[Kryptid]

Covid-19 is a relatively mild virus that actually kills only a small percentage of the population.  A far smaller percentage, I suspect, than all the cars, airplanes, trains, busses, and other mechanical and electrical devices have killed in the time since they were invented.  So why don't we stop using all of them, because they sometimes kill people?

Those technologies have benefits that are indispensable for modern society. We also actively work to make technologies safer over time. The benefit of COVID-19 that justifies allowing it to kill unabated is... what, exactly?

Why aren't they banned?

Alcohol was once banned in the United States. That didn't work out very well.

Apparently the deaths they cause are acceptable.

The risks associated with smoking are public knowledge. If a person smokes, they are knowingly putting themselves at risk for a shortened lifespan. Same thing for people who are chronic drunks (I don't know if people partaking in occasional social drinks have such a risk or not). Alcohol causing people other than the drunkard to die (such as with drunk driving) have laws designed to reduce its incidence.

[Bored chemist]

I don't like your emotive appeals about: "Who do you want to see dead"..

It is unfortunate that you don't like the truth.

Covid-19 is a relatively mild virus that actually kills only a small percentage of the population.  A far smaller percentage, I suspect, than all the cars, airplanes, trains, busses, and other mechanical and electrical devices have killed in the time since they were invented.  So why don't we stop using all of them, because they sometimes kill
people?

because there's a benefit to cars, but no benefit to covid.

So I really can't understand the present hysterical attitude towards CV-19. 

It seems that either there is much that you don't understand, or you are trolling.

[alancalverd]

You might just as well say,  that cars sometimes run over and kill people.

Don't know about you, but I take care not to kill people with my car. Infectious diseases have no such scruples.

I'm not being emotive. If allowed to run riot, COVID will almost certainly hospitalise 5 of your nearest and dearest 25, and kill one. I'm offering you the opportunity to choose who, and tell them, thus substituting purpose and preparation  for randomness. 

[charles1948]

You might just as well say,  that cars sometimes run over and kill people.

Don't know about you, but I take care not to kill people with my car. Infectious diseases have no such scruples.

I'm not being emotive. If allowed to run riot, COVID will almost certainly hospitalise 5 of your nearest and dearest 25, and kill one. I'm offering you the opportunity to choose who, and tell them, thus substituting purpose and preparation  for randomness.

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?

We can easily absorb such a small loss.  Your argument seems to be based entirely on appeals to the emotions.

Such as:  "My grandfather died of Covid-19 at the age of 85.  If he hadn't caught Covid, he might've lived another year.  This was emotionally devastating to me."

Doesn't this smack of falsity? I mean all people die eventually. From old age. So why weep because it's from a virus?

And on the point about the cars, couldn't they be designed to be less liable to kill anyone.
By fitting each car with wide rubber bumpers, half a metre thick, all round the car. The impact-absorbing properties of such bumpers would surely reduce fatalities during collisions.

So why aren't cars fitted with them?  Is it because we don't really care?

[Bored chemist]

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?

You seem to think that, because everyone dies, we shouldn't try to prevent it.
Is that really your view?
Incidentally, it isn't right to say it "only kills 1 person out of 30".
It also maims a lot of people, and looking after them is very expensive.

[Bored chemist]

Your argument seems to be based entirely on appeals to the emotions.

Such as:  "My grandfather died of Covid-19 at the age of 85. 

He didn't make that argument, did he?

That's just you setting up a straw man.

Don't do it again.

[charles1948]

Don't do it again.

I might.

[jeffreyH]

You might just as well say,  that cars sometimes run over and kill people.

Don't know about you, but I take care not to kill people with my car. Infectious diseases have no such scruples.

I'm not being emotive. If allowed to run riot, COVID will almost certainly hospitalise 5 of your nearest and dearest 25, and kill one. I'm offering you the opportunity to choose who, and tell them, thus substituting purpose and preparation  for randomness.

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?

We can easily absorb such a small loss.  Your argument seems to be based entirely on appeals to the emotions.

Such as:  "My grandfather died of Covid-19 at the age of 85.  If he hadn't caught Covid, he might've lived another year.  This was emotionally devastating to me."

Doesn't this smack of falsity? I mean all people die eventually. From old age. So why weep because it's from a virus?

And on the point about the cars, couldn't they be designed to be less liable to kill anyone.
By fitting each car with wide rubber bumpers, half a metre thick, all round the car. The impact-absorbing properties of such bumpers would surely reduce fatalities during collisions.

So why aren't cars fitted with them?  Is it because we don't really care?

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?

Wow! Callous beyond belief.

[Bored chemist]

beyond belief.

Quite; my guess is he's trolling.

[charles1948]

beyond belief.

Quite; my guess is he's trolling.

Just like you?

[Bored chemist]

beyond belief.

Quite; my guess is he's trolling.

Just like you?

No. The point about trolling is that you lie.

I don't.

[evan_au]

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?
We can easily absorb such a small loss.

In a good year, a country's GDP will grow by perhaps 2-4%, or around 1 part in 30.
- If that varies by 1 part in 30, that is a big deal! Governments have been voted out for less.
- In economics, if a country's GDP growth is negative for 6 months, the country is in a recession

In 2020, nearly all countries were in recession, due to the impacts of COVID-19.
- See the world map here (and move the slider down the bottom from 2021 back to 2020): https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
- Figures for 2021 and beyond are guesses, assuming that COVID-19 vaccines are deployed promptly, and manage to contain the variants

The US MAGA (slogan: "Make America Great Again!") ridiculed COVID-19 precautions, and went into the red.
- Ironically, China, (once they admitted they had a COVID-19 problem) took strenuous steps to control it, and was one of the few countries to show economic growth in 2020.

[Colin2B]

beyond belief.

Quite; my guess is he's trolling.

Or psychopathic - dehumanise people then it’s ok for them to die or be killed. Psychopaths also lie.

[alancalverd]

Alan, if the Covid-19 virus only kills 1 person out of 30, according to your figures, what's the big deal?

Not according to my figures, but your bizarre mathematics. 4% is 1 in 25 on my planet.

We can easily absorb such a small loss.  Your argument seems to be based entirely on appeals to the emotions.

I haven't made an argument, just asked you to answer a simple question based on observed facts, which you have refused to do. I therefore presume you are a politician. When those parasites say "we" they mean "you". You have refused to name 5 friends and relatives you want to hospitalise and the one you want dead from an entirely avoidable but untreatable cause. No emotion, just inconveniencing others for your own fun and profit.

Or do you mean that laying down your own life will benefit others? Disease doesn't work like that, and there's a big difference between a hero and an idiot.
.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Our planet is suffering from overpopulation as detailed in Horizon program "7.7 billion people and rising". last night on BBC2.  Chris Packham showed the result conclusively.  We now have 200 million more mouths to feed.     See  https://www.worldometers.info/population/   
The world is in need of a much more vicious pandemic than Covid 19 and we need to pray that God will save the planet?   

[alancalverd]

The COVID pandemic won't solve the population problem, for the simple reason that most of the dead are well past reproductive age.

What is needed is fewer babies, not more disabled people of working age.

There is no god. Or if there is, he invented malaria, trachoma and congenital syphilis, and is therefore despicable. May your prayers never be answered.

[Bored chemist]

we need to pray that God will

Just have a quick look at the news over the last 2000 years or so.
God doesn't do what people pray for.

We don't need an outbreak of some plague; we need an outbreak of common sense.
And religion opposes that.
People who have been brainwashed into thinking that there was a virgin birth and that slavery and bigotry are "good things" are being led down the path of failing to think things through.

[CliffordK]

a virus that causes a mortality rate of less than 1 percent of us!

Currently, 4% of those infected, in the best available healthcare systems.

There are different "fatality rates"
Case Fatality Rate
Infection Fatality Rate

The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is simply numerator of those that died vs denominator those that have been diagnosed with the disease.

The problem is that we know that there are an awful lot of people that never bothered to get tested, or had extremely mild symptoms. 

So, if one takes the number that have died of COVID divided by a mythical number of the total infected, one gets an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR).

We know that at least in the first wave last spring, hardly anybody was tested, so we were seeing huge case fatality rates.

Overall, countries are still varying significantly.
USA, 30 Million cases, 549K documented deaths ==> less than 2% CFR
UK, 4.3 Million cases, 127K deaths ==>  3% CFR
Thailand, 28,773 cases, 94 deaths ==> 0.32% CFR
New Zealand, 2,493 cases, 26 deaths ==> 1.04% CFR

Looking at New Zealand more, excluding the early cases.  On June 1, 1,504 cases, 22 deaths.
Today, 2,493 cases, 26 deaths.  So, in the last 989 cases there have been 4 deaths.  Or about a 0.4% CFR.  Pushing the statistics a bit, but in line with the Thailand numbers.

I like to use about 1% as the infection fatality rate, but it is likely closer to the 0.3% to 0.4% seen in Thailand and New Zealand.

Of course WHO gets infected can throw those numbers around a lot.  So, if we get a bunch of teenagers and college students with a low mortality rate getting infected, while the elderly and frail are able to effectively stay isolated, then that could skew it to lower numbers.  Even if those who get infected are reasonably healthy business travelers while the frail elderly are protected, that would skew to lower numbers.

On the other hand, if the disease blasts through nursing homes, hospitals, and elderly care centers, that could artificially raise the numbers.

One might be able to improve the calculations by looking at the IFR for each age group and then calculating it for the population as a whole.

Anyway, ideally one would have about the 0.3% to 0.4% IFR, but a real world estimate of about 1% is easier to calculate in one's head.

The corollary, of course, is that if the USA has 549K deaths, we've likely had somewhere between 50 million people infected and 150 million people infected.  So, somewhere between 1/6 of the population and 1/2 of the population.

The UK with 127K deaths likely has had between 12 million and 35 million cases, again somewhere between 1/6 and 1/2 of the population. 

Of course the disease isn't hitting age groups and locations equally.  So some cities might hit the "herd immunity" while others might still have most of the population vulnerable.

[CliffordK]

Back to the question about vaccines.

I really wish we had gotten a vaccine out by last fall. 

Comparing this to the 2009 Swine Flu, the virus was first isolated in April.  On September 15, the US CDC approved the vaccine.  And by October 5, vaccination was begun.  So, from disease to vaccine was about 6 months.

For COVID, I think part of the problem was jumping from lab testing and low production of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines to mainstream use.  So future vaccines will already have that groundwork completed.

Fortunately development was well underway for SARS/MERS vaccines, and that framework transferred over to COVID.  But, we have a canine enteric coronavirus vaccine, but no canine kennel cough coronavirus vaccine, perhaps in part due to different lethality.  Nonetheless, there would have been a valid concern for an effective respiratory vaccine.

By last summer, we were already getting safety and dosing studies completed.  By that time we also knew that the vaccine candidates were generating a robust immune response. 

I believe at that time the governments should have supported full production early.  Have a sliding scale, of say $10 per dose no matter what.  $20 per dose following EUA.  A few doses in the garbage bin would have been worth hundreds of thousands of deaths, and economic hardships extending well into the second year.

People also like the 90+% effective vaccines, but even a 50% effective vaccine would have knocked down the virus.  And, really the critical issue is keeping people out of longterm hospital care and preventing deaths, which all the current vaccines seem to be very effective at doing.

So, could we have distributed the vaccine once a robust immune response was documented? 

Of course, the big risk is to make things much worse.  We know some of the risk of lethality is the immune response (and thus steroids help treatment).  But, a negative potentiation effect doesn't seem common with vaccines.

As far as the next gen vaccines, I would like to see a cocktail vaccine.  Pick out 3 or 4 of the most important spike proteins and build a cocktail.  If the cocktail contains the original spike, then it likely could jump ahead of most of the efficacy studies, and simply require a safety and dosing study.

Second booster with the cocktail?

Or, perhaps start production as soon as we start winding down this current vaccine production to have the new cocktail ready for this fall.

While there is no substitute for a good placebo controlled study, one can also do a "standard of care" controlled study.  So, give 1 million people the new cocktail, and 1 million the old vaccine, and compare the two without giving anybody placebo doses (or a small group of placebo doses).

And, we need to figure out how to get the doses made and distributed. 

3 BILLION doses?  10 BILLION doses?  No single manufacturer has the capacity.  We need a global production and licensing effort.  Accept government licensing and contracts or EUA authorizations, and a company will also have to accept licensing contracts.  No licensing, and no government support, and back on the slow road to development.

[acsinuk (OP)]

I agree Clifford,  labs must respond immediately and test on volunteers from old folks homes where they can be monitored for side effects.
This living in fear is unnecessary and mentally damaging.  For ever and a day we have had viruses and pandemics but it is for God to decide who lives and who dies not panicking politicians.  It is our right to lead normal active lives , free of fear and as in the past we must all in the end obtain natural herd immunity.
If medico's can assist with vaccines then all to the good but lockdowns are no good as everyone must be herd immune in the end.