Will Covid 19 impact 2022 season?

[nzjrs]

aran.vtec forgot the demographic most predictive of Covid risk - age.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _structure (sort by over 65).

This reminds me of the old statistical reasoning fallacy best exemplified by the observation that 'height is not correlated with basketball success (in the NBA)'

edit: not to imply age is the sole cause - there are many risk factors and measurement effects

the age demographic in Africa ?
populations increase by adding young people not by adding old people

the UK proclaims treating the '50+' aged (and the younger with underlying conditions)
that's 30 million so 60 million vaccinations

I don't follow your point sorry.

(all what follow is normalized by population obviously)

Mine was something like - if one claims 'poor countries are doing better than wealthy countries', a common response is 'it depends on how well you are measuring that aka how and what are you testing', which is more or less what DC said and I agree. FWIW if the absolute number of tests is less, to compare between countries the positive-test-percentage is IMO a better proxy.

Putting that aside, and looking at one of the 'testing independent' numbers that poorer countries can hopefully keep statistics on can therefor be better. One such number is simply the number of excess deaths. Given that the best predictor of risk is age, if those countries with a higher old-people proportion of the population are registering more excess deaths with Covid, that could be at least in part due to there simply being more elderly in the population.

That assumes of course that elderly are more likely to die if they contract covid, which BigTea seems to disagree with?

[DChemTech]

I don't follow your point sorry.

(all what follow is normalized by population obviously)

Mine was something like - if one claims 'poor countries are doing better than wealthy countries', a common response is 'it depends on how well you are measuring that aka how and what are you testing', which is more or less what DC said and I agree. FWIW if the absolute number of tests is less, to compare between countries the positive-test-percentage is IMO a better proxy.

Putting that aside, and looking at one of the 'testing independent' numbers that poorer countries can hopefully keep statistics on can therefor be better. One such number is simply the number of excess deaths. Given that the best predictor of risk is age, if those countries with a higher old-people proportion of the population are registering more excess deaths with Covid, that could be at least in part due to there simply being more elderly in the population.

That assumes of course that elderly are more likely to die if they contract covid, which BigTea seems to disagree with?

Yes, although the positive test ratio is also skewed - countries likely restrict testing to those with symptoms only if there is a shortage, while other countries may test upon contact, or even allow testing without particular reason.

[Big Tea]

aran.vtec forgot the demographic most predictive of Covid risk - age.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _structure (sort by over 65).

This reminds me of the old statistical reasoning fallacy best exemplified by the observation that 'height is not correlated with basketball success (in the NBA)'

edit: not to imply age is the sole cause - there are many risk factors and measurement effects

But this does not tie in with the 'resistance' thing. Older people should be very much more resilient than younger ones as compared to 60 or 70 years ago our current environment is almost sterile. You could change the air in the house with a shovel 80-90 years ago and these are the most at risk group. My great gran had a pump out the back for water and a toilet in a shed down the garden.

Don’t confuse bacteria, poisons and bad health with virussen and our increase in social interactions. Our grandparents grew up in a world with just half the people around and less bars, restaurants, far less commuting, festivals and so on. Just school, the shop and the factory. Cities grew exponentially during the last century. And if you put animals or humans close together...

100 years ago many houses had grandparents, parents and 6 children with maybe a couple of unmaried aunties with 3 bedrooms upstairs and 2 rooms and a 'scullery' downstairs. There would often be 3 sets or people sharing beds on a shift rota. There is also far more room in the work place today, so I dont know about interaction being less.
Mixing with people outside your usual 'bubble' probably was as leaving the village or part of town was not done often

[henry]

At the end of October Imperial College London produced a report which includes fatality rate by age. It confirms that Infection Fatality Rate increases with age roughly doubling every 8 years. So population demographics play a big part in a nations overall IFR and many of the poorer nations have a younger population than the richer. A table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for overall IFR by countries wealth which quantifies this.

Like @Tommy Cookers I’m naturally interested in my personal risk level. The table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for IFR by age range. Based on information elsewhere on risk factors my guess would be that a slim female with no history of medical issues could use the lower bound whilst an obese male with diabetes heart and lung issues the upper. In my case given the IFR and the prevalence of the disease in my area I locked myself down long before the government thought it a good idea.

I’d be comfortable to lead a normal existence if the IFR were somewhere near that of Flu. That rate is 0.04% and the High Income Country Covid rate is a little over 1%. So a combination of vaccination and improved healthcare treatments needs to drop IFR by a factor of 20+. We’re still some way off that. I guess that is why the U.K. Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, is warning that we might still be facing lockdown style restrictions next winter.

Of course another way of reducing risk would be to get close to zero prevalence such as in Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan etc. I don’t see the political will to do that here, or in most of the countries that hold F1 races.

The Imperial report is here https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imper ... ort-34.pdf

[Big Tea]

At the end of October Imperial College London produced a report which includes fatality rate by age. It confirms that Infection Fatality Rate increases with age roughly doubling every 8 years. So population demographics play a big part in a nations overall IFR and many of the poorer nations have a younger population than the richer. A table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for overall IFR by countries wealth which quantifies this.

Like @Tommy Cookers I’m naturally interested in my personal risk level. The table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for IFR by age range. Based on information elsewhere on risk factors my guess would be that a slim female with no history of medical issues could use the lower bound whilst an obese male with diabetes heart and lung issues the upper. In my case given the IFR and the prevalence of the disease in my area I locked myself down long before the government thought it a good idea.

I’d be comfortable to lead a normal existence if the IFR were somewhere near that of Flu. That rate is 0.04% and the High Income Country Covid rate is a little over 1%. So a combination of vaccination and improved healthcare treatments needs to drop IFR by a factor of 20+. We’re still some way off that. I guess that is why the U.K. Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, is warning that we might still be facing lockdown style restrictions next winter.

Of course another way of reducing risk would be to get close to zero prevalence such as in Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan etc. I don’t see the political will to do that here, or in most of the countries that hold F1 races.

The Imperial report is here https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imper ... ort-34.pdf

Thanks. A lot of work gone into that. It must be difficult to factor in that so many of the early deaths were from the top end of the range, but it was well into the initial 'wave' before they found some of the simple aids such as the steroids which make such a big difference to survivability. Also, not nice to consider, but how many of the very top of the range actually had the mental and physical drive to recover? I have seen a couple of old people throw the towel in. No possible way to tabulate it though. There is also the additional effect of smoking and Covid. It will be a long time before we make a lot of sense from some of it

[nzjrs]

Like @Tommy Cookers I’m naturally interested in my personal risk level. The table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for IFR by age range.

You (and others) might be interested in this.

One thing which annoyed me a bit with the BioNTech and Moderna vaccine papers was that they did not use the same age-cohort groups (16-55 vs 18-65) and stratifications. Both papers do however list the efficacy in multiple age stratifications - BoiNtech for more strats, 55, 65, 75.

• BioNtech NEJM Paper - See Table 3
• Moderna NEJM Paper - See Figure 4

It's a shame that the Astrozenica/Oxford vaccine hasn't finished its full trial and we have to go off the preliminary data - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext - which is very messy and not as cleanly split into age-cohort efficacy because (I guess) the royally screwed up the trial dosages which probbably broke their trial design and statistics.

I doubt one will get free choice of the Vaccine type, and to be honest I think they are all going to be more or less equivilent, but it's interesting to see how the trials/papers write about age-cohort efficacy.

Beware: all the numbers in the studies, particularly in the postive group, are low. Which is good for the vaccine efficacy, but bad for clean and easy to understand data

[Big Tea]

Like @Tommy Cookers I’m naturally interested in my personal risk level. The table on page 11 gives predicted ranges for IFR by age range.

You (and others) might be interested in this.

One thing which annoyed me a bit with the BioNTech and Moderna vaccine papers was that they did not use the same age-cohort groups (16-55 vs 18-65) and stratifications. Both papers do however list the efficacy in multiple age stratifications - BoiNtech for more strats, 55, 65, 75.

• BioNtech NEJM Paper - See Table 3
• Moderna NEJM Paper - See Figure 4

It's a shame that the Astrozenica/Oxford vaccine hasn't finished its full trial and we have to go off the preliminary data - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext - which is very messy and not as cleanly split into age-cohort efficacy because (I guess) the royally screwed up the trial dosages which probbably broke their trial design and statistics.

I doubt one will get free choice of the Vaccine type, and to be honest I think they are all going to be more or less equivilent, but it's interesting to see how the trials/papers write about age-cohort efficacy.

Beware: all the numbers in the studies, particularly in the postive group, are low. Which is good for the vaccine efficacy, but bad for clean and easy to understand data

Sorry, messed up and posted what you had in a different form

[JordanMugen]

And that's before we look at increased mental health incidence and suicide rates amongst healthcare staff in the last 12 months.

Yes, that is why the Australian or Taiwanese approach of containing and limiting COVID cases as much as practicable by acting hard from March and acting hard again whenever a breach of hotel quarantine occurs and creates a outbreak after that, seems superior... Even if it means no international Formula One Grand Prix racing can be held.

It seems inexplicable to Australans that UK and other European borders were not closed in March, and that UK and other Formula One staff (and broadly general citizens) could fly and drive around Europe without completing 14 days supervised hotel quarantine in every country. Meanwhile Australian citizens could typically not even move from state-to-state without 14 days supervised hotel quarantine, which helped localise (for example) the Victoria outbreak and stop it spreading to Western Australia for instance.

It is frankly, a relief, to live without community transition of SARS-CoV2. Here in Adelaide, Australia, folks are having their beers at the pub by the beach without any masks and it's largely business as usual apart from checking-in with apps everywhere so contact tracing can be done efficiently. On the other hand, where there is the local outbreak in Sydney, Australia at the moment then you act hard and fast to lock it down as much as possible, which includes a ban on those from Sydney moving elsewhere without the 14 days supervised quarantine.

[Big Tea]

It seems inexplicable to Australans that UK and other European borders were not closed in March, and that UK and other Formula One staff (and broadly general citizens) could fly and drive around Europe without completing 14 days supervised hotel quarantine in every country. Meanwhile Australian citizens could typically not even move from state-to-state without 14 days supervised hotel quarantine, which helped localise (for example) the Victoria outbreak and stop it spreading to Western Australia for instance.

There was an announcement today that a team has been put together to investigate the spread from China, one of the points being why W.H.O. kept on insisting air travel to and from China was OK, when almost every other specialist said it was not.

(they seem to not be having much success so far~ https://www.>remove this<dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9116715/China-denies-entry-team-experts-investigate-origins-Covid-19.html

[Just_a_fan]

[
It seems inexplicable to Australans that UK and other European borders were not closed in March, and that UK and other Formula One staff (and broadly general citizens) could fly and drive around Europe without completing 14 days supervised hotel quarantine in every country. Meanwhile Australian citizens could typically not even move from state-to-state without 14 days supervised hotel quarantine, which helped localise (for example) the Victoria outbreak and stop it spreading to Western Australia for instance.

The world travels via Europe and the UK. Australia is a holiday destination. It's that simple really. Admittedly it should have possible to transit people through the hubs but that would have required planning, something the UK Government couldn't do if you held a gun to its collective head.

It would have been great if every international plane was grounded. But not at all practicable.

[JordanMugen]

The world travels via Europe and the UK.

The point is returning to your home country (e.g., Australia) is allowed provided 14 days supervised hotel quarantine are observed, but other travel is banned.

Even recently UK does not have 14 days supervised hotel quarantine for international arrivals which seems remiss. Contact tracing of community transmission cases is easier when you don't have people randomly bringing the virus in from overseas!

[Big Tea]

I think it really is time to have a test when at the departure airport, and a clean result before boarding. Yes it would mean a lab at each international airport, but they could do other work as well as most international airports are close to cities, so it could easily be covered.

Most of the time it runs close to being at the airport for 4 hrs anyway, so a delay here is far better than isolating for 14 days

The other part, that would not be popular with some it that ONLY these nominated airports could then depart international.

[Just_a_fan]

The world travels via Europe and the UK.

The point is returning to your home country (e.g., Australia) is allowed provided 14 days supervised hotel quarantine are observed, but other travel is banned.

Even recently UK does not have 14 days supervised hotel quarantine for international arrivals which seems remiss. Contact tracing of community transmission cases is easier when you don't have people randomly bringing the virus in from overseas!

Oh indeed. The UK system is total pants. "Yes, sir, of course I'll stay in my home!". Like hell they will.

[Sieper]

Here even proven infected people still go out for groceries (or worse). Lock down isn’t doing much to the numbers. The most people have feeble will. Or better said, strong will, for others, not for self. Self is Ofcourse excempt.

[Just_a_fan]

I think the big problem is the asymptomatic cases. People who have it and feel the effects don't go out and about because they know they've got it and feel bad - just like you do with other illnesses. Those that have it and don't have any symptoms go out and about and potentially spread it.

Although there is a suggestion that asymptomatic people may not be infectious. Unfortunately no one knows either way because no one is doing the necessary correct tests to find out.

Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections.12 Studies estimating this proportion are limited by heterogeneity in case definitions, incomplete symptom assessment, and inadequate retrospective and prospective follow-up of symptoms, however. Around 49% of people initially defined as asymptomatic go on to develop symptoms.

It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851