the version of the article that is presented to me.
If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death.
This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that not a single country in the top 30 excess mortality during the pandemic is a country that avoided stringent lockdowns.
Correlation != causation of course, but it's a logical thought to investigate and there's plenty more evidence towards lockdown's doing more harm than good (considering the evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking)
as for your request - I never said the article agrees with my point about car crashes counted as covid deaths, I said it agrees with me that the correction happens later.
I also don’t understand the “evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking” line. We now have multiple waves in multiple countries. My country (Scotland) specifically has peaks in infections that are then followed by falls as a result of lockdowns. In fact we are now seeing infections rise as we ease restrictions again. These falls go against normal seasonal behaviours for respiratory illnesses, so it’s clear that something else is causing the fall - the lockdown!
The fact that a virus needs contact with people to spread is literally virus 101, and therefore limiting contact suppresses transmission - how do you come to the conclusion that this is not the case?
Lockdowns don't limit transmission because, in the US, only 40% of the economy shut down and traveling metrics didn't go down for very long. It's not that social distancing can't work - it's that it didn't work for likely very complex reasons.
Some are graphed here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
You can see that some countries that did lock down, e.g. Norway didn’t have significant excess mortality so this can dispel any myths about lockdowns themselves causing excess mortality. I’m sure some people will argue that the excess deaths in their country were caused by the lockdown, but in my experience it’s not worth your time arguing back at this stage.
I'm not sure why you would state something completely incorrect so confidently - if you had in fact been arguing with people over that point I would expect you to have come across the most basic data behind your point.
https://i.imgur.com/obQNg3o.png
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...
If we are playing "No true Scotsman" with the lockdowns and dragging Sweden in, how would you explain Greece vs Sweden?
Excess Deaths per 100k [0]
Sweden: 102 Greece: 38
There is simply no compelling evidence that “lockdowns doing more harm than good” from an excess mortality point of view.
Excess Mortality source:
[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
Your favoured metric of lockdown severity:
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...
deaths per million: japan: 103.81 sweden: 1,404.99
again, even though my single datapoint is a much stronger contrast - these single datapoints are not useful as evidence for/against lockdowns
COVID skeptics are full of assertions such as: It’s just the flu, PCR tests are worthless, the lockdown is killing more people than it’s saving, suicides are way up, we won’t have a second wave etc. When these are proven false they come up with a new assertion, ignoring that they have been wrong about every assertion so far. The scary thing is they seem to sing from the same hymn sheet, so they are being fed this information from somewhere.
It doesn’t matter so much now that people are getting vaccinated, but the vocal minority was a real risk to the integrity of the measures such as lockdowns. If you get a critical mass of people believing this BS then you’ve got a real problem. We’ve seen how the Q-Anon misinformation movement has had real consequences but people seem oblivious when they are being fed FUD about COVID.
we were having a conversation pretty tightly scoped to PCR tests that got loosened up (by you) to include lockdowns.
Now you're talking about Q-Anon among other unrelated things. If you want to have meaningful conversation that changes minds by informing people - this isn't the way to do it. It very much seems like you just lump everything into one big ball of political hot topic and leave very little room for nuance from people who disagree with you.
That's very unproductive and I'd suggest this mentality of assuming someone elses position based on political hot topics de jour is exactly why so many people are tribalistic when it comes to choosing what they believe with science.
Unfortunately, with my sample size of 2, I have seen the Q-Anon stuff happening real time. Note that I’m not even in America! Both people are engineers. One is an Albanian living in London and I can’t even compute how he’s so wired in to it all. They don’t even know each other but are lockstep with all the COVID stuff they say, now even on to the anti-vaxx angle.
As far as covid stuff I was basically unemployed for the first three months of the pandemic (only having a small workload) so I got super interested in reading white papers etc. you wouldn't believe the amount of absolutely terrible science that got pushed through the peer review process during covid. In another thread I detail a study someone used as evidence to support their opinion on asymptomatic thread.
The study was a model where they chose 75% asymptomatic spread relative to symptomatic spread for their model - the model unsurprisingly found asymp. spread to be roughly the same as symp. spread IIRC - now where did that 75% come from? I came from three studies they cite....2 of those 3 studies they cite do not have anything resembling the number they came up with. In one of the citations it was so bewilderingly wrong I can only conclude they cited the wrong study or they just made the number up entirely.
Back to the topic of PCR - I've seen zero literature to date that suggests a PCR with a CT>40 is beneficial. Further we have many studies that show false positives are absurdly high for many viruses well before CT40
So for someone to claim it's reasonable to use CT40, I believe the burden is on them to prove it since all literature I've seen suggests otherwise.
here's the garbage study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
This is nonsense. The vast, vast majority of positive PCR tests are positive after < 30 cycles.