Covid-19

Wait- when did Fauci say that getting a vaccine out before the end of the year was highly unlikely? I recall him saying that “widespread” vaccination was unlikely but thy was always a pipe dream. He stated multiple times though that there would likely be a vaccine available by the end of the year. He was “cautiously optimistic” as I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Wait- when did Fauci say that getting a vaccine out before the end of the year was highly unlikely? I recall him saying that “widespread” vaccination was unlikely but thy was always a pipe dream. He stated multiple times though that there would likely be a vaccine available by the end of the year. He was “cautiously optimistic” as I recall.

---

Oh thanks for the clarification. When the other poster said that I thought I remembered him saying that too so I was just commenting as if it were true. If not my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drudy23

But it's often the same people that will also say "we don't yet know enough about the virus to make any conclusions about it" - yet the vaccine should be completely trusted after one month? If I was 80, I'm likely taking the vaccine. I'm not, so I'll wait. That's a pretty common conclusion I'm hearing from low-risk populations outside of healthcare workers.

It's not surprising that there are so many opinions on this. There has literally been a year's worth of contradictions in pretty much every aspect of this. I don't know how anyone could know who to believe. They've (whoever they is) caused this level of mistrust and hesitation.

---

I think it's important to know that mRNA vaccine technology has been in the works for years on end, so this isn't really something that was created and rushed in a one year time frame as everybody likes to think. Another thing is I read through the protocols for both of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, they covered their t's and dotted their i's in terms of the trials, covering every demographic, age group, etc. I posted the safety profile of it when it came out, they're pretty damn safe. I also see a lot of people saying the mRNA vaccine changes your DNA, which is just not true with any understanding of basic cell biology. I can explain that, but it's pretty boring so unless interested I won't ramble. What's missing here is the communication and education as stated in this thread, if the safe aspects of the vaccine were communicated in a better fashion, I don't think there'd be as much hesitancy in getting it. The short term side effects are nothing life threatening, and though the long term side effects aren't known yet, there's really nothing I'd expect to be life threatening in that regard either.

The two biggest mistakes thus far imo are telling people in the beginning not to wear masks and lack of public education/mass marketing about the vaccine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

The two biggest mistakes thus far imo are telling people in the beginning not to wear masks and lack of public education/mass marketing about the vaccine.

---

For sure. So much stupidity in the messaging.

Telling people not to wear masks was stupid.
Calling it "Operation Warp Speed" was kind of stupid, although I don't actually take a ton of issue with that specifically.
Trump pontificating about Hydroxychloroquine (remember that?) was stupid.
Kamala Harris saying "I wouldn't take HIS vaccine" in the VP debate was incredibly stupid.

I get that this was a Pandemic that unfolded extremely quickly, so I'll allow for people just being wrong about some things, particularly early on. The problem is that there was no coherent and cohesive overall message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

For sure. So much stupidity in the messaging.

Telling people not to wear masks was stupid.

---

I'll be honest with you. This is the one that got me.

When Fauci came out and admitted he lied on purpose to get the public to do what he wanted (not wear masks in order to save them for essential workers), that was it for me.

That made me question every piece of info the media came out. If the dude who is in CHARGE of all of this will lie this easily, why would you believe anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

Trump pontificating about Hydroxychloroquine (remember that?) was stupid.

---

This is the one I still wonder about. Have we decided HCQ is effective in treating Covid or not? It went back and forth so many times confused with bumbling Trump's ramblings that I don't know if I ever saw a definitive answer from the medical community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhelmes37

I'll be honest with you. This is the one that got me.

When Fauci came out and admitted he lied on purpose to get the public to do what he wanted (not wear masks in order to save them for essential workers), that was it for me.

That made me question every piece of info the media came out. If the dude who is in CHARGE of all of this will lie this easily, why would you believe anyone?

---

It was a massive public policy mistake, but I'm not going to throw out the rest of the information because of that. Most of our vaccine information is coming from (and through) people other than Fauci. Generally it's being vetted through multiple sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

This is the one I still wonder about. Have we decided HCQ is effective in treating Covid or not? It went back and forth so many times confused with bumbling Trump's ramblings that I don't know if I ever saw a definitive answer from the medical community.

---

I think it was ultimately a 'no'. Remdesivir, yes. Monoclonal Antibodies, hell yes. HCQ probably not. I think it's no longer really used in favor of the other two treatments mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

This is the one I still wonder about. Have we decided HCQ is effective in treating Covid or not? It went back and forth so many times confused with bumbling Trump's ramblings that I don't know if I ever saw a definitive answer from the medical community.

---

By far the dumbest political debate I have ever seen. The fact that anyone outside of the medical community had an opinion on a drug most of us couldn't spell let alone knew existed in February of 2020 was just mind boggling (and before anyone pulls up my old posts, I include myself among the masses of idiots)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Wait- when did Fauci say that getting a vaccine out before the end of the year was highly unlikely? I recall him saying that “widespread” vaccination was unlikely but thy was always a pipe dream. He stated multiple times though that there would likely be a vaccine available by the end of the year. He was “cautiously optimistic” as I recall.

---

Back in May Fauci said he believed we would eventually get a vaccine in a year or two. In June he felt a vaccine would probably be 70 to 75% effective and not give us the herd immunity we need. July 31 before Congress, he said we should have a vaccine early 2021. Not the “widespread” that he later changed to. Here he was again in October.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ary-fauci-says


Doesn’t give people a lot of confidence which was point I was trying describe.

I don’t blame him because we have never developed a vaccine so fast and he doesn’t have a crystal ball. But people were saying if Fauci opened his mouth it must be true. Unfortunately people were giving him impossible things to speculate on during the summer. FWIW, still respect the man and what he’s done for his country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

This is the one I still wonder about. Have we decided HCQ is effective in treating Covid or not? It went back and forth so many times confused with bumbling Trump's ramblings that I don't know if I ever saw a definitive answer from the medical community.

---

Though it looked promising, ultimately no, not really. Remdesivir is preferred, and if you meet a certain criteria you can get the antibody infusion. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head still using HCQ for treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

Back in May Fauci said he believed we would eventually get a vaccine in a year or two. In June he felt a vaccine would probably be 70 to 75% effective and not give us the herd immunity we need. July 31 before Congress, he said we should have a vaccine early 2021. Not the “widespread” that he later changed to. Here he was again in October.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ary-fauci-says


Doesn’t give people a lot of confidence which was point I was trying describe.

I don’t blame him because we have never developed a vaccine so fast and he doesn’t have a crystal ball. But people were saying if Fauci opened his mouth it must be true. Unfortunately people were giving him impossible things to speculate on during the summer. FWIW, still respect the man and what he’s done for his country.

---

Ok thanks, missed that one. All other articles/pressers I see say he thought end of the year distribution. Ultimately I don’t think he influenced vaccine opinion too much but who knows. In general people distrust the government especially when the government is already restricting decisions we have daily, such as whether we can go somewhere or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIMMFD

Though it looked promising, ultimately no, not really. Remdesivir is preferred, and if you meet a certain criteria you can get the antibody infusion. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head still using HCQ for treatment.

---

FWIW I have seen it prescribed recently still by a local rheumatologist specifically for covid. I’m sure it’s a drop in the HCQ bucket of scripts for her but I found it interesting.

July 1, 2020 Update:" A summary of the FDA review of safety issues with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is now available. This includes reports of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure. '

Got an appt for Monday to get the first shot with mrspaulxu.

Must admit we are excited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Got an appt for Monday to get the first shot with mrspaulxu.

Must admit we are excited.

---

VERY glad to hear! Best of luck to both of you.

My mother and multiple family member (mostly doctors on the front line) have had at least the first shot and nobody had any significant negative reactions. Hope the same is true for you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

FWIW I have seen it prescribed recently still by a local rheumatologist specifically for covid. I’m sure it’s a drop in the HCQ bucket of scripts for her but I found it interesting.

---

Hmm, really? That's interesting, I thought a lot of the literature said to try to avoid it if possible, but then again no idea if the patients she's prescribing it to have benefits of HCQ for other conditions even if still prescribed for COVID. I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

VERY glad to hear! Best of luck to both of you.

My mother and multiple family member (mostly doctors on the front line) have had at least the first shot and nobody had any significant negative reactions. Hope the same is true for you guys.

---

I got my first dose recently, but my sister got her second dose (Internal Medicine, just turned 30) and the second dose has been the one that's been the most brutal for her and other people she/I know who took it. Absolutely knocked people on their ass for about 48 hours, headaches, fatigue, the whole nine yards. I'll however take a couple days of feeling like crap over possibly transmitting it to my parents or loved ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIMMFD

Hmm, really? That's interesting, I thought a lot of the literature said to try to avoid it if possible, but then again no idea if the patients she's prescribing it to have benefits of HCQ for other conditions even if still prescribed for COVID. I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it.



I got my first dose recently, but my sister got her second dose (Internal Medicine, just turned 30) and the second dose has been the one that's been the most brutal for her and other people she/I know who took it. Absolutely knocked people on their ass for about 48 hours, headaches, fatigue, the whole nine yards. I'll however take a couple days of feeling like crap over possibly transmitting it to my parents or loved ones.

---

One patient had a history of gout. The last mutual patient had psoriatic arthritis and was on humira, never previously treated with HCQ (failed MTX). She prescribes it with zpak and zinc so I was assuming she based this off the French study from March. I still prefer the mAb approach for these individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIMMFD

Hmm, really? That's interesting, I thought a lot of the literature said to try to avoid it if possible, but then again no idea if the patients she's prescribing it to have benefits of HCQ for other conditions even if still prescribed for COVID. I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it.



I got my first dose recently, but my sister got her second dose (Internal Medicine, just turned 30) and the second dose has been the one that's been the most brutal for her and other people she/I know who took it. Absolutely knocked people on their ass for about 48 hours, headaches, fatigue, the whole nine yards. I'll however take a couple days of feeling like crap over possibly transmitting it to my parents or loved ones.

---

Man sorry to hear that about your sister. I got my second dose of Pfizer on 1/11 and 4 hours after I felt fatigued but by the next day I was fine, no other symptoms. Although 3 days later I got a headache and I have had one every day since but I get frequent headaches at times so and I have a cervical disc issue going on so not sure if the headaches related to the vaccine or not. Most of my colleagues haven't had any major symptoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

One patient had a history of gout. The last mutual patient had psoriatic arthritis and was on humira, never previously treated with HCQ (failed MTX). She prescribes it with zpak and zinc so I was assuming she based this off the French study from March. I still prefer the mAb approach for these individuals.

---

I agree with your approach, I would rather use the monoclonal antibodies or Remdesivir, it must be just nuances of the specialty I think. I know an Infectious Disease doctor who quotes a study showing higher Vitamin D levels led to less serious COVID infection (I haven't personally read it, but I haven't also had a chance to catch up to literature lately), so she gives 50,000u/week to all her patients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Man sorry to hear that about your sister. I got my second dose of Pfizer on 1/11 and 4 hours after I felt fatigued but by the next day I was fine, no other symptoms. Although 3 days later I got a headache and I have had one every day since but I get frequent headaches at times so and I have a cervical disc issue going on so not sure if the headaches related to the vaccine or not. Most of my colleagues haven't had any major symptoms.

---

Haha oh no worries, she's way tougher and more badass than I could ever be, she just felt like crap for a day, and was back at it. Interesting, I don't remember if she said she got Pfizer or Moderna, I got Pfizer, the symptoms weren't anything crazy, just like kind of getting hit with the flu for a couple days, and then back at it, headaches, and some fatigue. I'm glad to hear that it's well tolerated elsewhere though, she reported that from Baltimore, and I have a friend at Marshall's Internal Medicine program saying the same, through the safety profile seems the number matches what they saw from the trials just going by naked eye.

For anyone with a child in the 12-17 year range in Cincinnati, Moderna is looking for participants in clinical trials.

https://connect.trialscope.com/studi...-9b4cda3c0e36/

Based on what I see here, we are a long ways off from having covid immunization available for children. Next year at earliest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

This is the one I still wonder about. Have we decided HCQ is effective in treating Covid or not? It went back and forth so many times confused with bumbling Trump's ramblings that I don't know if I ever saw a definitive answer from the medical community.

---

I recently read a CRT meta-analysis preprint that found some effectiveness of HCQ: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...#disqus_thread

Quote:

---

HCQ was associated with a 24% reduction in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization or death, P=.025 (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97]). No serious adverse cardiac events were reported. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal. Conclusion--Hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Serious adverse events were not reported and cardiac arrhythmia was rare.

---

When searching for it, I also found another meta-analysis with similar results: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....01.20223958v1

Quote:

---

A total of 26 articles were found (N=44,521 COVID-19 patients, including N=7,324 from 4 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)); 10 studies were valuable for analysing the association of HCQ+AZM. Overall, the use of HCQ was associated with 21% lower mortality risk (pooled risk ratio: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.67 to 0.93; high level of heterogeneity: I2=82%, random effects). This association vanished (1.10, 95%CI: 0.99 to 1.23 and 1.10, 95%CI: 0.99 to 1.23) when daily dose >400 mg or total dose >4,400 mg were used, respectively). HCQ+AZM was also associated with 25% lower mortality risk, but uncertainty was large (95%CI: 0.50 to 1.13; P=0.17).

---

The WHO just issued new guidance identifying the issue with PCR tests and false positives generated at high cycle thresholds (Ct). This includes a requirement to report the Ct. WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05

Ultimately this transparency will result in reduced (more realistic) case numbers. Interesting timing, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

I recently read a CRT meta-analysis preprint that found some effectiveness of HCQ: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...#disqus_thread[FONT="][FONT="]

When searching for it, I also found another meta-analysis with similar results: [/FONT]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....01.20223958v1[/FONT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

---

Lots of observational data in both of these studies/meta-analyses with lack of placebo. Not saying HCQ is bad, just that this is not exactly a convincing argument for using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

The WHO just issued new guidance identifying the issue with PCR tests and false positives generated at high cycle thresholds (Ct). This includes a requirement to report the Ct. WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05

Ultimately this transparency will result in reduced (more realistic) case numbers. Interesting timing, eh?

---

The number of people that have had covid and never tested far will outweigh and false positives seen. I could argue that this transparency may even increase the number of people tested/number of tests ran and positive cases. Clinical judgement is key and why I continue to uphold the notion of not testing asymptomatic individuals. At this point keeping track of cases is negligible. Establishing an accurate diagnosis to treat though is certainly important however.

Also, i found it interesting to read the first few weeks and months of this thread. There’s lots of Old Takes Exposed which is funny to read (myself too). We just passed 400,000 deaths nationwide and there are some posts referencing this number and how crazy/impossible it would be to approach this number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Lots of observational data in both of these studies/meta-analyses with lack of placebo. Not saying HCQ is bad, just that this is not exactly a convincing argument for using it.




The number of people that have had covid and never tested far will outweigh and false positives seen. I could argue that this transparency may even increase the number of people tested/number of tests ran and positive cases. Clinical judgement is key and why I continue to uphold the notion of not testing asymptomatic individuals. At this point keeping track of cases is negligible. Establishing an accurate diagnosis to treat though is certainly important however.

Also, i found it interesting to read the first few weeks and months of this thread. There’s lots of Old Takes Exposed which is funny to read (myself too). We just passed 400,000 deaths nationwide and there are some posts referencing this number and how crazy/impossible it would be to approach this number.

---

Yeah yikes. Some definite cold takes early in the thread.

"Doctors predicting 400,00 deaths are more irresponsible than calling this no big deal"
"They wont cancel the ncaa tournament"
"When this is over in a few weeks or couple months"

etc.

Obviously we couldn't predict what we were in for but man, the beginning pages are interesting to look at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIMMFD

Hmm, really? That's interesting, I thought a lot of the literature said to try to avoid it if possible, but then again no idea if the patients she's prescribing it to have benefits of HCQ for other conditions even if still prescribed for COVID. I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it.



I got my first dose recently, but my sister got her second dose (Internal Medicine, just turned 30) and the second dose has been the one that's been the most brutal for her and other people she/I know who took it. Absolutely knocked people on their ass for about 48 hours, headaches, fatigue, the whole nine yards. I'll however take a couple days of feeling like crap over possibly transmitting it to my parents or loved ones.

---

My wife’s niece (a 30-ish doctor) got her second shot and it kicked her butt. A bunch of other people missed work, but she suffered thru it. They think it hurt younger people worse, but who knows? It was a day or two of rough times, but she’s glad she did it and glad it’s behind her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

My wife’s niece (a 30-ish doctor) got her second shot and it kicked her butt. A bunch of other people missed work, but she suffered thru it. They think it hurt younger people worse, but who knows? It was a day or two of rough times, but she’s glad she did it and glad it’s behind her.

---

I get my second shot in a week. I have heard the same types of things, but I am still going to get it.

Just some general questions for you guys who work with this stuff, as I'm getting ready to get the first shot.

1 - Why is there a need for a second shot. I think the vaccine is different than the regular flu in its creation process with the RNA stuff, but why a second shot?

2 - Can you go a little longer between doses than the 21/28 day recommendations, and still be OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Just some general questions for you guys who work with this stuff, as I'm getting ready to get the first shot.

1 - Why is there a need for a second shot. I think the vaccine is different than the regular flu in its creation process with the RNA stuff, but why a second shot?

2 - Can you go a little longer between doses than the 21/28 day recommendations, and still be OK?

---

1 - As you know, the second shot will give you the 95% efficacy and from what I’ve read, the first shot is about 50% effective. Yes it’s because of mRNA technology and pharmacokinetics of the drug.

2 - The CDC states there is no maximum interval between the first and second shot. Keep in mind, Moderna measured its maximum efficacy of its vaccine starting 14 days after the second dose, while Pfizer measured it starting seven days after the second dose. In nutshell, the longer you wait will determine maximum coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

1 - As you know, the second shot will give you the 95% efficacy and from what I’ve read, the first shot is about 50% effective. Yes it’s because of mRNA technology and pharmacokinetics of the drug.

2 - The CDC states there is no maximum interval between the first and second shot. Keep in mind, Moderna measured its maximum efficacy of its vaccine starting 14 days after the second dose, while Pfizer measured it starting seven days after the second dose. In nutshell, the longer you wait will determine maximum coverage.

---

Thanks!

Yikes. I always knew there was no plan for replacing the ACA after 4 years of it being promised "next week."
But with 400,000 dead, I really didn't expect this:

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/h...3-f22339f5a2fd

Isn't Biden's "ambitious" proposal to do 100 million doses in 100 days? We're almost doing 1 million some days now, so I'm not sure how ambitious that is, but if the Trump administration had no plan and had almost gone from 0 to 1 million per day, then it should be a SUPER easy target for the Biden admin to hit since they're going to be so wonderful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

Isn't Biden's "ambitious" proposal to do 100 million doses in 100 days? We're almost doing 1 million some days now, so I'm not sure how ambitious that is, but if the Trump administration had no plan and had almost gone from 0 to 1 million per day, then it should be a SUPER easy target for the Biden admin to hit since they're going to be so wonderful.

---

Yep some pretty good spin here by the Biden administration. About 800k on average being administered daily already.

Constant smoke and mirrors - the goal isn't to get stuff done, it's to appear you've gotten stuff done.

Same as the corporate nonsense I'm sure most of us witness on a daily basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muskiefan82

I get my second shot in a week. I have heard the same types of things, but I am still going to get it.

---

I would absolutely follow thru, myself. Good luck to you. I know others have had the second shot and been fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Yikes. I always knew there was no plan for replacing the ACA after 4 years of it being promised "next week."
But with 400,000 dead, I really didn't expect this:

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/h...3-f22339f5a2fd

---

If you still believe in Fauci, he said this is not true. I know, hard to believe CNN sources are not always accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

If you still believe in Fauci, he said this is not true. I know, hard to believe CNN sources are not always accurate.

---

I don't really think it's true either, I was on a conference call when the vaccine rollout was to begin in Florida from the state officials, and they had a pretty clear plan, 5 pilot hospitals getting 20,000 doses each, 2 in Orlando, 1 in Jacksonville, and 2 in Tampa, give it to the front-line workers first, broken into subcategories (COVID ICU staff, elder outpatient physicians, down to Med Students), and then to the elderly population, if left-over doses, before getting the entire state in the rollout (the pilot was part of the first however many doses shipped obviously, now the vaccine is readily available almost everywhere). So I think there's definitely plans in place, it just seems more of a "figure it out as a state" plan, which is probably why the Biden administration is claiming that.

Leaving it to the states is fine but it really seems like there is a lot of variability state to state. In Ohio you can only get the vaccine if you’re above 80 or have other serious health issues. Those people may not be the most mobile either. In other states it seems like anyone over 65 can get it. Hmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

I can't believe no one has commented on the news reported last week that "COVID-19 infections in US likely 8 times higher than reported, CDC says" (1) I guess I will, since there are several profound implications. If we assume that all of the "official" data is correct, this is what this study means:

#1) Officially, there are currently almost 14 million cases (2) in the U.S. This means that because of unreported cases - estimated to be 8 times the reported number - then roughly 112 million people in the U.S. has had Covid - that's roughly one-third of the population!

#2) As a result of the higher case numbers, the death rates for Covid are much lower. In fact, it's in the range of the seasonal flu. The following are flu stats from the CDC (3) for the last 10 years:

Flu Season / Cases / Deaths / Death Rate
2010-2011 / 21,000,000 / 37,000 / 0.18%
2011-2012 / 9,300,000 / 12,000 / 0.13%
2012-2013 / 34,000,000 / 43,000 / 0.13%
2013-2014 / 30,000,000 /38,000 / 0.13%
2014-2015 / 30,000,000 / 51,000 / 0.17%
2015-2016 / 24,000,000 / 23,000 / 0.10%
2016-2017 / 29,000,000 / 38,000 / 0.13%
2017-2018 / 45,000,000 / 61,000 / 0.14%
2018-2019 / 36,000,000 / 34,000 / 0.09%
2019-2020 / 38,000,000 / 22,000 / 0.06%

Assuming the 8X estimates, this would be the actual numbers for Covid thru 12/2:

Cases / Deaths / Death Rate
109,688,000 / 264,522 / 0.24%

For the life of the Pandemic, the 0.24% death rate is roughly double the seasonal flu. However, if we look at the last 6 months, and the last 3 months, the death rates are now actually in-line with the flu. The lower rates are the result of better treatments that doctors have learned over time. They also reflect the end of bad policies in which governors placed Covid patients inside nursing homes - an unmitigated disaster for those residents. Here is the more recent data:

Covid (6/1 thru 12/2): 95,359,488 / 164,006 / 0.17%

Covid (9/1 thru 12/2): 61,889,056 / 88,866 / 0.14%

So why are there so many more total deaths for Covid versus the flu? The biggest reason is that roughly 40% the population gets a flu vaccine - and roughly two-thirds of senior citizens get a vaccine (4). Thus, the most vulnerable are protected. Additionally, the vaccine acts to achieve herd immunity much earlier in the life of the virus.

#3) With roughly one-third of the population estimated to have already contracted Covid, this would mean that we are roughly half-way to achieving herd immunity (5). Most studies report that herd immunity is achieved when 60-70% of the population is infected. We are currently recording more than one million cases per week. This means that we are on pace to reach 28 million "official" cases in less than 12 weeks or so - if the current pace continues. If you apply the 8X figure from the CDC study, that means that roughly 224 million people will have contracted the virus by then - or roughly 68% of the population. It's going to be a race against time to get the vaccines out in order to make any type of meaningful impact. In other words, in my view, the virus will have mostly run its course before the vaccines can be administered in large numbers. In my opinion, this virus is going to peak in mid-January or so, and will be on the wane by late February - assuming that all of the "official" numbers and the 8X study is correct.

#4) Again, if we assume that the estimate that one-third of the population has already had Covid, it provides further proof that lockdowns and masks do not work. I'm sorry, but the virus is gonna virus, and there's very little we can practically do to control it. We are social beings....


1) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...247457275.html

2) https://covidtracking.com/data/national

3) https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

4) https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/c...9estimates.htm

5) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

---

Not to toot my own horn, but it looks like I was correct. Even Dr. Fauci agrees with me with his comment yesterday: "The good news about all of this is that we are seeing a plateau in the number of cases,"

No, it wasn't the lockdowns, it wasn't the masks, and it isn't the vaccines. It's natural herd immunity. By the end of the weekend roughly 60% of the population will have contracted Covid. Most studies report that herd immunity is achieved when 60-70% of the population is infected. In a few weeks this will be on the wane.

Trust the science, not the hysteria....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

Not to toot my own horn

---

toot toot 400k dead. 8300 in 48 hours.