Machu Peach

The goal of this study is it attempts to identify which factors are are associated with COVID infection and which are not. That is, they are trying to determine which behaviors or factors are associated with increased risk. The biggest factors are lack of a chronic medical condition(s), visiting a restaurant, having an infected family member, and having a close contact with an infected individual. Interestingly, things like infected friends, infected coworkers, going to the gym, going to church, going to an office, going to a salon, going shopping, taking public transportation, etc are not associated with increased infection. Notably, race/ethnicity and education also play a large role (sex and age do not) and they account for that in their odds ratio.

There are actually very interesting findings in the linked CDC study. Many are focused on the mask issue because it's all political and people have chosen their 'teams', but masks barely mentioned in the discussion because the findings aren't all that interesting or informative.

Links? Link to the CDC study cited. It's actually a very interesting study for several reasons, though I'm always skeptical of self reported results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf Link to the WHO quote/interview. It's WHO's Special Envoy on COVID-19, “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688

The CDC Director said that masks offer better protection than vaccines. Every infectious disease expert I've spoken with agrees that that is a stupid and harmful statement.

'Effectiveness' of a vaccine can mean multiple things. If you're talking about the ability to induce a protective immune response, I expect that pretty much any vaccine approved would induce good initial antibody titers and good T cell response. Whether those features offer protection? It's very likely it will for a good percentage of people if they pick the right target(s). Having good monoclonal antibodies gives me a lot of confidence on that front. If you're talking about longevity of response... yea, that's tough to know. The rushed timeline of the vaccine makes it impossible to tests vaccine responses over time. One can make guesses based on the vaccine platform, but for reasons that are mostly poorly understood, some antigens just don't work as well as others. That said, I'd be quite surprised if protection is less than a year or two, no matter the platform.

Production of the seasonal flu vaccine starts in February and most lots are available around October (the first lots become available in July and August). Vaccination rates for the general population is around 50% and for people over 65 it's around 65%. The majority of these vaccinations occur in the fall, but they continue to immunize people into January. This 6-8 month period is due to the use of hen eggs (good ol' 1940s technology (I'm not joking, 1940s tech is still being used to make flu vaccines)) in the manufacturing process. There have been attempts to replace the egg-method with a much faster cell-based manufacturing process, but funding for vaccines (particularly non-HIV vaccines) is poor and there's an attitude of don't-fix-what-sorta-works. Given that it's unknown exactly what type of vaccine will be approved it's hard to predict how long it'll take to manufacture. Most of the leading vaccines candidates use either a viral vector or mRNA approach. Neither approach would take as long to manufacture as an egg-based method. However both are dependent on the availability GMP-quality bioreactors and GMP-trained staff. I assume these are being reserved, manufactured, and trained, but I'm not involved in the process. Logistically, distributing and administering a vaccine in the US is extremely quick. The flu vaccine is largely distributed and administered over a 2 month period from mid October-mid Dec and the only reason it even takes that long is that the general population, and even vulnerable populations, are largely indifferent to getting it. It's certainly possible that any potential COVID vaccine would take longer to administer than the seasonal flu vaccine because of lack of public engagement due to vaccine skepticism. That's why it's so damaging for mainstream politicians to be peddling that nonsense and why the CDC director is an idiot who should resign in disgrace.

The article is from Pakistan, not Oxford.

There are many reasons why pandemics spread to some locations and not others. Quantifying and ranking those reasons is extremely difficult. Certainly compliance to population-level mitigation efforts is one of those reasons. In my experience compliance has been pretty bad in most geographical areas (my work-travel is considered essential) with rural areas being significantly more non-complaint than urban areas (...though urban areas have generally had much more disease than rural areas). However, compliance is just one factor and I doubt it's the only factor involved in the recent increase in cases in the Midwest.

Link to support your claim? Plenty of science to support the opposite: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know Here are a couple pre-COVID studies that look at mask use and disease transmission. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

I said I was done discussing this, but you're greatly misstating my position(s) so I feel I need to respond one final time. I have NEVER said anything advocating herd immunity as "a SOLE precaution against COVID-19". I even state "You can argue that it's not the best option". If you honestly think that I'm advocating herd immunity as "a SOLE precaution against COVID-19" you need to go reread what I wrote. I spent 15 years of my life making vaccines. I've been an extremely strong vaccine advocate throughout this thread. Do you honestly believe that I don't think vaccines are, in all likelihood, going to be a fantastic, highly efficacious, safe, low-cost option? I'm sorry to hear that you are a high-risk individual and I truly understand why that would make this a hot button issue. However you must stop incorrectly restating my positions. It is unfair to me and detrimental to productive discussion. Use quotes in the future if you want to respond to something I said instead of using straw-mans.

You sorta did, though ... which is why I was surprised you responded the way you did, saying that herd immunity is a viable option based on historic context. I do realize that is technically correct, but it also defies the advancements in medical science and in civilization in general. I'm a literal medical scientist. Your argument is that a medical scientist does not believe in medical science. This is a ridiculous position and as a result I don't wish to discuss it with you further.

I don't understand this. The concept of herd immunity is extremely well established, well documented, and well accepted. Do you think it's some sort of conspiracy?

Humanity has survived many many epidemics/pandemics throughout history. Most ended via some level of herd immunity. You can argue that it's not the best option, but it absolutely is a 'viable option'. It's been the default option fo millennia. If that's the case, why even invest in medical research? While we're at it, why invest in roads, sewers, and plants that provide safe water to drink? We could go back to the Middle Ages, when people threw their raw sewage out the window into the street below, and epidemics ran rampant. I realize that what I'm saying above is very hyperbolic, but I guess the point is that if we have the technology and know-how to keep people alive though an epidemic, why choose not to? I'm not going to respond to a straw-man argument. I'm not making any of the claims you're ascribing to me.

Could you please provide a link to this study? On important thing to note that most of the public is confused about is that just because someone tests 'negative' for anti-COVID antibody does not that they do not have anti-COVID antibody. All ELISAs (the gold-standard test used to detect the presence of serum-antibody) have a little-of-detection below which, the ELISA is not sensitive enough to reliably detect specific antibody above background. The smallpox vaccine, for example, is protective for decades after anti-smallpox serum antibody titers fall below the limit-of-detection. It's also unknown what the correlate(s) of protection are for COVID. For most infectious disease it's non-neutralizing or neutralizing antibody titers, but not all.

I personally don't believe that attempting to float the idea of herd immunity as a viable option (sans a viable and effective vaccine) is helpful or responsible either, but perhaps that's just me. Humanity has survived many many epidemics/pandemics throughout history. Most ended via some level of herd immunity. You can argue that it's not the best option, but it absolutely is a 'viable option'. It's been the default option fo millennia.

The reason I point this out is it's a pretty classic example of trying to fit the data to your worldview instead of fitting your worldview to the data. Being accurate and specific (and well-sourced) with statements will help to avoid that. Endemic coronaviruses are quite different than SARS and MERS. Who knows what COVID will look like? Look up the concepts "antigenic drift" and "antigenic shift" if you want to learn why reinfection with flu is common. It's a unique disease and as such is a very poor comparator to COVID if you want to look at re-infection risk.

These are news articles, not studies, but I'll look at them anyways. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know "According to Lauren Rodda, PhD, a senior postdoctoral fellow in immunology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, we don’t know for certain if people are immune to reinfection simply because not enough studies have been done yet." ...and then it goes on to reference a non-peer reviewed preprint 'study'. "In a different study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers in Iceland studied 1,107 people who had recovered from COVID-19 and tested positive for the antiviral antibodies. Over a 4-month period of time, they found that those antiviral antibodies against COVID-19 had not declined" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/could-covid-19-immunity-really-disappear-months/614377/ This article is listing reasons why it's doubtful that immunity wanes. Did you copy/paste the wrong link? Neither article supports the statement "So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well." They do support the idea of "It's not knowable at this time," which is the position that most of my colleagues take.

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study? A study that shows people get multiple colds? Is that really disputed? IDK here is something that says coronaviruses are one of the types that cause common cold. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/coronaviruses . Probably a zillion other places that say it too. I was quite obviously referring to this statement "So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well."

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study?

'Other than funding' is kind of a big deal though; that determines whether the research happens or not and even whether the lab remains open. Of course this is the case; that's why I mentioned funding. Research priorities (ie funding levels) change frequently due to all sorts of things, including politics, overall funding levels, public interest, scientific merit/progress, and overall potential. I clearly was saying that the idea that labs researching COVID are being suppressed (or non-funded) if they don't produce the 'correct' results is, in my experience, conspiracy theory level nonsense. I have never seen it nor heard of it from any of my coworkers. Maybe it occurs somewhere and/or I'm just blind, but I've spent years working in government labs and I've seen zero indication of it. The idea of writing off research from the CDC and NIH because it's too politicized is just as ridiculous, in my opinion, as writing off climate change research from NOAA because someone feels that organization is too politicized. Most people will cling to the moral highground of "trust the science" when it suits their politics but will then completely write it off when it doesn't.

I don't really have a lot to add to this thread as I think it's become more about society and politics rather than virology and epidemiology and those are things that just don't interest me. However, I feel like I need to mention that when I talk with infectious disease scientists and doctors they are far less declarative and certain about their statements than many people here and in the general public. It's interesting that MDs treating COVID patients and infectious disease experts are far more reserved and cautious in their commentary than those in the media and general public. Additionally, I have never heard from any real scientist that national-level political fights were influencing their research (other than funding and whatnot). Maybe it happens are the director-level, but it's not a thing for the people actually doing research. ...or at least it something that I've never heard of and my previous research was so severely politicized that I and the rest of my team received anonymous death threats.

Vaccines have a phenomenal safety record. I've been fighting against the antivax movement for my entire adult life. Seeing mainstream politicians and media endorse antivax conspiracies and polls that show over 2/3 of Americans are now distrustful of vaccination is very disheartening.

Vaccines have a phenomenal safety record. I've been fighting against the antivax movement for my entire adult life. Seeing mainstream politicians and media endorse antivax conspiracies and polls that show over 2/3 of Americans are now distrustful of vaccination is very disheartening.

Vaccines have a phenomenal safety record. I've been fighting against the antivax movement for my entire adult life. Seeing mainstream politicians and media endorse antivax conspiracies and polls that show over 2/3 of Americans are now distrustful of vaccination is very disheartening.

There's a ton of misinformation and disinformation out there regarding the seasonal flu vaccine. I'm certain that'll be 10x worse with any COVID vaccine. Most people in vaccine research pretty much accept that compliance will always be very suboptimal. C'est la vie.