Skip to content

Please just make it stop

I am in Rome and only barely following current events. Nevertheless, I can summarize the latest COVID-19 news for you:

  • The Delta variant is bad. It spreads very quickly.
  • However, all of the vaccines are very effective against it. They strongly reduce your chance of contracting Delta; and if you have the bad luck to get it anyway, the vaccines massively reduce the severity of COVID.
  • So get vaccinated if you prefer not to die. The vaccines are extremely safe.
  • And just suck it up and wear a mask unless you're at home or in uncrowded outdoor settings. Is this overkill? It might be. But then again, it might not be. We don't know for sure. So just do it.

That's about it. This is what all the latest research and all the various announcements (Ptown, "breakthrough" cases, etc.) add up to: If you don't want to die, get vaccinated. Nothing has really changed.

106 thoughts on “Please just make it stop

  1. skeptonomist

    "If you don't want to die" is not the main reason for getting vaccinated. It's a public health requirement that only works if enough people do it. We have speed limits and other rules because of the danger to others - the choice is not up to the individual.

    1. Rattus Norvegicus

      With the hard core holdout crowd it is probably better to pander to self-interest. They just don't recognize that they have a responsibility to others. Reason #10248 that I despise modern "conservatives".

      1. cld

        These people absolutely do not care if someone else might die as long as you can't trace it back to them, in fact they think that's a feature, not a bug.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      "If you don't want to die" is not the main reason for getting vaccinated.

      Maybe not yours. But most people's.

  2. Salamander

    I hear that in some parts of the United States, some Republicans are beginning to wake up to the danger. Too often, on their deathbeds, but it's been a hard lesson for their families and friends.

    One might have imagined that over 610,000 dead Americans alone (and 4,000,000 plus others around the world) would have made an impression, but some folks don't recognize reality until it sinks its teeth and claws into them personally,

    1. Spadesofgrey

      Outside the South and Socal hispanics/Blacks, very little hospitalization. 60% of the 34000 from today was from there.

    2. bebopman

      The tv news is getting less hesitant to show the uglier stuff. Interviewing nurses who describe patients who refused vaccine crying out for the vaccine just before they are intubated and the nurses can only say, sorry dear it’s too late. Now let me jam this tube down your throat! )ok I made up the last sentence) … also saw a cbs guy who permission to sit with a wife crying out of control next to her dying husband and describing how he refused the vaccine. I had to turn my head cause her agony was very tough to watch.

      Also nurses tell of people getting vaccine and begging the nurses not to tell their friends that they got it. (Wtf)

  3. Larry Jones

    Will do, Mr. Drum!
    BTW, hope your camera is fixed. Looking forward to your panoramic travelogue. Also, I know the feeling when critical appliances let you down: frustration, anger, hopelessness. You have my sympathy. Worst case, buy a cheap point-and-shoot, and get on with the touristing.

      1. Larry Jones

        Rattus Norvegicus - To be fair, I did say "worst case," which would be if the phone didn't work, either. But I was working from memory and I thought he said all his stuff was malfunctioning. Anyway -- just my preference -- I prefer a device with a shutter button, as I always wiggle the phone trying to touch the on-screen button.

        1. Rattus Norvegicus

          Me too. That's why I used a mirrorless, or as my brother dubbed then many long years ago: EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) camera. Best toy I've bought in years :-).

      2. wvmcl2

        Lots of reasons. A phone is in many way impractical for good photography - difficult to hold, no good viewfinder (especially in sunny conditions), settings not intuitive, button not easy to push, etc. I have a Sony point and shoot that I use in most situations when I want good results - the phone is basically a backup and what I always have with me.

  4. Spadesofgrey

    Stop counting vaccinated asymptomatic cases as "cases". That is distorting the numbers. Hospitalization is down 15,000 from last summer's peak despite the nominally higher numbers. Which means little health care stress. Delta schmelta.

    Notice that vaccinations have gone up since there was more spread. Let it run its course like in India and the Uk.

    1. bbleh

      Lol right, it’s “only” about 70% of last summer’s peak, even as it’s still growing rapidly.

      But don’t worry, as Kevin McCarthy has shown, even morons can go far in America!

        1. Larry Jones

          As of yesterday (July 30), per CDC: "COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are once again increasing in nearly all states, fueled by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant, which is much more contagious than past versions of the virus."

        1. Larry Jones

          Jasper_in_Boston - Most of the time I can't even figure out what it's trying to say. When I can parse it, you would deny me the small pleasure of a one-sentence rebuttal? Anyway, I haven't seen a reduction in droppings caused by not feeding.

          1. bbleh

            I sorta feel the same way, especially when it can be done in a mocking way; it's entertaining for me (and maybe for other readers), and MAGAts do NOT like to be mocked.

  5. cld

    Saw on tv your chances of dying of covid if you're vaccinated are one in a million, but if you're unvaccinated they're one in thirty.

    Meanwhile Governor Ron DeSanity is actively trying to kill as many people as he can encourage to commit suicide.

    Of course it's all there own fault if they really do die, they made that commitment to freedom themselves, standing up to the man, and that's the important thing.

    It's like, I don't know, a jihad, or something. One day Florida will build a fountain that gushes blood in their honor.

    1. Rattus Norvegicus

      One in 30 seems a bit exaggerated. 1 in 500 is more like it, although there are rumblings that Delta has twice the fatality rate of the others, so it might be more like 1 in 250. And Delta apparently does not spare the young from severe disease, and they are still heavily undervaccinated.

      1. rational thought

        1 in 30 vs. 1 in 1,000,000 is preposterous. Where did you her that, cld? That is even more ridiculous than the previous comment that delta is 1000 times more infectious.

        I am still surprised that partisans on both sides of the covid question just repeat things that make no sense at all and cannot be true if you just think a little, as long as the comment is on " their side " of the argument.

        I expect 1 in 30 likely might come from comparing deaths to just confirmed cases ( where I think it is closer to 1 in 60 or 50) and then either hypothesizing that there are some undiscovered deaths ( without taking into account the undiscovered cases which are a much more important issue) or maybe assuming delta is more deadly to get from 1 in 50 to 1 in 30.

        The true infection fatality rate we not know without knowing the ratio of actual cases to confirmed cases. The estimates of that have a wide range running from maybe somewhere a bit over 2 to 1 to as much as 5 to 1. Clearly it was higher initially with poor testing, dropped by winter wave and seems now somewhat higher ( due largely to who is unvaccinated- correlates with those less likely to get tested if they catch covid).

        My guess at true unvaccinated ifr for original for average age is maybe .3 .5% but with much uncertainty. 1 in 500 or .2% was possible guess at start but by winter wave it seems hard to believe that low anymore.

        But where 1 in 1,000,000 for vaccinated coming from? Hard for me to see how they can get there no matter what they did. Maybe this is includes chance that you will catch covid today or in future, and then die. So if you estimate chance of catching covid if vaccinated is low as this wave will die out soon ( so 5%? Or 1 in 20.which seems maybe ok) then you would still need a chance of dying of only 1 in 50,000 to get to 1 in 1,000,000. Hard to see it that low.

        And even if it was, that would be comparing confirmed ifr for unvaccinated to total ifr for vaccinated and so is incompetent.

        I have heard some talk about delta being more deadly than original but so far no actual evidence of that except a few highly questionable studies. Looking at actual evidence so far from uk and usa, it looks much more likely that delta is actually less deadly.

        1. Spadesofgrey

          Less deadly, though ignoring "cases" by the vaccinated, which reduces sickness to nothing, probably not much different than alpha/beta. It's the same ole virus.

          1. cld

            Ah, just realized I mis-typed it, they said 1 in 30 odds of dying of Delta for the unvaccinated.

            I apologize to the Earth for my error.

        2. Jasper_in_Boston

          This suggests about 1 in 100K fully vaccinated Americans has died of covid:

          https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/health/fully-vaccinated-people-breakthrough-hospitalization-death/index.html

          Probably something like 1 in 400 non-vaccinated Americans have died of covid (I'm making a conservative estimate taking into consideration undercount of covid deaths).

          So, that suggests to me that the choice to eschew vaccination means accepting a 250-fold increase in the risk of dying from covid.

          1. rational thought

            No, it doesn't.

            You have to adjust for the fact that the vaccinated have mostly been that way during a period when infections and infection risk were lower , and also a shorter period. So you need to compare the chances through the same period.

            Given the lag in reporting of both cases and deaths, and when the vaccinations happened, let us pick mid to late march, as I expect the large majority of vaccine deaths should have occurred after that date ( but do not know for sure as they are just telling us total). From that date.,the total deaths were only around 1/10 of total cumulative.

            But then you also have to make adjustments the other way . From that date you have to subtract off from total population the avg number vaccinated ( maybe subtract off 30%). And adjust for who is vaccinated vs. who is not.

            Overall, hard to know where it comes out- too many adjustments to do - but certainly less than your 250 times. By a lot.

            Note that 250 times would be a vaccine efficacy at preventing death of 99.75% and no study is saying that good.

            And there is just no reason to manipulate and play games to make vaccines look better. The death reduction is clearly enough so that those making a decision of that basis would get vaccinated. I cannot see anyone changing their mind if the thought it reduced chance of death by 250 times and not 25 times.

            I also question you still trying to adjust for excess unreported covid deaths. That was a factor earlier on before there was a lot of testing but not now. Really, how many today are actually going to die of covid symptoms and never get tested for covid ( even after death)? The overestimate of covid deaths through those dying "with covid " instead of "of covid" is certainly a bigger factor with current deaths. Probably around 20% and that is simple math.

            But adjusting for that should actually maybe make the vaccine differential better as there should be a higher %age of " with covid" for vaccinated. Assuming that the same death reporting standards are being used with vaccinated, which I doubt , but still think that bias might be making vaccine death rate look worse than it really is.

          2. Jasper_in_Boston

            Note that 250 times would be a vaccine efficacy at preventing death of 99.75% and no study is saying that good.

            Per CNN:

            The CDC reported 6,587 Covid-19 breakthrough cases as of July 26, including 6,239 hospitalizations and 1,263 deaths. At that time, more than 163 million people in the United States were fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Divide those severe breakthrough cases by the total fully vaccinated population for the result: less than 0.004% of fully vaccinated people had a breakthrough case that led to hospitalization and less than 0.001% of fully vaccinated people died from a breakthrough Covid-19 case.

            https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/health/fully-vaccinated-people-breakthrough-hospitalization-death/index.html

            Sure, additional fully vaccinated people are going to die, so that ratio is obviously going to rise, but at least per the CDC, the vaccinations would appear as of now to be incredibly potent at preventing covid deaths.

          3. Rattus Norvegicus

            Jasper,

            It is also important to read the footnotes to the CDC data, not all of those cases are people who are hospitalized or died because of COVID-19. About a quarter of them are people who were hospitalized or died *with* COVID-19.

            So the numbers of people hospitalized and/or dying of COVID-19 (as opposed to *with* COVID-19) are:

            4,641 hospitalized
            954 deaths

            Out of 163,000,000 fully vaccinated. So 1 in 180K to round the numbers. So the odds aren't as bad as those of winning the lottery, I'm on the other side of the bet. I'll gladly take those odds.

          4. qx49

            Slide three in this leaked CDC slide deck shows that the chances of a fully vaccinated person dying from a breakthrough infection to be really really slim. If I run those numbers it looks like a 1/2,500,000 chance of dying if you've been fully vaccinated. I might making a basic math error here, but I multiplied the chances of being hospitalized by the chance of dying and (0.001*0.0004=4e-7) and than I take the reciprocal of that number. It gives me 2,500,000. So 1/2,500,000 are the odds of you dying if you're fully vaxxed and you develop a breakthrough case that kills you.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1

      2. qx49

        CDC puts the IFR at 0.7 percent. So that's 7 chances in 1,000 of dying from an infection. But if I look at the US data it looks closer to 1-1.2 percent — that is if I assume about twice as many people caught it were either asymptomatic or not sick enough to get tested. I derive that estimate number from post surge seropositive numbers. I don't see how the CDC derived their IFR number. Sometimes they're too opaque for their own good.

        1. rational thought

          Actually I see errors

          Fitst just a silly typo. You added an extra zero to the. 004% but not to the. 001. Correct that and you have. 001 times .004.

          Second math. They are both percents. So you have to add two zeroes to each so .00001 times .00004. Which after you multiply and take the inverse gets you 4 in 10 billion or 1 in 2.5 billion.

          Third logic. It is incorrect to multiply them in the first place. That would be correct if the .001 % was the chance of someone who was hospitalized dying. But it was the chance of all vaccinated dying. So you already have the answer before you multiply. The inverse of .00001 or 1 in 100,000.

          Fourth conceptual. That is the chance that someone vaccinated today had of dying up to this point. That only represents the past and does not predict the future. If you want to use that to predict the future, you need to weight by the infection risk for each day in the period ( high at start of vaccinations and low in may and getting a bit higher now) and what percent of those vaccinated today were vaccinated on those prior days.

          The 1 in 100,000 or. 0001% is sort of a garbage stat in the first place that seems to be used to mislead. You cannot take total deaths over a period where the infection risk was changing and total vaccinated growing as a numerator and simply divide by total vaccinated at end of the period.

          1. rational thought

            And this is meant more as a tease as I know what you meant to say .

            But the chance of you dying " if you are fully vaxxed and develop a breakthrough case that kills you is 100% by definition if determined before death. Or actually 0% based on strict semantics as you cannot die after it has already killed you. 😁

      1. rational thought

        Cld,

        You made me look back and see that you had not specified delta because I had always assumed that was what you were referring to. At this point, with delta so dominant, nothing else worth talking about.

      2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        The #fakenews #democratcaptured FBI that is currently torturing American patriots swept up in the bilge from the BLM-led January 6th siege of the US Capitol won't do anything to confront a lying liberal on the Internet.

  6. Justin

    Around Independence Day, State Rep. Bill Kidd, from the Kansas City suburbs, revealed that he has been infected by the coronavirus.
    “And no, we didn’t get the vaccine,” he wrote in a post that has since been deleted. “We’re Republicans 😆”
    State Rep. Brian Seitz, a Republican from Taney County, home to the tourist destination of Branson, commented on the post by falsely claiming that the virus had been developed by top government scientist Anthony Fauci and billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates. They “knew what was coming,” Seitz wrote.
    “The jury is still out on the ‘vaccine’ (who knows what’s in that),” he wrote.

    It’s really ok if these people suffer and die. They probably won’t, gosh darn it, but it’s ok if they do.

    1. Justin

      “The Delta variant, which was first found in India, now comprises more than 80% of new cases nationwide and has been detected in more than 90 countries.”

      I guess we call this the Indian flu. It’s funny… Mr. Drum is running around all over the world and then complaining about people spreading COVID. Well… how about you all stop running around all over the world spreading disease?

      Perhaps this whole international travel thing is just a really bad idea.

  7. weirdnoise

    It's true that "they knew what was coming" -- along with just about every virologist and epidemiologist on the planet. SARS was the wakeup call. We might not even have vaccines yet if that hadn't kicked up efforts to work on zoonotic coronaviruses a decade ago.

  8. D_Ohrk_E1

    To reiterate, the J&J is now one's best option against Delta if you're in the middle of the storm.

    67% -- J&J efficacy after 14 days, against moderate/severe disease -- https://bityl.co/87y8
    33% -- Pfizer efficacy after 21 days, against moderate/severe disease (assumed Moderna is similar, being also mRNA-based) -- https://bityl.co/87y9

      1. Spadesofgrey

        No.It's not. It's the best for stopping total transmission. All the vaccines reduce sickness to nothing.

      2. D_Ohrk_E1

        All those people rushing to get vaccines in hot spots don't have the luxury to wait 1-1/2 months for the 2-shot vaccines to reach higher efficacy than the 1-shot J&J.

        Furthermore, while US officials won't approve of the practice (at least not yet), other countries have either approved or are exploring mixing-and-matching vaccines. -- https://bityl.co/883M

        After you've gotten the J&J shot, down the line you might be able to get a different shot to boost your overall immune system reaction.

        Florida's in the process of blowing past its prior peak infection rate from this past winter. There just isn't the time to wait for 2-shot vaccines to hit a higher efficacy.

        1. rational thought

          That is a good point re getting the j&j vaccine instrad of phizer or modena.

          Even if j&j is worse than phizer full vaccination, too late if this wave runs its course with a big infection in a month. For themselves and especially for the community, j&j now and maybe phizer as 2and does make more sense at this point.

      1. D_Ohrk_E1

        The error bars for the Moderna 1-shot >14 days range from 50% to 80%, but it looks promising if it's hitting 72% >14 days. What's not making sense is why it'd go down at >21 to 70%. Under the delayed 2nd shot protocol, it's been documented that immunity continues to climb.

        The Pfizer one is reaching only 56% at 14 days. I'm inclined to believe that the Moderna is probably in *that* ballpark rather than the 70% they pegged.

        In any case, the J&J hits a higher target at 14 days than the Pfizer and is still higher after >21 days w/ single shot Pfizer. And we shouldn't expect these vaccine-hesitant folks to finish their second shot.

  9. golack

    Railing against wearing masks...what a bunch of whiners...

    The latest outbreak has finally broken through some of the vaccine hesitancy, and the US will be at 70% vaccinated (first dose) by Aug 4th--only a month late. With initial variant, 70% vaccinated (total population, fully vaccinated), would have been good enough to get to "herd immunity". With much more infectious Delta variant, we may need to get to 95% vaccinated.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      I'm actually more hopeful about seeing light at the end of the tunnel than I have been in a while, for a number of reasons:

      *It's going to come at an awful price in the next few months, but naturally-acquired immunity will push us closer to herd immunity, thanks to delta.

      *And yes, we're making renewed progress on vaccinations (which also push us closer to herd immunity) both because of the fear of delta, and because an ever-growing array of institutions, employers, schools and public accommodations are requiring vaccination proof.

      *We should see full authorization (as opposed to EUA) soon, which will also help.

      *Booster shoots are arriving.

      *We're likely to see approval for under 12s, too, in the near future.

      *Promising therapeutics are in the pipeline, too, from what I understand.

      Understandable fear and kvetching aside, things are a lot better than they were this time last year, in that there's a plausible path out of this plague. I do conclude a true "vanishing" of the covid19 pandemic looks implausible (no repeat of when the Spanish Flu vanished, for instance). Although I hope I'm proven wrong on that score. But a manageable (probably with regular booster shots), much lower-danger environment is in sight with the passage of time. The big danger -- and hopefully our species can dodge this bullet -- is the arrival of variants that prove invulnerable to current vaccines.

      1. rational thought

        I agree with some of what you said. Things are really not so bad as they have been. With the number of people who have either vaccine immunity or natural immunity, there just are not all that many left to infect before we get to herd immunity. And those remaining tend to be younger so that will limit the deaths.

        Not saying that another 60,000 deaths is great, but still around 10% of what we have had already.

        I do agree that we are going to get to herd immunity pretty quickly at the rate this spreading, although possible we will get to "summer " herd immunity and have cases go down and then need a small mini wave to push that up to "winter" herd immunity.

        One reason why I cannot support masking and other restrictions now is that they are largely pointless. We are just going to have to have enough new infections to get to herd immunity. Delta is too contagious to stop otherwise. So all restrictions do is delay that with little change in eventual number . In fact can make it worse if it delays herd immunity enough that the vaccine and natural immunity wears off enough to start it over again and cases are not pushed way down first.

        I expect a bump up in cases and a positive R sometime in maybe december to February as the vaccine immunity and natural immunity from winter wave wanes a lot after a year, pushing us back below herd immunity. Best to have a longer period of R below 1 first to get cases way down. So delaying covid now might cost lives in the end.

        You are wrong about the spanish flu. It never did go away. Partially it evolved into something a bit less deadly ( which I think might also be true for delta). And everyone who got the Spanish flu had some immune memory so, even if they got it again, way less deadly. Eventually became just an endemic seasonal virus that everyone catches when young and gets some immunity. And not super deadly. But that endemic virus has also combined with other viruses to create things like Hong Kong flu and thus it is still creating some pandemics years later.

        The good thing is that it seems like covid may have just driven into extinction on the three main types of flu.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          The Spanish Flu pandemic ended fairly abruptly. It's generally dated January 18-April 20. Most of the deaths in the United States took place in a single, 9-month span. I'm not claiming the pathogen itself went extinct. I don't think a similarly abrupt termination of the current crisis is in the cards. I expect we'll still be seeing substantial (albeit hopefully much, much reduced) covid deaths in 2023. Or maybe well thereafter.

          1. rational thought

            I think based on standard definition of 7% of deaths, the pandemic ended in early spring and I do not think we will get back there again.

            The final wave of Spanish flu likely ended more abruptly than covid will because of lack of many restrictions and that immunity from.natural infections lasted fairly well.

            You do read that x people got the Spanish flu but the trajectory suggests that the actual number was significantly higher..

            And note that, once R crosses below 1.0 for herd immunity, you still have a lot of remaining infections so final R should end up well below 1.0 and cases fall real fast..

            With covid, we are going to drag it out a bit longer due to restrictions, assuming they work at all.

      2. golack

        True enough, most elderly and those at risk are vaccinated, so deaths are way down.

        But this outbreak is still enough to overload hospitals in areas. All because people won't get vaccinated or wear masks. Unfortunately the main stream media is portraying this as "confusion" when it's simple--new variant in town, so mask back up to keep everyone safe. If everyone got vaccinated earlier on, we wouldn't have to do this.

  10. rational thought

    Golack,

    The 70% first dose are approaching is for " adults" 16 and over I think. Basically using the criteria biden set for his july 4th prediction. Not for all population, which I think is now at 57% first dose ( which just seems pretty pathetic).

    Pretty sure you knew that but your 2nd sentence seems to imply that you are saying we are about to hit 70% for full population. Also I wish covidactnow would highlight full vaccination % age instead as that seems more important for delta.

    And I was saying before that was losing confidence in covidactnow R calculation. Even more now. Look at the california R estimates for full state and glance through the counties. The full state R is 1.19 but you have to get down to the bottom of the list with small counties to find any county R that low. All of the large counties are above 1.19 and most substantially higher. This cannot be right. They are doing something wrong.

    And I also have been saying that it just seems that natural immunity is more important than vaccination immunity in lowering the R as otherwise I just cannot explain the differences in R between different places. Well I have any idea why that should be true even if natural immunity is actually not better or not quite as good as vaccine. It is all because of who is getting vaccinated vs. Wgo is catching covid and getting natural immunity.

    The vaccinated by nature are more likely the caution careful type of person who is probably a little less social and introverted and not a risk taker. And that person is someone who is less of a covid spread risk whether or not vaccinated. While those who are unvaccinated are more likely to be more social extroverted risk takers who like to party and are the type who are most likely to cause super spreader events. And among unvaccinated, those who also catch covid are the the largest risk for spread.

    Every vaccination pulls someone out of the " susceptible " pool who is less likely to be as large a spread risk as who a covid case takes out of the pool by natural immunity.

    Even if, for any particular individual, getting vaccinated gives somewhat better immunity than catching covid and natural immunity, it still might be that the average improvement to community immunity is larger on average for each natural immunity than each vaccination.

    Also this makes me think of where the biggest bang for the buck is to try to get more vaccinations. From my experience, the real hard line vaccine resistors are not the super social partying superspreaders. The ones you likely will never get are the ones least important to get. The young partiers are more lazy , uninformed ( not misinformed, selfish , do not give a sh*t types. And they might be convinced with stupid stuff like a lottery ticket bribe. Not some scientific argument.

    I also have an observation from here at my condo complex where I am aware of vaccination status of around 15 neighbors. Lately I have seen some start to mask again even outside. But those are all vaccinated. Of those unvaccinated only two are masking and those two elderly have never stopped masking ( they are petrified of both covid and vaccine and plan to hide away until it goes away).

    Which is one reason why I question the usefulness of masking. Unless forced, unvaccinated , the ones where masking might help more, are just not doing it. And asking vaccinated to mask discourages vaccination.

    I just cannot support having vaccinated mask to help prevent deaths among those who both refuse to get vaccinated and also will not do the thing you want vaccinated to do.

    And not saying that I do not care for them or sympathize with them. Those type of heartless thoughts are just evil and have no place in the mind of a decent human being. But that does not mean that you have to be responsible for their decisions.

    1. Art Eclectic

      Back in the 80's when the AIDS crisis was peaking, conservatives and evangelicals said "Oh, it's mostly killing gay people and we're OK with that".

      So, it's perfectly alright to be heartless and say "Oh, it's mostly killing conservatives and evangelicals now, and we're OK with that."

      1. bebopman

        The victims of the aids crisis wanted help and were denied it. The people we have now refuse anything that would help them, even when it’s easy and free. So yes, I have a little less sympathy for them. I seriously do support their right to take that risk they hold so dear, as long as they accept the consequences. I must admit that hearing about how they cry out for the vaccine just before they are intubated doesn’t move me as much as it would if they had at least tried to save themselves.

      2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        Hell, Javanka said similar about the Rona. They thought it was killing nonwhites in Democrat Blue States, so might help Daddy's chances of a red wave, picking up states like Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, & (Allah's will be done) New York.

        Meanwhile, El Jefe bought in on it only adversely affecting people with preexisting conditions, like obesity. & since he's not obese, no big deal. We'd just lose some undesirables.

    2. golack

      Yes, I was using the president's target, 70% of adults, at least single injection, for current state, and for herd immunity, percentage of everyone fully vaccinated.

      Young kids did not seem to spread covid well, at least with the original variant, so vaccination levels for 12+ or 16+ most important. If we could get the 18 to 35 levels of vaccination up, that would help a great deal. That may also be why vaccination levels are going up a bit too--schools and colleges requiring vaccinations.

  11. illilillili

    > They strongly reduce your chance of contracting Delta.

    This is currently being walked back. At least it still seems to protect against totally screwing up your lungs.

  12. cld

    Republicans always look like they've just stuffed their wife's body into the freezer and at this exact moment the doorbell rings.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      If you are looking to cast blame for the spread of the Delta variant, look for a liberal.

      Bingo. Nobody had even heard of Delta when Donald Trump was in office. Within a few months of Biden's theft of the election, BAM, America starts getting attacked by a variant first identified in (where else?) Asia.

      You don't have to have a PhD in political science -- or public health -- to see the disastrous consequences of letting Dems steal elections.

      1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        Exactly.

        (Really, though, I just want to never forget that Orange County GQP nostalgist Kevin Drum said the culture war is uniquely a left offensive.)

  13. Traveller

    "If you are looking to cast blame for the spread of the Delta variant, look for a liberal."

    ???????????????????????????????

    Puzzling comment...could you expand and elucidate a little please.

    Thanks for your attention to this matter.

    Best Wishes, Traveller

    1. James B. Shearer

      |"If you are looking to cast blame for the spread of the Delta variant, look for a |liberal."
      |
      |???????????????????????????????

      Liberals oppose the sort of border restrictions that would have kept delta out of the US.

  14. DFPaul

    Simple clear advice like this would have been great from the beginning but Trump was president and the virus was hurting his feelings so it had to be ignored and denied.

  15. cld

    What are the odds of something worse than delta blowing up before this can all be resolved?

    Is it 50/50, or better, or worse?

    1. golack

      We're seeing the transition from pandemic to epidemic everywhere. So, not sure what you mean be resolved. I expect periodic outbreaks of significant new variants to happen at increasingly longer intervals--probably one around the holidays, then maybe every few years after that.

      1. cld

        By resolved I meant diminished beyond the point of being a problem I have to think about, like leprosy or beriberi.

        1. rational thought

          To that extreme extent, probably never.

          But to the point that it is really just like another type of flu, within a year.

          Depends of course on further mutations. But I suspect given that delta is so much more contagious than original, that maybe it has mutated about as far as it can go. Except maybe another mutation that is less deadly ( and less likely to cause severe illness) which is the normal path as it is another way for a virus to increase IRS transmissibility. And perhaps delta has already gone a little bit in that direction.

          A mutation that gets around the vaccine is a more troublesome possibility but the new mnra process should allow us to respond faster ( we do need to streamline approoval process).

          What is more of a threat than a direct mutation is covid combining DNA with a different virus like the spanish flu did a few times.

          Assuming that delta becomes endemic, a booster vaccine will be included in the annual flu shot. And we will eventually settle down to an equilibrium where waning immunity from old infections or vaccination is balanced by new infections and vaccinations leaving long term R around 1.0.like the flu, with seasonal fluctuations. And death rates similar to flu.

          However, a big hope is that mrna vaccine tech advances enough that maybe we can actually kill it and the flu off.

          1. cld

            Why do you think it will mutate in a more benign direction rather than a worse direction.

            It seems like random chance to me, and given that delta is putting out so many more copes of itself there is just that much greater opportunity for it, which suggests mask wearing should be mandatory if only to prevent the mutation if not the illness.

          2. Larry Jones

            cld - Generally, virus mutations result in very little change in the properties of the virus. But I do remember reading or hearing sometime in the past year, that it is not in the best interest of the virus to kill its host, and so we could expect mutations that make it more infectious, and maybe cause more coughing, but not more deadly. Sorry, can't find a link, but it kind of makes diabolical sense.

          3. rational thought

            Because mutations that allow the virus to be more transmissible will out compete those that do not.

            If a virus makes someone very sick so they stay in bed and do not go out, then they are not out and about interacting and transmitting the virus. Making you just cough and sneeze, but not feel that bad so you still go to work, etc. works well for the virus.

            Covid seemed to work well by making many infected asymptomatic so they do not even know they are infectious and go about life as normal. While still being infectious enough even without coughing and sneezing to help spew out the virus.

            To the extent we change habits so that someone with mild cold like symptoms will take a few sick days and stay home instrad of going out and to work, we encourage all viruses to mutate to be totally asymptomatic with no cough.

          4. rational thought

            A perfect mutation, for virus and us, would be one that infects you and is super transmissible so it can spread with an R of over 1, while causing zero significant symptoms, and still allowing the body's immune system to kill it off after it can transmit. While also helping to exercise the immune system and maybe forcing out other bad viruses

          5. cld

            @Larry Jones,

            Yes, but a virus doesn't really care what state it leaves you in as long it gets that one moment of mass reproduction. If you survive you'll have the immunity, so you're no longer of use to it.

            If a virus were a rational actor it wouln't want o wipe out it's host, but it isn't rational. We read all the time of illnesses that are wiping out amphibians, or bee colonies or Tasmanian devils.

            I would think a virus mutating to a benign state that would ensure co-existence would happen only in the absence of a variant that didn't reproduce a lot faster and there's no way to predict that's what would happen.

          6. cld

            @rational thought,

            But it seems you're still betting on it choosing a benign path. As I just mentioned above, it doesn't seem necessary to think it will do that as all it needs to do is blast out a lot of reproduction, and all it takes from there is one of those things happening to be a really bad mutation that spreads like wildfire and leaves the victim dead or in a crippled state and that there isn't any way to predict which way it will go.

            That it ultimately may evolve into some kind co-existence doesn't mean it will do that this year, or next, or in ten years, or that it will ever be more benign.

            If it were 1347 would you suggest the worst is past?

    1. rational thought

      The virus of course does not "care" about anything or plan anything. It is not thinking of how to get you. But that is an easy shorthand for talking about evolutionary pressure so I will stay with that.

      No, the virus does not care whether you live or die and does not care whether you get sick or not. And no evolutionary preference for keeping you alive and healthy per se

      But the virus does want whatever works best to spread copies of itself to another person ( or any animal). So it will want you not to die or get sick to the extent that keeping you alive and healthy helps it to transmit. And you cannot transmit much after you die ( at least with a respiratory virus) and you will not be transmitting much if you are staying home in bed sick.

      What the virus wants is for you to be healthy enough to be out and about meeting people and transmitting ( and maybe with a little cough or sneeze).

      All of the effects of you getting.sick from a virus or dying is just a side effect of the one real purpose of reproduction through transmission, not the goal.

      Of course, it is also possible that whatever the mutation is that allows a virus to be more transmittable will have a side effect of being more likely to kill you too. But the preference for evolution would be to not make you sick and kill you.

      The magic virus I describe that causes no serious sickness and helps you by pushing out bad viruses while still transmitting does not exist as far as I know. Therefore if it is even possible, it must be something hard to evolve. But one thought is that, if we get really good at genetics manipulation, maybe human scientists could design it.

      But sounds scary to have scientists try to do so ( after all covid might be an escaped experiment).

      But what scares me is not really covid which had almost run its course. Or even that rare real bad natural mutation like the Spanish flu ( or maybe covid if it was a natural mutation).

      But whether you believe that covid was an escaped experiment that was being created by china as a bioweapon or not, I guarantee the Chinese and Russians and north koreans and terrorist groups are trying to develop a bioweapon ( hopefully not competently in the last two cases). And we may have to take chances to prepare a defense.

  16. Spadesofgrey

    Fascinating that Florida and Texas make up most hospitalization. Ohio has been pretty flat. Florida has hit a record??? Is it age related unvaccinated??? Simply has to be considering the old people. Take away Florida and numbers don't look that bad nationally with hospitalization with a couple of hot spots. May be time for DeSantis to make a age related stay at home order 65+

    1. Rattus Norvegicus

      Take away the third biggest state in the nation and it doesn't look that bad. And if you ignore California, Trump won.

      Idiot.

  17. Solarpup

    Thursday, two of my wife's staff, both vaccinated, came down with symptomatic COVID. We're MO, so overwhelmingly likely Delta. This is not the first breakthrough I've heard of. Anecdotes aren't data, but the anecdotes are starting to accumulate. I'm vaccinated, but I haven't given up the mask indoors, nor for crowded outdoors. (Last week at the MUNY -- outdoor theater that holds up to 11,000 -- only about 1 out of 20 were masked.) I get the feeling this Delta surge is going to get a little ugly.

    1. rational thought

      I will throw out a very tentative prediction. Which might end up being wrong but I will stick my neck out and risk that .

      I expect that reported cases will start declining by the end of the month or maybe even earlier. And, given the delay in reporting of positive tests ( and the fact that recent increases have been partially caused by increased testing), might even possibly mean that actual infections are already peaking ( although I guess maybe two weeks or a little less from now).

      So we are just about as bad as it is gonna get already. Note for deaths, as that lags, that will still get significantly worse but not even approach last summer 2nd smaller wave. Exactly how much more depends on how much the remaining immunity needed will be by vaccine and by natural immunity. Although vaccines have picked up, if phizer or moderna where you need 3+ more weeks to really help, to some extent those who waited till now are too late ( although will accelerate the decline).

      I think maybe you will have a delayed peak as, if we have got to current condition herd immunity, then labor day partying and maybe school reopening will change conditions and move the target. So I sort of expect a reporting peak around near end of August but then a slow decline or flatline till we get past labor day effect.

      Then hopefully we can get cases dropping fast through favorable whether conditions for sept and oct, because best to get thru this before late fall/ winter and Thanksgiving xmas move.the herd immunity target again and maybe move R back above 1.0 . And also worry that the big surge in natural immunity from huge winter wave will be getting a year old and a year seems to be where the immunity dropoff is more significant.

  18. Vog46

    Ok I got a lot of dumb questions again.

    Keep in mind that I have had COVID but not the DELTA variant and I have been vaccinated after that.

    I know that Delta is more transmissible. How is the testing done if one comes in contact with someone who has DELTA?
    Are the nasal swabs as good? Do they still give false negatives?
    Given the amount of "load" that DELTA seems to instill in people - how much does it take to test positive - AND more importantly - how long after exposure? Is ti different than the initial variants?

    Seems to me that there were many of us who got exposed, got immediately tested - got negative results, then got some symptoms then got re-tested and showed positive within 10 days. Is this a possibility? A probability?

    Vaccines, as I understand it reduce the # of serious cases of COVID and death - but masking and social distancing (avoiding crowds) seem to be the best way to avoid CATCHING it entirely

    Finally, if someone has had it, OR the vaccine, they can still be a carrier of the disease and be a "spreader"
    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-infections-among-vaccinated-likely-contagious-lambda-variant-shows-vaccine-2021-08-02/

    So, a "friend" of mine is having a birthday bash outdoors this upcoming weekend. Close to 500 guests and a staff of 200 servicing those guests. The party is on an island - so people have to travel there in a boat with loads of people, or a plane again with loads of people, and leave after the party. While there - these "people of notoriety" will be gawked at, and photographed coming and going by the commoners - which we know little of their vaccine status.
    It seems as though the hoi polloi are safe and doing things in accordance with CDC guidelines but the folks who transport these fine people or who gather to watch the comings and goings - are they safe?
    Is this a good idea? Asking for a "friend".......

    All joking and politics aside. Is the DELTA variant any more likely to be detected in smaller amounts or earlier in a person than the original COVID for which the tests were developed?

  19. Vog46

    I don't have a problem with President Obama having a birthday bash on Martha's Vineyard this upcoming weekend
    But close to 700 strangers on the property?
    Sure they have to have had the vaccine or have been tested
    But they are travelling there on steamship authority vessels either from Woods Hole or Falmouth Mass along with ordinary tourists - or coming in by plane from the Hamptons etc.......landing at the smallish airport and being transported to and from the party by vehicle.
    So, if the driver of that vehicle is positive but doesn't know it yet. OR, one of the guests has a break through case and they are asymptomatic - would a nasal swab at the entrance detect this?
    I think this is borderline arrogant, if not outright stupid given the surge in Mass and especially on the Cape.
    I voted for Obama twice because he showed a HUGE amount of compassion for the ordinary folks of America. I'm questioning that level of compassion right now and thinking why not down size the party, cancel the party so as not to put the drivers, ships crews and plane crews at any unnecessary increased risk ? The attendees would have access to the best healthcare in the world - but the others? The gawkers? the ferry boat crew?

    1. rational thought

      I am not sure of all of the answers to your questions, but my best understanding is that

      I think the pcr tests work the same way with delta. I assume what they react to is something that is the same with delta. At least I have not heard of any difference such as the existing tests not being able to detect delta as well.

      And my understanding is that the pcr tests do not tell if you have delta, original or another strain. They have to do more complex tests to see that. The reports of how big a %age delta is of cases are from samples where they did the more complex tests.

      There are some indications that delta might produce higher viral loads but, if you see the prior discussions, some things about them make no sense, at least to me. The pcr test should produce a positive at the same level of viral load with delta or original , but a higher viral load will allow the pcr test to get it in fewer cycles. As far as I can tell, all of the studies of viral load are based on the # of pcr cycles needed to get a positive and using that as a proxy for viral load.

      It does appear that delta manages to get up to an infectious viral load quicker than original, but I have yet to see any explanation as to whether it stays higher ( or maybe peaks and declines faster than original). I wonder if delta is more contagious because it is simply better at getting a peak viral load before symptoms start.

      There can be false negatives from the pcr test but very very rare. If you get tested as negative if really infectious, I would guess far more likely it was human error and not test failure. But getting a negative from a test soon after exposure and then a positive later is normal. It takes time for the initial viral load to increase enough to be detected. That is not a false negative because, at that time , your viral load was not yet high enough ( you were nowhere near infectious yet).

      In terms of not catching covid at all, I would say that masking is a whole lot less useful than vaccination, especially if you are talking about cloth or even surgical masks. Those are basically worthless in preventing you from catching covid. An n95 mask is more effective there but still not all that great and, to be even moderately useful there, needs to be fitted and worn correctly, and most who use them do not.

      Vaccines are not perfectly effective in not catching covid but they do greatly reduce the chance of catching covid.

      Re social distancing, it depends how extreme. I would say abiding by the 6 foot rule when shopping in enclosed areas is now mostly theater. Does very little it appears as the virus aerosolized and permeates all parts of a room fairly quickly. But simply not going to indoor areas outside your social group clearly reduces risk to near zero if you never are in a room with another human.

      Now, reducing the risk of you transmitting it to someone else if you do catch it is a different issue. Vaccines help there too ( multiplying effect of lower chance of catching it) but seems not too many studies trying to measure this. And, for that, masks appear to work somewhat, even cloth masks. They catch the big droplets with virus before they can aerosolize.

      So if just want to protect yourself from catching it , vaccines and social distancing by not going out work well, social distancing re 6 foot rule is mostly crap, and cloth masks are a waste of time.

      If you want to help others too by not spreading, vaccines are even a step better and social distancing effect is multiplied. And for helping others, even cloth masks should help a little.

      Personally though, long term, I think the best way for a vaccinated young person to help the community is to catch covid and become super immune now. And go ahead and spread it just to other young vaccinated people.

  20. rational thought

    As for Obama's party, it is not border line arrogant, it is just plain very arrogant.

    The arrogance does not surprise me. Did you ever really think Obama could be described as humble? But he seemed always to be politically canny and this is politically real stupid even based on appearance sake. Maybe Obama just does not care about politics anymore.

Comments are closed.