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

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is cool. A great tool.

Now the race is on to get enough people vaccinated to dent the pandemic.

Israelis far ahead of everyone with 22 doses per 100 administered. A good friend of mine in Israel, a front-line doctor dealing with pandemic cases, with whom I have daily contact, was offered her vaccine a few weeks ago, and refused. Right now she is home sick with COVID and regrets refusing the vaccine.

U.K. doing by far the best so far of any large country with 4.59. And NOW I understand vaccinating in care homes -- it's only 259,000 people or 0.3% of the population yet a big proportion of deaths.

U.S. next best among large countries at 3.28 -- that is great news, a very good start in comparison to most of the rest of the world. Maybe not everything about our handling of the pandemic is as shambolic as it sometimes appears.

Europe doing far, far worse so far at 0.83, with only Denmark having administered more than 2 per 100.

Denmark is doing everything with impressive efficiency -- I was living in Denmark when the yellow tents went up all over the country for mass testing. Finland on the other hand doing very badly so far with only 0.42 doses per 100 administered so far.

This should accelerate considerably in coming weeks; will be interesting to watch.

Remember the Eu started later. So these figures will be more useful in about a month

rollout of the Astra Zeneca vaccine will speed up things as these can be GP administered.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Remember the Eu started later. So these figures will be more useful in about a month

rollout of the Astra Zeneca vaccine will speed up things as these can be GP administered.

Yes, you're right. I hope we see a BIG acceleration!

Interesting comment in the linked article that the Israelis are not doing fine-grained prioritization -- just all health care and all over 60 so far, come one, come all. I know Israel is a very small and very highly regimented society, so vaccinating everyone there is a very different job to what larger countries face, but still -- this is impressive. I bet there will be something to learn from what they've done.

My friend in Israel also told me that there has been a dramatic change of opinion about taking the vaccine -- that there was considerable reluctance at first, including even her, a doctor -- but that this reluctanc simply evaporated and now everyone wants to be vaccinated. Cool!

[GordMay]

FWIW:
Preliminary findings by scientists at Public Health England (PHE) showed that reinfections in people who have COVID-19 antibodies from a past infection are rare – with only 44 cases found among 6,614 previously infected people in the study.

The findings mean people who contracted the disease in the first wave of the pandemic in the early months of 2020 may now be vulnerable to catching it again.

They also warned that people with so-called “natural immunity” – acquired through having had the infection – may still be able to carry the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in their nose and throat, and could unwittingly pass it on.

A statement on the study said its findings did not address antibody or other immune responses to vaccines now being rolled out against COVID-19, or on how effective vaccines would be. Vaccine responses will be considered later this year, it said.
The research, known as the SIREN study, involves tens of thousands of healthcare workers in Britain who have been tested regularly since June for new COVID-19 infections as well as for the presence of antibodies.


Press release ~ Public Health England
SIREN Results: Past COVID-19 infection provides some immunity but people may still carry and transmit virus
➥ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...transmit-virus

Expert reaction to a preprint from the SIREN study
➥ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...hcare-workers/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

FWIW:
Preliminary findings by scientists at Public Health England (PHE) showed that reinfections in people who have COVID-19 antibodies from a past infection are rare – with only 44 cases found among 6,614 previously infected people in the study.

The findings mean people who contracted the disease in the first wave of the pandemic in the early months of 2020 may now be vulnerable to catching it again. . . .

Don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? I am confused.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? I am confused.

Rare, not unheard of.
See the linked Press Release, and Expert Reaction.

[Seaworthy Lass]

I draw entirely different conclusions from the data, Gord.

This is extremely good news.

To summarise why:
In a study of health care workers (who are exposed to high viral loads and therefore possibly most susceptible to reinfection) for the ENTIRE length of the 5 month study “scientists detected 44 potential reinfections (2 ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’ reinfections) out of 6,614 participants who had tested positive for antibodies.” It seems no definite reinfections were found.

The level of protection cannot be determined by this data, as reinfection may occur symptom free and they have not stated they actually constantly retested everyone, so I am surprised that anyone has concluded this from the data at all, but does anyone know how they arrived at the figure of 83%?
44/6614 x 100 = 0.66% not 17%. What am I missing? Why is this not deemed a 99.34% level of protection if you were to label it anything at all? EDITED TO ADD: NOT THE RIGHT WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS

The comment “this means people who contracted the disease in the first wave may now be vulnerable to catching it again” was made simply since the study had only gone for 5 months.

I think government officials have decided to put their own spin on this data.

I could not open the other article, but it would be interesting to read

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I draw entirely different conclusions from the data, Gord.

This is extremely good news.

To summarise why:
In a study of health care workers (who are exposed to high viral loads and therefore possibly most susceptible to reinfection) for the ENTIRE length of the 5 month study “scientists detected 44 potential reinfections (2 ‘probable’ and 42 ‘possible’ reinfections) out of 6,614 participants who had tested positive for antibodies.” It seems no definite reinfections were found.

The level of protection cannot be determined by this data, as reinfection may occur symptom free and they have not stated they actually constantly retested everyone, so I am surprised that anyone has concluded this from the data at all, but does anyone know how they arrived at the figure of 83%? 44/6614 x 100 = 0.66% not 17%. What am I missing? Why is this not deemed a 99.34% level of protection if you were to label it anything at all?

The comment “this means people who contracted the disease in the first wave may now be vulnerable to catching it again” was made simply since the study had only gone for 5 months.

I think government officials have decided to put their own spin on this data.

I could not open the other article, but it would be interesting to read

From the "Expert Reaction" article:



"The incidence density of symptomatic infection in the previously infected group was 1.1 and 13.3 in the previously uninfected group per 100,000 person days about 8% as likely to have a symptomatic infection. By contrast the equivalent figures for all infections including symptomatic ones were 3.3 and 17.0 so about 19.4 % as likely. What this shows is that reinfection is common even in this short time period. I suspect the risk of reinfection will only increase with longer follow-up periods."

and a different expert from the same article:


“The take home message from this study is that a primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 provides at least 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection for at least 5 months. This suggests that natural infection provides short term protection against Covid-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.“Importantly, natural infection induces approx. 75% protection against asymptomatic reinfection, suggesting that people who have recovered from SARS-Cov-2 infection are much less likely to transmit the virus to others. This is good news in terms of the long term trends of the pandemic. However, asymptomatic reinfections are not zero, so you cannot assume that just because you have had the virus before that you can’t be infectious."

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I draw entirely different conclusions from the data, Gord ...
... I could not open the other article, but it would be interesting to read

Indeed, as Dockhead illustrated, differing conclusions* might be drawn, from the study.
*Well maybe , differing emphasis.
Interesting, nonetheless.

Science Media Centre
Second article is here: science media centre > roundups for journalists > expert reaction to a preprint from the SIREN study looking at SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in antibody positive healthcare workers
➥ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...hcare-workers/

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

From the "Expert Reaction" article:



"The incidence density of symptomatic infection in the previously infected group was 1.1 and 13.3 in the previously uninfected group per 100,000 person days about 8% as likely to have a symptomatic infection. By contrast the equivalent figures for all infections including symptomatic ones were 3.3 and 17.0 so about 19.4 % as likely. What this shows is that reinfection is common even in this short time period. I suspect the risk of reinfection will only increase with longer follow-up periods."

and a different expert from the same article:


“The take home message from this study is that a primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 provides at least 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection for at least 5 months. This suggests that natural infection provides short term protection against Covid-19 that is very similar to that conferred by vaccination.“Importantly, natural infection induces approx. 75% protection against asymptomatic reinfection, suggesting that people who have recovered from SARS-Cov-2 infection are much less likely to transmit the virus to others. This is good news in terms of the long term trends of the pandemic. However, asymptomatic reinfections are not zero, so you cannot assume that just because you have had the virus before that you can’t be infectious."

as well here.

I have no idea where they are pulling these numbers from or how they are drawing these conclusions. The figures are not even the same as presented in the main article. It would be good to read the paper they are discussing.

But saying natural immunity is similar to vaccination is clearly not valid. We have zero data for vaccines past 4 weeks from the first of two doses for the Pfizer vaccine and 5 weeks from the first of two doses for the Oxford-AstraZenaca.

To me, this is a classic example why peer review is needed and why some government's motives should be questioned regarding information they provide the public.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Science Media Centre
Second article is here: science media centre > roundups for journalists > expert reaction to a preprint from the SIREN study looking at SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in antibody positive healthcare workers
➥ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...hcare-workers/

Thanks, Gord. I could open that and will read it carefully shortly.

The opening line is not very promising though: “ A preprint, unpublished non-peer reviewed work..”. So I can’t even go to the original paper.

[Saleen411]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. I feel pretty lucky not to have any signs of "long COVID" despite having had a fairly severe case.

Whoa....didn't know you were down with COVID. Glad you got thru it OK. I have friends that STILL have issues months after the fact.

Here I was thinking, at least compared to my location in California, that odds of getting Covid were much less in your location.

Must have something to do with a vegetarian diet. I KEED!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

. . . Here I was thinking, at least compared to my location in California, that odds of getting Covid were much less in your location.. . .

Finland is almost unaffected and it would be pretty hard to get infected here.


I caught it in Vietnam, on a plane which had just come from Wuhan, a year and a bit ago.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Finland is almost unaffected and it would be pretty hard to get infected here.
I caught it in Vietnam, on a plane which had just come from Wuhan, a year and a bit ago.

So, you're the bugger - patient one, who started this whole shti-show?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, you're the bugger - patient one, who started this whole shti-show?

Patient 0 -- yes, my doctor thinks so, but I apparently didn't infect anyone.


Sickest I've ever been in my life, and longest -- two weeks. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[Saleen411]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Patient 0 -- yes, my doctor thinks so, but I apparently didn't infect anyone.


Sickest I've ever been in my life, and longest -- two weeks. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Bad luck for you being one of the first. It would be interesting to see if you have antibodies after all this time.

Antibody duration seems to be an unknown from what little I've read. Same with length of vaccine protection.

This crap is really rampant.....one in 12 of our pilots have tested positive. Think the ratio is close to that in California with almost 3 million cases.