Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[LesPalenik]

What's the rate for those under 140?

Based on a 100% rate for under 100 years, we could interpolate the rate for 140 years as 140%.

[JoeKitchen]

Based on a 100% rate for under 100 years, we could interpolate the rate for 140 years as 140%.

You think way too linear. 

Be logistic. 

[degrub]

That’ll put the gimme cap on it 

[Chris Kern]

So, 35,000 in 220 million is 0.016 percent. And THAT is negligible.

"He's got 'em on the list,
"He's got 'em on the list;
"And they'll none of 'em be missed,
"They'll none of them be missed."

[Alan Klein]

I was out driving today and noticed that it might be better for all of us if some people weren't driving. I am not sure if they were actually driving. The car was moving in a straight direction, more or less, but they appeared to be texting or reading emails or something.

Probably was adjusting his mask.

[Robert Roaldi]

Now, saying that 7% of fatalities from C19 are younger than 55, doesn’t mean that 7% of those younger than 55 will die from C19.

To calculate that chance, we need the population of those younger than 55, and that is approximately 220 million. So, 35,000 in 220 million is 0.016 percent. And THAT is negligible.

Wouldn't you need to know the population of those under 55 who were infected to figure out how dangerous it is for them? Back in March and April, I was reading comments from people about how almost no own up to that point had died of Covid, so what was the point of worrying about it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wouldn't you need to know the population of those under 55 who were infected to figure out how dangerous it is for them?...

Not really, but good to know. Because the danger is twofold: to get infected and to die from it. Those two risks combined give 0.016%.

[jeremyrh]

Whether you consider 35000 deaths - 10 x 9/11 - negligible or not, remember that that is the toll WITH lockdowns, masks, social distancing and full hospitals.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... remember that that is the toll WITH lockdowns, masks, social distancing and full hospitals.

Not really. Places with or without those fared more or less the same.

[jeremyrh]

Not really. Places with or without those fared more or less the same.

Clearly false.

[JoeKitchen]

Clearly false.

Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 

1.  New Jersey: 263 per 100,000 people
2.  New York: 244
3.  Rhode Island: 239
4.  Massachusetts: 236
5.  Mississippi: 227
6.  Arizona: 221
7.  Connecticut: 215
8.  South Dakota: 214
9.  Louisiana: 208
10.  Alabama: 205
11.  North Dakota: 194
12.  Pennsylvania: 189
13.  Indiana: 188
14.  Illinois: 180
15.  New Mexico: 179
16.  Iowa: 174
17.  Arkansas: 174
18.  South Carolina: 167
19.  Tennessee: 166
20.  Michigan: 166
21.  Kansas: 165
22.  Nevada: 162
23.  Georgia: 161
24.  Texas: 154
25.  Delaware: 148
26.  Florida: 146
27.  District of Columbia: 145
28.  Ohio: 143
29.  Missouri: 140
30.  California: 134
31.  Maryland: 131
32.  West Virginia: 129
33.  Montana: 129
34.  Wisconsin: 121
35.  Wyoming: 118
36.  Minnesota: 117
37.  Oklahoma: 115
38.  Nebraska: 114
39.  Virginia: 109
40.  Kentucky: 109
41.  North Carolina: 109
42.  Colorado: 105
43.  Idaho: 105
44.  New Hampshire: 86
45.  Washington: 67
46.  Utah: 61
47.  Oregon: 54
48.  Maine: 52
49.  Alaska: 40
50.  Vermont: 33
51.  Hawaii: 31

[Robert Roaldi]

Not really, but good to know. Because the danger is twofold: to get infected and to die from it. Those two risks combined give 0.016%.

My point was that the number 0.016 does not mean much. The only number we sort of "know" is approx 7% of 500,000 or 35,000 deaths of under 55s. The ratio of 35,000 to 220 million means nothing. You need to know the total number of under 55s that have been infected, and that's not 220 million. Your number is not a meaningful snapshot in time. (For example, the day after patient zero showed up, the overall infection rate was 1 in 350 million, another low but meaningless number.)

According to Worldometer, the US has had 29.5 million cases in total as of this morning. I'm not confident that number is very accurate since it probably doesn't count all the folks who had it with no symptoms at all and so were never tested. As a ballpark though it's nowhere near 220 million yet.

As a reminder, 35,000 is not far off the average annual number of total flu deaths in all categories. Hence, my statement that it is not a negligible number.

[jeremyrh]

Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 

That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen. Have you compensated for all the other differences between the states?  Err no, you haven't.

A better idea is to look at the cases/hospitalisations/deaths in a country and compare the peaks and troughs with the timing of lockdowns and other measures. It's a slam dunk - no further discussion needed.

[Alan Klein]

Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 

1.  New Jersey: 263 per 100,000 people
2.  New York: 244
3.  Rhode Island: 239
4.  Massachusetts: 236
5.  Mississippi: 227
6.  Arizona: 221
7.  Connecticut: 215
8.  South Dakota: 214
9.  Louisiana: 208
10.  Alabama: 205
11.  North Dakota: 194
12.  Pennsylvania: 189
13.  Indiana: 188
14.  Illinois: 180
15.  New Mexico: 179
16.  Iowa: 174
17.  Arkansas: 174
18.  South Carolina: 167
19.  Tennessee: 166
20.  Michigan: 166
21.  Kansas: 165
22.  Nevada: 162
23.  Georgia: 161
24.  Texas: 154
25.  Delaware: 148
26.  Florida: 146
27.  District of Columbia: 145
28.  Ohio: 143
29.  Missouri: 140
30.  California: 134
31.  Maryland: 131
32.  West Virginia: 129
33.  Montana: 129
34.  Wisconsin: 121
35.  Wyoming: 118
36.  Minnesota: 117
37.  Oklahoma: 115
38.  Nebraska: 114
39.  Virginia: 109
40.  Kentucky: 109
41.  North Carolina: 109
42.  Colorado: 105
43.  Idaho: 105
44.  New Hampshire: 86
45.  Washington: 67
46.  Utah: 61
47.  Oregon: 54
48.  Maine: 52
49.  Alaska: 40
50.  Vermont: 33
51.  Hawaii: 31

Hmmm.  New Jersey is #1.  I live in New Jersey.   

[Alan Klein]

I don't understand why we're arguing about statistics.  According to Biden, everyone will have their shots by the end of May or June so we'll all be in herd immunity or whatever.  At what point do you open up?  When the very very last person gets their second shot?  Or can we start opening up a little before?  And if so, where is that line?  How many deaths and cases become acceptable?  After all, we accept the flu every year when 30-40,000 people die and millions get sick.  Yet, nothing is shut down.  We all walk around coughing on each other with no masks.

[LesPalenik]

I don't understand why we're arguing about statistics.  According to Biden, everyone will have their shots by the end of May or June so we'll all be in herd immunity or whatever.  At what point do you open up?  When the very very last person gets their second shot?  Or can we start opening up a little before?  And if so, where is that line?  How many deaths and cases become acceptable?  After all, we accept the flu every year when 30-40,000 people die and millions get sick.  Yet, nothing is shut down.  We all walk around coughing on each other with no masks.

The question is how many dummies got duped by the QAnoners who deny the covid and advise against vaccinations. Then there will be people for whom the shots won't work, so get ready for walking and coughing a little longer with a mask.

[Alan Klein]

The question is how many dummies got duped by the QAnoners who deny the covid and advise against vaccinations. Then there will be people for whom the shots won't work, so get ready for walking and coughing a little longer with a mask.

Herd immunity doesn't mean everyone is vaccinated or was exposed to the virus already.  It means you reach a point where enough of the population is immune to the disease so it dies out as there are not enough victims left to keep spreading. 

So if there are some people who don't get shots, either because they don't want to or they're in the final group that extends past the herd immunity number, it won't matter. 

[JoeKitchen]

That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen. Have you compensated for all the other differences between the states?  Err no, you haven't.

A better idea is to look at the cases/hospitalisations/deaths in a country and compare the peaks and troughs with the timing of lockdowns and other measures. It's a slam dunk - no further discussion needed.

I suppose you also think vaccines cause Autism, since Autism is diagnosed shortly after infants get their shots.  Makes sense, right? 

Lockdown measures typically are put in place after the spread has already started and is partially on it's way to burn out.  Regardless of lockdowns or not, the second wave this past winter in the USA came in and went out regardless of lockdown status with many similarities between states with and without measures. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The ratio of 35,000 to 220 million means nothing...

To you. Fair enough. I can't argue against what you find meaningful.

For me, however, it means that if you are one of those 220 million (that is, ⅔ of the US population), your chances of dying from and with Covid are 0.016%. Quite negligible. I think falling in the bathtub is higher than that.

... Your number is not a meaningful snapshot in time. (For example, the day after patient zero showed up, the overall infection rate was 1 in 350 million, another low but meaningless number.)

Sure. But we are talking about something 12-14 months from patient zero.

... As a reminder, 35,000 is not far off the average annual number of total flu deaths in all categories. Hence, my statement that it is not a negligible number.

That is exactly the proof that it was negligible enough not to kill the economy and end life as we know it because of it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen....

 

You don't like facts, do you?