Skip to content

The US death rate from COVID-19 is still unbelievably high

Published on 96 Comments on The US death rate from COVID-19 is still unbelievably high

The US death rate from COVID-19 is no longer skyrocketing, but it's still going up. Our mortality rate is 150% above Britain and more than 1000% higher than Germany.

96 thoughts on “The US death rate from COVID-19 is still unbelievably high”

  2. Caramba

    Germany is such an outlier in EU that it is suspicious. Looking at the same data with the EU death, the US is still 3 time higher.
    1/ the US has a lower vaccination rate 2/ public health restriction are minimal.. (read today's Associated British Foods press release comments on Primark).
    Both are concentrated in the South hence a disaster combo.
    Here in NYC area, people are not reckless and are mostly vaccinated. My wife hospital hasn't seen a noticeable increase in new patients.

    1. roboto

      Germany and the Netherlands both have the same 1,100 Covid deaths per million. Germany tested with PCR cycles at 25, which is within the standard 25 to 32 cycle recommended by the FDA but the U.S. has used way higher cycles at 37 to 43, thereby having far more false tests that are then wrongly linked to Covid deaths. Also, the U.S. is much more obese than Germany, although that doesn't really explain the difference in Covid deaths between Germany and the UK.

      Sweden's top government epidemiologist pointed out in July 2020 that countries are counting Covid deaths in different ways and that Sweden is among the most liberal - along with the US and the UK.

      1. rational thought

        Robots,

        Where did you find that info on pcr cycles across different countries, or anything else re death categorization such as the length of time since a positive test when a death will be categorized as a covid death ?

        I have been searching for this info but have not found much- almost as of search engines are blocking you from finding out.

        In order to compare rates across nations, you really have to adjust for things like this and kevin, the media, who, etc. - nobody is doing that. And it seems designed to be biased against certain nations.

        That said, my understanding of the issue is that using 40 cycles vs. 25 cycles will not tremendously increase the total cases found. And whether it increases " by far" false positives depends on how you define a false positive.

        A real definitive false positive is when a test mistakenly says positive with zero covid virus parts. I think this is super rare.

        Another type might be where the test picked up a small piece of the virus from the nose or even the air outside of the tested individual. But the person was never actually " infected " at all - we can get one virus in our nose easily and it does not infect. Clearly a higher pcr threshold picks up more of these false positives.

        But you also have the case where someone was infected and has fought it off and recovered. But you can have virus parts hanging around for months after. If someone has a little piece of virus after recovering, a test may be positive when no longer infected or infectious. That is a false positive at that point of time but did pick up a real case from earlier. So not false positive on case counts ( except for timing) and a little high bias on deaths ( as extends the time when a non covid death might be attributable to covid). Obviously higher pcr threshold more of these.

        Also can have human error false positives. Like maybe when a lab loses a test and covers up by saying it was positive. I know two people who got positive test results when they were never tested at all !!

        So yes, a high pcr threshold means you have more false positives. But also a lower pcr threshold means more false negatives too.

        And note that a higher pcr threshold should increase cases more than deaths, right . Yes, it causes more false covid deaths when someone happens to die within the period a death would be attributed to covid. Using a standard two month period, if false positives distributed evenly across age , approx 1 in 500 false positives cause a false covid death ( as approx 1 in 1000 people die each month ). But, if 1 in 100 reported cases have a reported covid death, the false positives will expand cases more than deaths, right ? So higher pcr testing should cause the case fatality rate to be lower .

        So how does Germany's case fatality rate compare with usa?

        1. rational thought

          Well right now Germany's case fatality rate is around 2.2% vs usa around 1.6%. Uk about 1.85% and Sweden below 1.3%.

          So this does support the concept that our testing policy had skewed the results. But note that our cases then are skewed more than deaths. This has other implications such as that the differences in natural immunity level are not as big as they would seem.

          But hard to assess directly as also affected by testing rates . Contrary to what many here seem to think, usa testing rates compare generally favorably to continental Europe. If we test more , we pick up more asymptomatic cases and that lowers case fatality rate. Uk though is way ahead in testing.

          But going the other way , usa has more comorbidities and has had hospitals more overwhelmed at times and has less vaccination, especially among elderly, which should cause a higher case fatality rate . Those factors likely should offset more testing.

          So hard to explain our lower case fatality rate without a pcr cycle difference.

          1. Vog46

            "********So this does support the concept that our testing policy had skewed the results*******. But note that our cases then are skewed more than deaths. This has other implications such as that the differences in natural immunity level are not as big as they would seem."

            Gee, where have YOU heard that before?
            And it skews everything that came after

  3. cmayo

    It's not unbelievably high when you remember that there are millions upon millions of people who are refusing to get vaccinated, whether because they're anti-vax or vaccine hesitant or some other reason ("I just didn't get around to it"). Add to that the anti-maskers, and, well...

    1. pgl

      I wonder if anyone has measured why we are higher than the UK or Germany. In other words, what is the impact from the differences in vaccination v. the differences in devotion to social distancing. We do see progress in places like NY and the utter failures of places like Texas and Florida.

    2. oakchairbc

      The 2 countries in the graph with the lowest Covid vaccination rates (not counting the massive outlier called America) have the lowest Covid death rates.

      Proper science starts with the evidence and methods of gathering the evidence and then procedures to conclusions. You're doing it backwards.

  4. golack

    No worries, those promoting Covid are either vaccinated, immediately get the monoclonal antibody treatment for the sniffles, only take horse pills for show (and not the actual horse pill and not in high doses), have work environments that require masks and/or vaccinations, etc. Sometimes all of the above.

  5. Special Newb

    We are an unhealthier population and do a worse job providing standard care. We start from a worse baseline so death rate will be higher.

        1. Special Newb

          There are a lot of people who would trade a shorter life for being able to live unhealthier. I have no real issue there. It's the effects on everyone that is a problem.

  6. cld

    Matthew Yglesias on Covid-1889,

    https://www.slowboring.com/p/covid-1889

    He points out that descriptions of the Russian Flu of 1889-1900 had remarkable similarity to descriptions of covid, with neurological and long covid effects, and that there was an increase in suicides during the period many attributed at the time to people having had the Russian flu.

    Also, that while it broke into Europe via St. Petersberg it was understood at the time to have originated in Uzbekistan and that a presently circulating covid virus has been found to have split from a bovine virus in Uzbekistan ca 1890, and so Yglesias speculates they may be the same thing and that the human immune system has evolved against it to the point where it's effects are now seen simply as a common cold.

    Reading this I recalled that several times when I was a kid I had colds and for a while lost my sense of taste, but I haven't had any illness since where that was the case.

  7. rick_jones

    Elsewhere around the world, for the 7-day trailing averages of per-million, per-day:
    Rank Population (Millions) Country Deaths/Day/Million 7-dav Avg
    1 4.00 Georgia 13.55
    2 2.08 North Macedonia 13.30
    3 1.81 Kosovo 13.10
    4 31.95 Malaysia 11.14
    5 7.00 Bulgaria 8.31
    6 21.32 Sri Lanka 7.74
    7 11.33 Cuba 7.51
    8 82.91 Iran 6.27
    9 3.30 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.76
    10 2.95 Jamaica 5.43
    11 18.55 Kazakhstan 5.32
    12 145.87 Russia 5.31
    13 5.05 Costa Rica 5.26
    14 127.58 Mexico 5.16
    15 329.06 US 4.90
    16 11.69 Tunisia 4.74
    17 1.39 Trinidad and Tobago 4.71
    18 2.96 Armenia 4.40
    19 9.75 Honduras 4.34
    20 2.76 Lithuania 4.19
    21 10.47 Greece 3.86
    22 17.58 Guatemala 3.62
    23 58.56 South Africa 3.56
    24 3.23 Mongolia 3.45
    25 1.15 Eswatini 3.36
    26 96.46 Vietnam 3.27
    27 69.04 Thailand 3.10
    28 83.43 Turkey 3.05
    29 2.30 Botswana 3.04
    30 4.04 Moldova 3.00
    31 8.52 Israel 2.98
    32 44.78 Argentina 2.84
    33 8.77 Serbia 2.75
    34 10.05 Azerbaijan 2.69
    35 4.98 West Bank and Gaza 2.58
    36 4.13 Croatia 2.42
    37 19.36 Romania 2.22
    38 6.78 Libya 2.19
    39 211.05 Brazil 2.18
    40 7.04 Paraguay 2.07
    41 67.53 United Kingdom 2.06
    42 6.86 Lebanon 1.90
    43 36.47 Morocco 1.85
    44 1.91 Latvia 1.80
    45 54.05 Burma 1.69
    46 1.29 Timor-Leste 1.66
    47 270.63 Indonesia 1.60
    48 65.13 France 1.59
    49 43.99 Ukraine 1.57
    50 1.18 Cyprus 1.57
    51 4.25 Panama 1.51
    52 46.74 Spain 1.51
    53 39.31 Iraq 1.44
    54 2.88 Albania 1.39
    55 6.45 El Salvador 1.35
    56 2.49 Namibia 1.32
    57 1.20 Mauritius 1.31
    58 4.88 Ireland 1.26
    59 512.50 EU w/o Brexit 1.25
    60 32.51 Peru 1.21
    61 9.45 Belarus 1.21
    62 108.12 Philippines 1.20
    63 1.33 Estonia 1.19
    64 444.97 EU 1.13
    65 10.10 Jordan 1.09
    66 18.95 Chile 1.07
    67 50.34 Colombia 1.05
    68 2.08 Slovenia 0.96
    69 60.55 Italy 0.95
    70 11.51 Bolivia 0.93
    71 10.23 Portugal 0.880
    72 17.37 Ecuador 0.798
    73 8.96 Austria 0.734
    74 16.49 Cambodia 0.719
    75 11.54 Belgium 0.706
    76 37.41 Canada 0.668
    77 4.53 Mauritania 0.663
    78 28.61 Nepal 0.554
    79 14.65 Zimbabwe 0.546
    80 12.63 Rwanda 0.543
    81 28.52 Venezuela 0.531
    82 43.05 Algeria 0.524
    83 5.77 Denmark 0.520
    84 126.86 Japan 0.501
    85 6.42 Kyrgyzstan 0.490
    86 83.52 Germany 0.453
    87 8.59 Switzerland 0.416
    88 4.97 Oman 0.402
    89 9.68 Hungary 0.369
    90 216.57 Pakistan 0.366
    91 17.10 Netherlands 0.343
    92 52.57 Kenya 0.326
    93 163.05 Bangladesh 0.322
    94 17.07 Syria 0.318
    95 1.36 Equatorial Guinea 0.316
    96 31.83 Angola 0.310
    97 25.20 Australia 0.306
    98 2.35 Gambia 0.304
    99 29.16 Yemen 0.299
    100 1.92 Guinea-Bissau 0.297
    101 3.46 Uruguay 0.248
    102 16.30 Senegal 0.245
    103 4.21 Kuwait 0.238
    104 5.46 Slovakia 0.236
    105 9.77 United Arab Emirates 0.234
    106 1366.42 India 0.222
    107 28.83 Ghana 0.218
    108 18.63 Malawi 0.215
    109 112.08 Ethiopia 0.212
    110 5.53 Finland 0.207
    111 2.17 Gabon 0.197
    112 15.44 Somalia 0.194
    113 32.98 Uzbekistan 0.178
    114 37.89 Poland 0.173
    115 12.77 Guinea 0.168
    116 44.27 Uganda 0.161
    117 8.08 Togo 0.159
    118 10.04 Sweden 0.157
    119 5.38 Norway 0.133
    120 38.04 Afghanistan 0.131

    2. J. Frank Parnell

      They are going to teach us libs a lesson by not getting the vacine. Some day the ones who survive will look back and wonder how they could have been so irrational.

  9. kennethalmquist

    Brazil's pandemic response has been a mess, but they currently have a lower death rate than the United States. Who has a higher rate than the United Sates? Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Iran, Russia, Mexico, Kazakhstan, and a bunch of small countries.

  10. cephalopod

    Why is the death rate so low in Sweden? It dropped in early summer and has stayed low, despite not having a particularly high rate of vaccination.

    Is there more universal compliance in Sweden with the restrictions that are left? Did they happen to vaccinate more of their higher risk population than other European nations? Did they somehow avoid Delta? Did their high rate of infection in 2020 result in more protection now?

    It seems weird to me that places like Germany and Canada has been above them in deaths for months now.

    1. rational thought

      Remember last year when sweden had fewer restrictions and had a strategy to some extent of letting it spread among the young and building up herd immunity?

      Well that might be paying off now as they have more natural immunity today than their European neighbors along with pretty good vaccination rates plus, I understand, they distributed the vaccine more efficiently.

      Before people jump over " paying off" , that does not necessarily mean that it is paying off enough that it was worth the cost in 2020. But there is a benefit now .

      Honestly I just cannot understand why so many just refuse to even consider natural immunity as a factor.

      In addition, far north nations have a huge weather advantage during the summer. Sunshine for long periods and beautiful outside weather.

      1. sturestahle

        Hi i am Swedish
        I wouldn’t call us a success but one needs to cherry-pick facts to call us a failure since we managed better than most European countries especially if one check the more accurate statistics of “excessive deaths “ instead of the official statistics since no countries reported in the same way 
        We got caught in others domestic arguments, especially in USA .
        Right wingers advocated a “Swedish model “ that didn’t exist and mainstream media condemned the same nonexistent model.
        … it was kind of weird.
        International media is over and over reporting the same three facts: 
         Sweden was aiming for herd immunity… and that’s fake news 
        Sweden did hardly have any restrictions whatsoever…. and that’s also fake news 
        Statistics on deaths are disastrous compared to other Nordic countries… ..true but irrelevant since the the situation is completely different if one compare us 
        We are in the bottom 25% in the developed world. Amazing how difficult it is to read a table when born in the US. Or is it perhaps the difficulty in absorbing facts that don't fit your narrative?

        https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/excess-mortality-across-countries-in-2020/

        It’s getting late over here, good night my friend 

      2. Mitch Guthman

        Could you explain what you mean who you say that “natural immunity’ should be a factor? Both the United States and the United Kingdom have essentially followed a strategy of using vaccines mainly on the elderly but otherwise encouraging people to be receptive to getting Covid-19 as the preferred method of achieving herd immunity. And you can see where that’s gotten both countries.

        The other problem I have with talking about “natural immunity” is that it (probably not coincidentally) dovetails so perfectly with the idea that taking public heath measures is a matter of “freedom” and personal choice. But that’s simply not realistic in a pandemic unless you’re prepared to “take it on the chin” and simply let the plebs living or dying sort itself out.

        More seriously, since the same people who focus on “natural immunity” also tend to oppose vaccine passports and mask mandates, they aren’t choosing for themselves but instead they are choosing for the rest of us. That’s no longer acceptable. People need to either get vaccinated or be excluded from nonessential activities.

        1. oakchairbc

          "Could you explain what you mean who you say that “natural immunity’ should be a factor?"

          People who caught Covid have "natural immunity" and are therefore less likely to catch and spread it again in the future. If a populace has 100% natural immunity it will have less future Covid cases than one with 0%. A populace with 100% natural immunity will have less future Covid cases than one with a 100% vaccination rate.

          Giving a vaccine to someone with natural immunity is similar to giving someone an antibiotic when they don't have a bacteria infection. It's all risk and no benefit. But we can't discuss actual medicine and science because that would make people less likely to take experimental drugs. Like how we need to ignore that the "horse paste" has over 10 RCT showing it reduce Covid deaths while the vaccines have 0 studies show they reduce deaths.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            But there’s no reliable way to know who has acquired “natural immunity”. Consequently, you cannot meaningfully use vaccine passports to allow the world to begin to reopen and return to normal. This is what we saw when the CDC said that vaccinated people could discard their masks; the entire population including unvaccinated and contagious people took off the mask and briefly returned us to where we were at the start of the pandemic.

            Ultimately, reliance on self reported “natural immunity” is nothing but a euphemism for allowing the disease to run rampant until it runs out of prospective hosts and becomes endemic. That’s unacceptable to me.

            Voluntarily unvaccinated people need to be excluded from nonessential activities so that rest of us can get safely get back to normal.

        2. rational thought

          First, most of what oak said below is right of course. But saying giving a vaccine to someone who has recovered and has natural immunity is like giving an antibiotic to someone without any bacteria is overstating it.

          Giving an antibiotic to someone without a bacterial infection accomplishes nothing. But the evidence does seem to show that giving a vaccine to someone with natural immunity does improve that immunity. And I suspect that immunity boost might be even more over time if natural immunity wanes ( basically wakes it up).

          I mentioned the Kentucky study and how it is misrepresented including by the cdc. It did NOT show vaccine immunity as being better than natural. It showed that being vaccinated was better than unvaccinated if you also had natural immunity.

          And that was important. If vaccines just gave you a portion of natural immunity, it might have been true that vaccination added nothing to natural immunity. But looks like it still helps - and looks to me not just by waking up natural immunity.

          But , in response to mitch, let me highlight one way we failed to consider natural immunity and that caused a bad policy. When vaccines were in short supply, and we had to prioritize, many places were pushing anyone in an eligible group to get vaccinated, even if they had natural immunity, which delayed a vaccination in someone without natural immunity where it would be more useful.

          Consider how much vaccine reduces chance of getting infected if no immunity. I think it is close to 4 to 1 or 25% as much chance ( I think the worst estimates are wrong as they include too many with natural immunity in comparison group) . And natural immunity appears to be far better- say by a conservative factor of 5. And double immunity improves that by another 2.5 times say.

          So, for the period in question ( i.e. until vaccine fully available) no immunity has a 20% chance of being infected, vaccine only a 5 % chance, natural only a 1% chance and natural plus vaccine .25% chance . Just stupid to give vaccine then to someone with natural immunity reducing the chance .75% when there are those waiting you can reduce by 15%.

          And , today, there is a good question whether it is now a good choice to ask those with natural immunity to get vaccinated as vaccine is still in short supply worldwide. Is it better to use a vaccine dose overseas or use it here to vaccinate someone with natural immunity and just marginally improve their immunity.

          This is why the biden mandate with no exception for those with probable natural immunity is so stupid and maybe immoral. Those with natural immunity have better immunity than those with only vaccine . If those refusing vaccine who have natural immunity already are forced to test weekly, so should those who are vaccinated.

          And every person with natural immunity you coerce into being vaccinated, you take away a vaccine we could have sent to some elderly person in Africa.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            I think you’re missing my main point which is that discussions about natural immunity are counterproductive because we cannot readily identify people who may have it. The consequence is that if we allow self-proclaimed “natural immunity” to be the functional equivalent of vaccination, we are basically giving up on the idea of fighting the pandemic with vaccines and public health measures and allowing the virus to essentially spread and to mutate unchecked.

            Our problem is that we have coddled and deferred to the Republicans too much. If there’s ever a reliable way to determine who has the requisite level of natural immunity, we can deal with it at that time. But we need to get back to normal, which we can’t do if people can just proclaim themself to be immunize and then happily go on infecting people until they themself finally die.

            The way back to normal is vaccine passports and excluding the voluntarily unvaccinated from nonessential activities.

          2. Vog46

            There you go again
            'does seem to show "
            "And I suspect "
            " I think it is close"
            "And natural immunity appears to be far better"
            yadda yadda yadda

            Look take the facts the studies and use them - don;t EMBELLISH Them to make a point.
            Israel vaccinates a bigger portion of their population
            They tested a bigger portion of their population
            They are now boostering more people
            They are proposing a very possible 4th shot

            But here's the kicker. No matter what we do here in the U.S. we could donate every spare does of vaccine we have and it won't be enough.
            Why? because the virus changes and what we may be offering the world may only provide 65% protection against Delta. Is it better than nothing ? Of course it is
            But Delta only took 2 months to take hold

            Lets be honest here
            From a science stand point you are correct a person with "natural immunity" may, or may not need a vaccination - initial or booster.
            But in order to determine that we would need to test
            How many people would take a MANDATED test these days? Trump wanted testing stopped - no test - virus goes away. How do you expect THAT group to accept testing NOW?
            And on TOP OF THAT Trump was dealing with variants A & B !!!! If kids had been affected more - like they are now with Delta would our response have been the same?
            I would hop not
            But the actions of the last year to 18 months - don't test, wait for the vaccine, oops I lost the election, to Biden is lying about the virus - even though tump got tested and trump got vaccinated and Trump HAD Covid !!!!! Has destroyed any hope of having accurate testing records so we can measure ANYTHING Effectively
            We are left with I expect, I suspect, perhaps, and it appears.
            Not buying it at all

      3. KenSchulz

        > I just cannot understand why so many just refuse to even consider natural immunity as a factor.
        Because acquiring natural immunity consists of (a) acquiring a Covid-19 infection, and (b) not dying.
        Step (b) is entirely beyond one’s control. Do you understand why some of us might hesitate to begin with (a)?

        1. oakchairbc

          Unless you test for previous Covid infection you have no clue if you had a Covid infection. The whole point of asymptomatic spread was that a large percentage of people had Covid but did not know it.
          Some of the "us" hesitant to begin with (a) already had (a). Even people wiho had positive Covid tests are being coerced, told to and are getting Covid vaccines.
          It's bad medicine to give experimental drugs to people who have pretty much zero risk.

    2. Silver

      Impossible to say for sure, of course, but a couple of thoughts from a Swede:

      Our vaccination strategy was entirely focused on high risk, not at all at protecting for example people exposed more than others because of their occupation. At first, only elderly people in care homes, then elderly people with home care, then also people working with these at risk people such as ICU staff and care home staff, then everybody over the age of 80, then step by step lowering the age limit. The age limit for vaccination was never lowered to the next age group before virtually everybody in the step before had had the chance to get vaccinated. I believe this is at least one key factor in why we have so few deaths today. The percentage of people aged 50+ that are fully vaccinated is today about 85%, and for 70+ it is about 92%. The vaccine is now given to everybody 16+, and the total percentage for these is 72%.

      Swedes are in general very vaccine positive, and most have been running to the vaccination centers as soon as their age group was opened for vaccination. Right now, parents are even taking their children abroad for vaccine, since it is not (yet) recommended for children younger than 16.

      Furthermore, a rather large percentage of the population in Sweden has been infected by covid by now, resulting in a fairly large percentage with natural immunity.

      And finally, even if people are definitely much less compliant with the recommendations now than earlier, the Swedish people are still rule followers in general. If you go to a shopping mall you probably wouldn't see much of distancing and masking among people just walking around, but people do try to avoid being in close proximity for long periods of time. And the laws that we do have still in place (until September 29) limiting social contact are followed.

      As for variants, we did not manage to avoid delta. It was first detected in Sweden in March, by now detected viruses are 100% delta, and has been so since around the middle of July.

    3. Silver

      A reflection on people's opinion on various nations' handling of covid: This poll of 60 000 people in 20 countries ranks Sweden as number 7 of 60 countries, actually just before Finland. Last year, the same poll placed Sweden as number 15, a major difference. I wonder what this means; is it just that people's memory is short, or that history gives a better understanding, or what?

      https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/NBI%20Thought%20Leadership%20Series%20-%20COVID-19-%20Release%202021_08SEPT21_1.pdf

      Anyway, I must again point out that the Swedish strategy was never to build herd immunity. It was never a goal or something to strive for. I have written lots and lots on this before in the comment sections of Kevin's blog, here and before on MJ. But regardless of what the goal ever was, we do now have some immunity in the population, and of course it makes a difference. But never, ever would Sweden consider herd immunity worth more people dying.

  11. Joseph Harbin

    The numbers are staggering. The total varies based on source, but it's a grim picture any way you look at it.

    TOTAL US DEATHS

    659,969 (Our World in Data)
    660,177 (Johns Hopkins)
    678,117 (Worldometer)
    666,441 (Wikipedia)

    Three of those totals are the cumulative number of US deaths from Covid-19. One is the cumulative number of US deaths in combat from all wars since 1775.

      2. rational thought

        Yes , just to clarify I do not think confederate deaths in civil war are included either .

        Usa war fatalities total are about 1.3 million.

        Golack is gaming it a bit by quoting a fact but doing in way that is misleading to many who would not pick up on that distinction between combat deaths and total war deaths.

        Remember the story re required smallpox vaccinations during revolutionary War and how that was a big factor in us victory . Back then deaths by disease in war were normally higher than combat deaths.

        Also would point out that do this same exercise with most nations and covid deaths will be a small thing compared to war deaths over 200 + years.

        Golack is using it to point out how high the covid deaths are. But it also points out how low us war deaths have been compared to most nations. And covid is a pretty mild pandemic compared to most historical pandemics .

        1. golack

          The black plague dropped the overall world's population by a few percent. The US lost about the same total number of people to Covid as was lost to the "Spanish Flu" (which originated in Kansas?), but our population now is 3x larger. Worldwide, also approaching the same number of deaths too--but again, much larger population now.

          I don't know how Joseph Harbin was counting war dead, but you're right, it probably is only US dead, not Confederate. There is a large range for total dead given in Wikipedia:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

          1. rational thought

            I apologize for saying golack was gaming anything . It was Joseph Harbin who posted.

            And, Joseph, putting it that way is somewhat misleading as many will not understand that combat deaths are just a fraction of total war deaths. But I will not say you chose it that way deliberately - probably just because the number came so close to reported covid deaths , I assume.

          2. Joseph Harbin

            Please check the link I provided. (Why doesn't anybody do that if they are questioning the data?) Yes, Confederate combat deaths were included.

            BTW, if you're comparing pandemics and noting the growth in population (which is fine), also note how the US compares to other countries. The estimate of US deaths for 1918-19 was a far lower percentage of worldwide deaths than the percentage for Covid-19; i.e., to date; we don't know how long the current pandemic will last or how many will die before it's over.

          3. Joseph Harbin

            @ rational thought

            Here's what I did:
            1. I correctly identified a number as "US deaths in combat"
            2. I included a link to a source with detail for anyone with questions
            3. I assumed readers here are intelligent and know how to read

            If I made an error anywhere, it was probably #3.

        2. Joseph Harbin

          @ rational thought

          About the point of being "misleading": I don't get it. In case anyone here thinks citing combat deaths is misleading, please note that the number cited is "deaths in combat" for a reason. We know many war deaths (about half) are not from combat. Failing to read is not grounds for claiming to be misled.

          Yes, indeed, other nations would show a far different comparison between war (combat) deaths and Covid deaths.

          And covid is a pretty mild pandemic compared to most historical pandemics .

          Actually, Covid-19 is not mild but already (we don't know how long it will continue) among the most deadly pandemics. Wikipedia ranks it 8th-worst in history on its list of epidemics. Of course, it is not nearly as deadly as some of the big ones, such as the Black Death. And just because the death rate is not as high as in some epidemics, we shouldn't forget that Covid-19 is killing a lot of people.

          2. rational thought

            Joseph,

            Really do not want to argue about misleading. How about if I just say that the way you cite it could mislead some buy not saying you were being misleading by intent . If, say, us combat deaths were 1,000,000 out of 2,000,000 total, I would think you cherry picked combat deaths to make covid look worse in context ( because no good reason to seperate out combat).

            But I said I think you probably just limited it to combat because the number came out so close making a neat question. And yes you did state combat and provide a link so seems like you did not go out of your way to hide it.

            I used the term " gaming " and that is too strong as it implies you had bad motives and not saying that .

            Note if normal media had reported that way , like a cnn report, I would think highly and deliberately misleading as the distinction would blow past most of the audience. But here, people point out the difference anyway - too many informed here to get away with anything misleading in any case.

            Actually, to be honest, the distinction blew by me at first glance. My first reaction knowing some history was that you were wrong as I knew war deaths were higher than that. And then I went back and saw you said combat and it was " I saw what you did ". So my first reaction was that you were being tricky as I initially got tricked .

          4. Joseph Harbin

            @Spadesofgrey

            Achually, the chart does adjust for population. All you gotta do is click the arrow for "Global population lost" for the new ranking. In that case, Covid-19 drops from #8 to #13 among deadliest pandemics in history. So no big deal, I guess.

        3. KenSchulz

          Whew! I feel so much better now! Heck, let’s take on the Red Chinese, we got so far to go to get our war deaths up to world-class standards!

          1. rational thought

            Joseph,

            I do think you are misinterpreting the covid rank in pandemics when you say it is #13 ranked by % died.

            It might be #13 ranked that way among the list of pandemics of the ones on the list which are the highest in total deaths.

            But that excludes a whole bunch of mild pandemics back in history which had a much higher % age death toll than covid but a smaller total number of deaths because population was so much smaller and pandemics were more limited geographically as travel was so much less. And something as mild as covid might not even be noticed as an epidemic among the background noise of death from all sorts of diseases, especially when there just used to not be many elderly ( and the ones that made it had the best immune systems).

            If you somehow did have a list with perfect knowledge of all epidemics, covid would be way way down in deadlines, below others that might be # 100 on the list of total deaths.

            I would also add that , in comparison to Spanish flu , that some have said that covid is not over yet. Well neither is Spanish flu . It still exists now in a milder endemic form as a flu killing some every year..add those in for 100 years, and what is Spanish flu total?

          2. Vog46

            Thank God Gen Miley knew that Trump WANTED to do that and made sure there was additional safeguards on the nuclear arsenal to avoid a disaster.
            (According to Woodward's new book)

        1. rational thought

          I would add I also missed that you provided a link at first as it is just in that one highlighted word "One" as part of a sentence. You link that way a lot and it honestly is easily missed, especially when you do not have color turned on.

          I do not want to be critical as I appreciate you do provide links but sometimes they are hard to see.

          Note I post on my phone and I still cannot figure out how to provide links in my posts.

  12. gvahut

    The death rate is 16 per million in Florida and almost 9 per million in Texas. It's 8 per million in Georgia, and lots of the smaller-populated red states are between 7 and 17. Hard to get those numbers down nation-wide when you have those kind of death rates going on. Most blue states are under 3. Still too high, of course.

  13. rick_jones

    Through yesterday, from the "RateCharts" tab at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ymc191k5T37xgUlOuK3SBI9PQtZxm_aVwDnncICh85c/edit?usp=sharing (There is also a "RedBlue" tab for the curious):

    Rank State Cumulative Deaths/million State Cumulative Deaths State 7-Day Trailing Deaths/Million/Day
    1 New Jersey 3046 California 67100 Mississippi 17.52
    2 Mississippi 2992 Texas 60202 Florida 16.28
    3 New York 2810 New York 54656 Louisiana 10.72
    4 Louisiana 2808 Florida 48772 South Carolina 10.21
    5 Massachusetts 2662 Pennsylvania 28564 Arkansas 9.94
    6 Rhode Island 2636 New Jersey 27058 Texas 8.78
    7 Arizona 2636 Illinois 26694 Georgia 8.36
    8 Alabama 2585 Georgia 23741 Alabama 7.60
    9 Arkansas 2408 Michigan 21821 Oklahoma 7.47
    10 Connecticut 2363 Ohio 21154 Idaho 7.43
    11 South Dakota 2357 Arizona 19187 Guam 6.96
    12 Florida 2271 Massachusetts 18349 Virgin Islands 6.66
    13 Georgia 2236 North Carolina 15075 Kansas 6.62
    14 Pennsylvania 2231 Indiana 14783 West Virginia 6.62
    15 New Mexico 2196 Tennessee 13882 Nevada 5.52
    16 Indiana 2196 Louisiana 13056 Tennessee 5.44
    17 Michigan 2185 Alabama 12676 Wyoming 5.32
    18 Nevada 2176 Virginia 12036 Kentucky 5.05
    19 South Carolina 2165 Missouri 11360 North Carolina 5.00
    20 Illinois 2107 South Carolina 11149 Oregon 4.81
    21 North Dakota 2106 Maryland 10176 Missouri 4.79
    22 Texas 2076 Mississippi 8905 Indiana 4.52
    23 Oklahoma 2074 Wisconsin 8613 Washington 4.26
    24 Tennessee 2033 Connecticut 8424 Arizona 3.71
    25 Iowa 2009 Oklahoma 8208 Hawaii 3.63
    26 Kansas 1981 Kentucky 8003 New Mexico 3.61
    27 Delaware 1951 Minnesota 7985 Montana 3.07
    28 Ohio 1810 Colorado 7274 Puerto Rico 3.01
    29 Kentucky 1791 Arkansas 7267 Utah 2.94
    30 West Virginia 1789 Washington 6918 Rhode Island 2.70
    31 Montana 1716 Nevada 6702 Maryland 2.43
    32 Missouri 1714 Iowa 6337 Virginia 2.29
    33 California 1698 Kansas 5770 California 2.28
    34 Maryland 1683 New Mexico 4605 Wisconsin 2.26
    35 District of Columbia 1651 Oregon 3414 Maine 2.23
    36 Wyoming 1500 West Virginia 3207 Illinois 2.19
    37 Wisconsin 1479 Puerto Rico 2998 Michigan 2.13
    38 North Carolina 1437 Rhode Island 2793 Colorado 1.98
    39 Minnesota 1416 Utah 2724 Alaska 1.93
    40 Virginia 1410 Idaho 2472 Pennsylvania 1.91
    41 Idaho 1383 Nebraska 2356 South Dakota 1.78
    42 Colorado 1263 South Dakota 2085 New Jersey 1.77
    43 Nebraska 1218 Delaware 1900 New York 1.73
    44 New Hampshire 1060 Montana 1834 North Dakota 1.69
    45 Guam 968 North Dakota 1605 New Hampshire 1.58
    46 Washington 908 New Hampshire 1441 Iowa 1.36
    47 Utah 850 District of Columbia 1165 Delaware 1.32
    48 Oregon 809 Maine 961 Massachusetts 1.31
    49 Puerto Rico 798 Wyoming 846 Minnesota 1.22
    50 Maine 715 Hawaii 660 Connecticut 1.20
    51 Alaska 618 Alaska 458 Vermont 1.14
    52 Virgin Islands 606 Vermont 287 Nebraska 0.66
    53 Hawaii 466 Guam 159 District of Columbia 0.61
    54 Vermont 460 Virgin Islands 65 Ohio 0.04
    55 Northern Mariana Islands 36 Northern Mariana Islands 2 American Samoa 0.00
    56 American Samoa 0 American Samoa 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0.00

  14. rational thought

    What you are describing as prioritizing vaccination by risk is what I mean by effective vaccination strategy. Going down by age groups as it became available.

    In usa it depended on that state but many allowed vaccination for essential workers ( which was a very broad category ) before those under 65 who had to wait. The idea was that getting young workers vaccinated first before those age 50 to 65 was supposed to prevent the spread and that was prioritized over stopping deaths in those infected with higher risk.

    I thought that was a dumb strategy then and even clearer it was a bad idea now. Now that we see that the vaccine still works really well at stopping illness and death but is only modestly good at stopping spread, clear that a strategy using the most effective vaccine effect was better .

    Plus, and maybe you can tell me if this is correct, I have heard that some European countries like Sweden did not push vaccines on those who had recovered from covid and had natural immunity when vaccines were still scarce . Here in Los Angeles, some young workers were really pushed to get vaccinated even if they already had recovered from covid a few months prior, while those 50 to 65 were still unable to get vaccinated because there was not enough supply. That was idiotic policy - again just refusing to even think about natural immunity.

    1. rational thought

      About sweden having a strategy of herd immunity, I did say " to some extent ". I know this is a sensitive subject and seems to me that some in Sweden have been too willing to try to deny that played any part at all. Which they should not be as they did the right thing and should be proud of it.

      Can we agree that sweden did consider how their policies would affect spread and building up natural immunity and maybe getting to herd immunity as at least a factor to weigh ? Seems to me sweden was just about the only place that proceeded in a real scientific way and looked at all the cost and benefits of different strategies and the chances of other things ( like when a vaccine might be available) to come up with the best overall staertgy with best expected average outcome. And that is what you should do.

      Yes, Sweden did NOT have a strategy of specifically encouraging spread by having no restrictions at all. And an alternative strategy could have been to strictly quarantine the elderly and vulnerable for maybe three months while letting it spread rapidly through the young ( with limited death ) first - before slowly bringing the elderly back out in stages. That would be a real good strategy if you had zero chance of a vaccine timely, and a virus was too contagious to contain long term. In that case , you are going to end up in the end , no matter what restuctikns you have , with whatever number of cases and natural immunity you need to get to herd immunity ( plus trailing cases ) . Only issue then is timing and who gets covid .

      A strategy of deliberately encouraging spread among the young ( to have a larger share of the inevitable total for herd immunity be young) and do it quickly ( to get back to normal life sooner. Plus you can get to herd immunity while natural immunity strong before waning to minimize total cases).

      In some circumstances, restrictions can INCREASE total virus deaths.

      But, no, sweden did not go with that strategy.

      It did impose some restrictions, just milder ones. It seemed that sweden actually carefully considered all factors and possible costs and benefits of different restrictions and only went with those that made sense. And of course one criteria should be that not having x restriction increasing cases now is offset some by reduced cases later due to more natural immunity.

      There was always a good chance that covid was going to be contagious enough ( or a variant) and/ or vaccines too late that you inevitably will get to herd immunity before the vaccine. In which case, tough restrictions ( or any restrictions other than needed to keep cases from overwhelming health system) are useless.

      I think sweden considered the possibility that vaccines would be too late and thus restrictions pointless . But also considered the opposite possibility. And so chose restrictions that had lower cost to society and could be maintained longer .

      Yes, vaccines were developed faster than most thought ( except trump I guess ). And so swedens strategy was not as advantageous as it would have been if that were not true.

      But what if delta had hit in fall 2020. It would have overwhelmed restuctions everywhere without a vaccine to help and pretty much everyone would have reached herd immunity ( or at least winter herd immunity with restrictions ) before vaccines. So all the pain of restrictions in places like Germany would be unrewarded. Or if vaccine development pushed back 6 months. In those cases, sweden would look much better than other nations.

      1. KenSchulz

        >There was always a good chance that covid was going to be contagious enough ( or a variant) and/ or vaccines too late that you inevitably will get to herd immunity before the vaccine.
        Not inevitable that natural immunity will develop: e.g. the common cold, herpes, viral hepatitis.

        1. rational thought

          I think your examples are just incorrect.

          You certainly do develop immunity to the common cold. It just does not last in a vigorous state with antibodies that long . So you can catch the same virus again sometimes even as soon as six months. Plus " common cold " covers a number of different viruses, some are coronavirus and some are rhinovirus . So you can have recent strong immunity to one and catch another. For epidemiology purposes, should not talk about the " common cold " as one thing .

          Herpes is different in that you never really recover from it as you do with covid or a cold . But, even there, you do have an immune response that controls it but seems cannot kill it off. But we know the immune system can kill off covid so not the same.

          Not sure where you get you do not develop immunity to viral meningitis.

          One problem here is the idea of total long lasting immunity where you can never catch the virus again. That is extremely rare.

          But having immunity to some degree and permanently is normal and expected. And you do retain some immunity to a common cold virus for life. Not enough to stop you catching it again, but so that when you do, the sickness is milder .

          When Europeans first came to America, along with smallpox, they introduced common cold viruses . And they were killers too then at first as it was a population unexposed to it and having thousands of years not having to evolve any immune response to it.

          If natural immunity does wane quickly, especially antibodies ( while retaining b cell memory to make new antibodies if needed and t cell memory), that is in some way a hopeful sign. It is the immune system telling us that it does not need to keep making antibodies because, once it has seen the virus once, it can beat it off again no problem. The immune system tends to retain a more vigorous response to viruses that pose a serious threat if reinfected .

          It is quite possible that covid is really just another " common cold " and the only reason why it has been somewhat deadly is that it is novel.

      2. Silver

        First, regarding early vaccination policy for those who had had covid and recovered: This was discussed quite a lot in Sweden, and there seemed to be a consensus that these should at least not be the first in line when their age group was up for vaccination. However, there was never a recommendation that they should not get vaccinated, or explicitly recommended to wait until last. So, formally there was nothing said in particular about this group, they were recommended to get vaccinated, but more informally it was understood that they could/should wait and let others get it first. (And there has never been a vaccine mandate for anyone in Sweden, and I can't see one coming either. No strong pushing, no lotteries, no rewards...)

        Regarding the Swedish strategy as a whole: I think you show a much better understanding than most of the rationale behind. One important aspect is found in the name of the agency that were responsible for the strategy: Public Health Agency, i e its focus is public health as a whole, not just disease. Many decisions that appeared strange to other countries that acted much more based on just covid-19's impact were based on the Agency trying to take a broader perspective on public health and well-being. Such as keeping schools for young children open throughout, encouraging people to spend time outside, and the like. They took into account what e.g. closed businesses would do to public health, immediately and in the long run, for individuals and the society as a whole. They did not take into account the effects on our economy per se (that would be the government's responsibility), but the effects it in turn would have on public health.

        The Agency also prepared the strategy when it was not clear when, or even if, a vaccine would be developed. We all know the vaccines were developed faster than anyone would have dared to even hope in the beginning, so a strategy that would be feasible for a possibly very long time would be needed. Another key point throughout has been that the strategy would work better if it was kept as consistent over time as possible, not changing things back and forth making it hard for people to keep up.

        But of course, like you said, they obviously considered what the spread of the infection in the population would result in, namely hopefully (not even this was certain at this time) immunity for some time among those infected. This would be a result, and hopefully with a positive effect, and of course they were aware of this. But it was not a goal in itself, and had they seen a way to avoid some of the deaths they would have chosen it over more immunity, no contest. They did not see a way that would work well, all things considered, that would prevent the spread in the community as a whole, in particular given no vaccine in sight at the time. Hence do what you can, protect the most vulnerable and make sure the health care system isn't overwhelmed. (We failed the former but managed the latter.)

        A strategy involving total quarantine of the elderly sounds effective, but hardly doable in real life. That would involve practically sealing the doors to the care homes, leaving staff and patients locked in together for several weeks, like they did in Wuhan. Not possible in our kind of country!

        Anyway, we can't take any credit for doing the right thing when it comes to achieving a higher percentage of natural immunity because of our strategy, because that was never the intent. Taking credit now would be cheating.

        Anyway, again, it is refreshing to see someone with such an understanding of the Swedish thinking here!

      3. Vog46

        "Can we agree that sweden did consider how their policies would affect spread and building up natural immunity and maybe getting to herd immunity as at least a factor to weigh ?"

        No, we can't because you are insinuating something Sweden did not come out and publicly address

        You seized upon an idea that natural immunity may have been super charged with the vaccines and twisted it to make it sound s though you were quasi-pro vaccine while in actuality being more so pro herd immunity.

        Herd immunity is "a thing" but in COVIDs case not a good thing due to the enormous amount of death it caused. The second problem is one you alluded to regarding Delta specifically - what if it had happened first?
        There's 2 ways to look at this scenario
        1 - your way, Fast time to herd immunity. Might or might not work but with the viral load imposed by Delta maybe deaths and serous illness multiply as a result? And especially among young people. Would it have changed attitudes towards COVID? We'll never know
        2 - Vaccines address the VERY THING the Herd Immunity proponents down play and that is death and serious cases

        But I have serious doubts about all of this because of the timing of Delta's arrival. We went months with dwindling cases. We were obviously breathing a collective sigh of relief. Everyone was. We relaxed rules, we re-opened things.
        I will keep this simple. Lets assign a danger number to the covid waves. For simplicity we will address Waves A(alpha) B (Bets) and Delta
        A had a danger rating of 3. NOT KNOWING about it was the main cause for concern
        B came along and had a danger rating of 6 - bad, but affecting older and people LESS healthy
        D or Delta has danger rating of 9. Attacking young and old alike, healthy and not so healthy individuals

        IF Delta had struck first - we would have had more people dying and in hospitals quicker. There would have been children involved in all facets of those numbers.
        But then the virus would have mutated into what? It is starting off from a danger rating of 9. There is no reason to suspect that it could NOT get stronger or NOT get more contagious. We know subsequent waves could be weaker
        The other difference is that we would have developed vaccines for a virus with a 9 danger designation right up front. Too late of course but we would have had stronger vaccines earlier

        Your constant harping of natural immunity versus vaccine immunity has now been outed by others here. The "I think" - the "possible", the "suppose we did this" is all well and fine
        But the fact is we don't have adequate numbers from testing to determine what is actually happening. You CITE the Israeli study for its discussion about immunity dwindling with time but completely ignore the fact they are readying their population for not just COVID vaccines, but shots for round 3 and now 4 !!!!!

        We failed. We do not have the proper ammunition to give our scientists a clear view of what is happening here and THAT was due to politics - to optics. Someone in charge didn't want to look "weak" or not knowledgeable enough to fix it. He down played testing, touted dangerous alternative "cures", then got COVID and vaccinated - going against EVERYTHING he said publicly. And his minions in congress are no better!
        We have no baseline(s). We have no definitive proof of anything except those who got vaccinated and those who got a serious enough case of CV A or B to get hospitalized.
        Stop grasping at straws. You twist more than Chubby Checker

    1. Spadesofgrey

      I also think Europe captures asymptomatic cases better than the US. It explains the Great Britain high case, low death total.

  16. Pingback: Why Americans Die So Much | Later On

  17. oakchairbc

    Here is the ranking of the countries in the graph with the highest Covid vaccination rates.

    1. Canada
    2. France
    3. Italy
    4. UK
    5. Sweden
    6. Germany
    7. USA

    Of the 3 countries with the lowest vaccination rate 2 are the lowest in current Covid death rates and 1 has the highest (USA).
    The 3 countries with the highest Vaccination rates are in the middle for current Covid death rates.

    Let's ignore the evidence and hurl out insults and logical fallacies while pretending that's what "science" is.

        1. rational thought

          Just skimming through the link, I think this conclusion is flawed. And the vaccine effectiveness is higher than that.

          This seems to not be a study looking at actual individuals but trying to infer differences through what percentage of a population is vaccinated.

          But as I have tried to point out, this underestimates vaccine effectiveness as a greater portion of the unvaccinaedd have natural immunity which is even better than vaccine immunity. So, to some extent, not comparing vaccine immunity to no immunity ( or double immunity to just natural) but also vaccine immunity to natural only. If that comparison is unfavorable to vaccine immunity, it is biasing the result against vaccine immunity.

          And note that this effect will tend to increase in a final wave like we are seeing now as fewer and fewer of unvaccinated have avoided covid and the pool of those with no immunity shrinks. Even possible that the results showing some waning in vaccine immunity are just due to this effect and not a true decrease in vaccine effectiveness.

          1. Vog46

            But as I have tried to point out, this underestimates vaccine effectiveness as a greater portion of the unvaccinaedd have natural immunity which is even better than vaccine immunity

            1 - there's no way to know who was unvaccinated but had immunity because testing was a bad thing

            2 The UK say vaccine immunity is equal to natural. Not any better or worse

        2. oakchairbc

          Let's look at this link.

          "Reported COVID-19 cases,"

          Let's learn from Trumps, "If you don't test it, it doesn't exist" comment.
          Flaw number 1.

          "Two analysis periods, April 4–June 19 and June 20–July 17"

          Right before the Delta surge and a very short time window. Flaw number 2.

          "Averaged weekly, age-standardized"

          They only compared based on age meaning this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you can't think of other factors involved here are some: poverty/employment environment, obesity/nutrition, health care access. Flaw number 3.

          "cases among persons who were not fully vaccinated"

          People are considered non-vaccinated 2 weeks after their second injection. According to Pfizer's RCT during that period the Vaccine group had 40% higher Covid infection rates. Meaning this data mis-tallies negative outcomes in the wrong group. Flaw number 4.

          "COVID-19–associated hospitalizations,¶ and 4) COVID-19–associated deaths,"

          This is cherry picking. Giving everyone an opioid overdose would bring reported Covid associated deaths to zero. That does not mean opioid overdoses save lives. Flaw number 5.

          Do you have any reports/studies that use quality scientific methods and procedures?

  18. rational thought

    Uk is not continental Europe in testing.

    Uk stands our for testing - way ahead of other big developed nations. Twice as many tests per capita as usa . So have to think they have picked up more asymptomatic cases. Sure.

    But their case fatality rate is higher than usa, not lower, in total. Why is that if they have picked up more asymptomatic cases. One thing is I think their health care system is not as good ( cheaper yes but less quality). But they also had higher peaks with more overwhelming of health system at times . The more bloated expensive us health care system does have more margin for extra capacity in a crisis.

    The uk has a lower current case fatality rate in this wave . That has more to do with more vaccinations, how they vaccinated and especially who they vaccinated. Uk has a more efficient vaccination skewed more to elderly than usa . Almost all unvaccinated in uk are young. They also had more time between fitst and second dose which appears to work better.

    The biggest share of deaths in usa today are unvaccinated elderly. And us has more than uk.

    In continental Europe, we are ahead in testing as compared to Germany ( by a lot ) and also ahead of Italy and Spain but a bit behind France.

    And , as I pointed out earlier, Germany's case fatality rate is significantly higher than ours, not less.

    2. rational thought

      Vermont has everything possible going for them to have a low R and decreasing cases .

      Not dense rural area ( and less dense effectively than a state like CA where there are huge areas with no people but big cities with people crammed in - I saw one time estimates density by distance to average neighbor and I remember it was Maine then Vermont).

      But a rare rural area filled with liberals willing to abide by restrictions masking etc and a good vaccination rate .

      For this time of year , great weather to stop covid .

      But one thing they are worst in usa except maybe Hawaii. You know what I am going to say ..they have the lowest natural immunity.

  20. D_Ohrk_E1

    Some studies suggest that people infected w/ COVID-19 who subsequently get vaccinated have the most robust "super human" immunity. It makes one wonder if hybrid vaccines involving inactivated virus and mRNA will be more effective than mRNA alone.

    1. rational thought

      I think the evidence that vaccines improve on natural immunity is now fairly overwhelming enough to leave little doubt. But unsure whether it lasts or eventually wanes back to where it would be with just natural immunity.

      Note a more traditional vaccine which just uses a dead or weakened virus is not likely to produce any more immunity than peak natural immunity. But the mnra vaccines , by giving perhaps a different view of the virus to the immune system , might improve it in a real way.

      I have not heard your idea anywhere else. Did this just occur to you or have you read of it being discussed. Definitely sounds to me that it would be something worth exploring. And I would hope our scientific leaders would be thinking creatively that way but from what I have seen so far, not too hopeful.

      1. Vog46

        "I think the evidence that vaccines improve on natural immunity is now fairly overwhelming enough to leave little doubt"

        The UK study says otherwise
        But you convinced yourself.......good for you

        1. rational thought

          Vog,

          What study are you referring to?

          And are you sure you really read what I wrote?

          I was saying that if you are infected and have natural immunity, getting vaccinated on top of that leaves you more immune than just having natural immunity alone without vaccination.

          So you are arguing that vaccines are useless if you have natural immunity?

  21. Vog46

    Michigan Hospital system is not allowing for those with "natural" immunity to not have to vaccinate
    They are however requiring PROOF. An immunity passport.
    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/09/09/spectrum-health-workers-can-use-natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate-exemption/8262491002/

    So do the anti vaxxers, the HIPPA hypocrites and anti Biden folks agree with this? This IS revealing a health condition (we had COVID) rather than a vaccine status.
    One other question. This would require ongoing proof of immunity, rather than a dated card showing vaccine records. Would this stand in court?

  23. rational thought

    First of all this is health workers and it is not a government mandate just an employer requirement. Since health workers have a much more obvious reason to need immunity to do their job, I think courts would be more willing to allow certain things .

    I myself have no problem with an employer requirement in that field to have either been vaccinated or to have been infected, even without an alternative of weekly tests.

    But I do not know enough about hippa to know whether there is an issue with it. But do not see why asking for proof of being infected is anything different than proof of vaccination with respect to hippa. They are both medical records.

    I do think the problem here is that they are requiring continued evidence of immunity through antibody tests every three months for those who have been infected but not for those that have been vaccinated. I do not see a rational basis in terms of expected risk for that distinction. Vaccine effectiveness wanes too. We do not know how long it lasts just like we do not know how long natural immunity lasts. In fact, there is more evidence supporting that natural immunity lasts for a while than for vaccine, if only because we have a large group that had had natural immunity for over a year to look at .

    So , if you need an antibody test every three months for those who have been infected, why do you not need the same for vaccinated? That might be hard to justify in court, especially since an antibody test is invasive requiring a blood sample .

    I think you might be able to justify a first one time antibody test for natural immunity and not for vaccine, if you can verify a vaccination ( not just the easily forged card) as near 100% proof of vaccination, while a positive pcr test is not as clear proof of infection due to false positives.

  24. Vog46

    If in fact both wane with time then both should have timed testing maybe at 3 months 6 months and 9 month?

    As far as privacy is concerned there are many companies that random drug test, so there is precedent for this because it's random and ongoing.
    And again think about workman's compensation insurance. If an employee gets hurt on the job in many state they conduct a drug test when being treated, If drugs are determined to be present they have the right to deny coverage. This is not true for all states but for several it is.

    The problem with COVID and natural versus vaccine immunity is that once you get BOTH you cannot determine which is waning faster in the section of the population that has had both.
    But now that they may require antibody testing INSTEAD of vaccine it poses a dilemma for those who claim )erroneously) that HIPPA prevents disclosure and it does not. IT allows for voluntary disclosure but the random drug testing gets disclosed to employers all the time.
    THIS is why the vaccine mandate will stand the test of the courts. Its preventative and also for the common good but does NOT disclose a personal illness like the antibody test would

  25. rational thought

    Vog,

    If you are requiring an antibody test every 3 months for those with either vaccination or having been infected, you do not really need proof of vaccination or infection. No need to show a pcr test or vaccination card . If you have antibodies, that is enough. So then no need to disclose whether you were infected or got vaccinated. If having been infected is a hippa issue but vaccination is not , then that would solve that . Employer should not care how you got immunity if you have it.

    I expect this holds up in court if it is reasonably related to the job ( medical workers for sure ). An employer imposing it on a worker who works out of their home for good of overall community, I do not know. And also this is the employer, not a govt mandate that brings up other issues..

    You say for community good. Do not think employers should be requiring things from employees for that- should be job related. Anything where you work indoors with other employees has some nexus there.

    I would add that immunity is not just antibodies. You can have no detectable antibodies but still have pretty good immunity from other cells. But maybe then the virus can get briefly established and contagious for a small time so I guess there is some justification for asking for antibodies.

    Note not saying I agree that antibody tests every 3 months is a good idea or reasonable, just whether it might be legal.

  26. rational thought

    Vog,

    Did you see my reply above re your mentioned uk study.

    Did you just misread what I posted or is there some uk study that shows vaccines are useless if you have natural immunity?

  27. Vog46

    One of the things that rational is alluding to in this discussion is that the CDC and other health agencies do the studies that determine how well the immunity for the vaccines last.
    They do the work for everyone - individuals, groups businesses. They do it w/o having to disclose information regarding someones personal health history except for the term comorbidities.
    Now that this hospital wants to ALLOW for natural immunity the employees will have to test for it which will indicate that they had COVID. This causes a concern under HIPPA for disclosure of a common disease. We can't rely on the honesty of the employees - on your honor drug testing showed THAT to be a disaster in some locations.
    So, do you Mandate A VACCINE which does not CAUSE COVID as a general practice for your entire company? This can be done off site if need be and you are given a card which you can then show your employer
    Or do you get a card indicating you've had COVID because you have antibodies?
    If you are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Pelosi gets this type of thing passed for members of the House of Representatives - do you test and have it revealed you've had COVID? Or that you're a hypocrite and got vaccinated?
    Given the fanaticism in this country I can see many people NOT wanting either but they COULD Settle for the vaccine mandate because it doesn't disclose a personal illness?
    Drug screens, criminal back ground checks, physical capabilities testing are all part of getting jobs in some company's. They are required and have with stood court challenges
    Vaccine mandates will stand this test as well IMHO

  28. Vog46

    ZYou don't need to test for Vaccine induced anti bodies as the CDC and other countries health departments are doing this for us
    The question is do we rely on it? It's easy for a company to say yes we are vaccinating and requiring it based upon CDC, FDA, and other health organizations. Due to THEIR testing we are requiring booster shots at 5 month intervals
    For Natural immunity you would HAVE to test to see what the baseline is and how fast it tapers off because the company has no idea when you had it - and may be you don't either. For Moderna vaccine they may see it was administered in Feb so the first time a booster is available you need to get it per CDC and FDA guidelines.
    The vaccine CARD is the baseline, the CDC and FDA do the mass testing of vaccines to give the best advice and then produce the guidelines for when boosters are needed. For Natural Immunity we have NONE of that information. NONE
    So for natural immunity you need to get tested - you need to SHARE the results that you HAD COVID and based upon THAT Admission either be allowed to work until the next testing date for immunity wearing off - OR - keep your mouth shut to "protect your personal information" get the vaccine and wait 5 months
    No one in health care should be allowed to work UNLESS proof of immunity is provided.
    If you are embarrassingly STUPID, or don't want to admit you were duped by Trump - then just get the shot and the booster when needed. But if you have NO IMMUNITY upon testing they you HAVE to get the shot or lose the job

    But there's one more consideration.
    What if your immunity is from Alpha or Beta? That was over a year ago.
    Delta has only been here since 4th of July basically - this is when cases took off again. Far too many people were asymptomatic with A& B variants and would be over whelmed by Delta.
    So unless the immunity is STRONG - coming from Delta NOT A or B then I would consider natural immunity for no longer than 3 months before re-testing for immunity That would put that person at the 5 or 6 month mark for natural immunity. THATS when a shot should be mandatory
    We let our guard down once before and got burned. We cannot do that again

Comments are closed.