Blood Tests Show 14 Percent of People Are Now Immune To Covid-19 In One Town In Germany (technologyreview.com) 146
hackingbear writes: After testing blood from 500 residents for antibodies to the COVID-19 virus in the town of Gangelt, which is a hot spot of the pandemic in Germany, scientists at a nearby university say they have determined that 14% have been infected and are therefore "immune." Some of those people would have had no symptoms at all. Scientists found that 2% of residents were actively infected by the coronavirus and a total of 14% had antibodies, indicating a prior infection. "From the result of their blood survey, the German team estimated the death rate in the municipality at 0.37% overall, a figure significantly lower than what's shown on a dashboard maintained by Johns Hopkins, where the death rate in Germany among reported cases is 2%," reports MIT Technology Review. In contrast, the 2019-2020 seasonal flu has infected up to 17% of U.S. population and killed ~0.1% of those infected. Since first emerged in late December, or purportedly as early as late November, the COVID-19 has infected over 1.6 million people and killed over 100,000.
Presence of antibodies (Score:5, Interesting)
It is less clear what those antibody tests mean for real life, however, because immunity functions on a continuum. With some pathogens, such as the varicella-zoster virus (which causes chicken pox), infection confers near-universal, long-lasting resistance. Natural infection with Clostridium tetani, the bacterium that causes tetanus, on the other hand, offers no protection—and even people getting vaccinated for it require regular booster shots. On the extreme end of this spectrum, individuals infected with HIV often have large amounts of antibodies that do nothing to prevent or clear the disease.
At this early stage of understanding the new coronavirus, it is unclear where COVID-19 falls on the immunity spectrum. Although most people with SARS-CoV-2 seem to produce antibodies, “we simply don’t know yet what it takes to be effectively protected from this infection,” says Dawn Bowdish, a professor of pathology and molecular medicine and Canada Research Chair in Aging and Immunity at McMaster University in Ontario. Researchers are scrambling to answer two questions: How long do SARS-CoV-2 antibodies stick around? And do they protect against reinfection?
Re: (Score:2)
And the story itself, for example, includes this quote:
"The test will enable us to determine which health-care workers might be at low risk for working with covid-19 patients,"
Then again, the article then uses pull quotes without full context that seem more conclusive, but without the full quote or ability to r
It is the most reasonable assumption though. (Score:2)
This is science. There is no such thing as proof. Everything is merely the most likely assumption, given what we currently have. You are expected to always take information with as much salt as there are uncertainties. Because all that matters, is if it is useful.
And this certainly is.
By the way, regarding your wish for proof: You don't have a guarantee that you won't fall through the floor when stepping out of bed in the morning. Let alone that the person you are going to meet with, will be there. Yet you
Re:It is the most reasonable assumption though. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is science. There is no such thing as proof.
This is physical science. "Proof" does not mean absolute proof here, unlike in Mathematics. Proof means relative proof with a margin for error and a level of confidence. Whence you get degrees: Proven, well proven, exceptionally well proven, generally accepted as true in the respective research community, etc.
Since everybody competent _knows_ there is no absolute proof when referring to physical reality, there is no potential for misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:3)
Natural infection with Clostridium tetani, the bacterium that causes tetanus, on the other hand, offers no protection—and even people getting vaccinated for it require regular booster shots. On the extreme end of this spectrum, individuals infected with HIV often have large amounts of antibodies that do nothing to prevent or clear the disease.
To be fair: SARS-CoV-2 is quite unlikeHIV and quite unlike Clostridium tetani. Even though the statement is technically correct, the implication that (our immune response to) SARS-CoV-2 might behave like either of those is quite a stretch. One is a frickin' bacterium and the other a retrovirus.
It's very important that research is done to ascertain what level of immunity we can expect after having been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but given the nature of the virus it is probable that there is immunity if there
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific American appears to be unaware of the disease shingles.
The 2017/2018 seasonal flu was worse by the way. (Score:2, Informative)
And I mean: Worse than the 2018/2019 one. In Germany.
Back then 25000 people died from it, in Germany. :) (Not sure if everything is available in English. E.g. the special Corona page [google.com] does not seem to be linked from the English version of the German site [google.com].)
I'm not looking up the numbers for the 2018/2019 one right now, but the German statistical federal agency "Statistisches Bundesamt [destatis.de]" has every statistic you can think of on their website, so go crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, did those 25000 people all die within a couple of weeks time? Did they take out medical personnel trying to treat them in the process? Did they tie up hospitals so much that people having other emergencies died from lack of treatment?
Flattening the curve may be a little misleading by spreading out the death toll, but there is actually some good reasons for spreading it out vs. doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if you have 10,000 deaths, say, over a year, then other medical procedures that save lives are more likely to be able to go ahead, so the overall cost may be 10,000 deaths. Have them all in a short period of time and the stress to the medical system may result in a number of additional deaths which will not be recorded as due to COVID-19. Looking at overall death rates may not tell you this as people will drive less and there will be fewer road deaths. On the other hand, lots of people die in accide
Re: (Score:2)
Seasonal flu is also much worse than Ebola and MERS so maybe you have to take in account how hard people are trying to stop the spread and what would happen if they didn't. COVID-19 is not spectacular in terms of how easily it kills you, let's assume 0.5% of those who get it. Tempting to just let it run its course. Normally 1% of the people die each year so you'd notice the increase of what, maybe 0.3% of the population. It would all happen in a few months too so, big peak. And there is a catch. A lot of p
Re: (Score:3)
The world won't stop turning if you're fatalistic about it but in a society with any kind of social contract you will have to avoid the full out scenario.
And that is just it. And it has been _said_ repeatedly and from the start. Anybody that does not know that is ignorant at this time. The aim here is not to fracture society. How do you think old people would vote if they knew they will just be let to die? Or how would those vote that actually care having this done to, say, a parent? And not only vote, what do you think people would do with their money? And would the highly qualified want to stay in such a shithole country?
Incidentally, if the medical system
Re: (Score:2)
The bare numbers are meaningless. That is exceptionally obvious at this time. Only somebody that had not bothered to find out anything at all would still argue with some isolated numbers as you do.
Re: (Score:2)
The statistics of deaths give meaningful perspective. For example, on the site GP linked, you can find that 954874 people died in Germany in 2018. That's 2616 people on average every day. The 100 to 200 people who died from the virus per day make up 3 - 8% of the total daily deaths.
Scale that up globally, and there are about 160k deaths per day, every day, for a total of about 60 million per year. (Birth rates are about double that). Global deaths to COVID-19 is currently at 114k total since January. Or to
In other words (Score:1)
based on these results, covid-19 is nearly four times as deadly as the flu, or possibly higher depending on circumstances.
So covid-19 is not like the flu as we have been repeatedly told. It's worse.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a grip moron. It's not about the number of deaths. It's about not overwhelming our medical system, something which is on the verge of happening now were it not for the shelter in place orders. Had we not been told to stay home the number of cases would be in the millions and the deaths would be orders of magnitude higher because hospitals would not be able to cope with the influx of patients needing support. As it stands, in one month we're at 1/3 the number of people who die from the flu, and that
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also take into account that because of the load on the medical system, the _other_ numbers will increase as well. If the medical system gets overloaded, that gets massively worse. The moron before you does not have enough brain-cells to consider that maybe, say, having a hart-attack when the next ER is swamped with Covid-19 cases may just result in a bit of a worse survival rate.
I really hate people that have no understanding of how things are connected and take some numbers out of context to "prove
Slashdot immediately rejected this submission: (Score:2, Interesting)
Antibody tests for the novel Coronavirus could be available within 'a week or so', Dr. Fauci says [cnn.com] (Apr. 10, 2020)
"Having antibodies to the Coronavirus could mean someone is protected from getting re-infected..."
Dr. Fauci: Coronavirus immunity cards for Americans are 'being discussed'. [politico.com] (Apr. 10, 2020)
"... the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus
Re: (Score:3)
Ooh! Where can I get coughed on so I can get back to work? Do I have to lick an ER door handle? Faster infected faster pay! What could go wrong?
Most Coronavirus articles are of very poor quality (Score:2)
But... The reporting of progress in our understanding has been VERY poor. I told a member of medical staff that fewer than 1 of 100 articles about the virus have been helpful. She strongly agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they really immune though? (Score:2)
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/questions-remain-covid-19-recovery-guarantee-immunity-reinfection/story?id=70085581 [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From your referenced story:
They also observed that elderly patients were more likely to induce higher concentrations of the antibodies than younger patients.
From this rises the possibility that younger people who likely experienced few or no symptoms are less likely to develop immunity, but older, more vulnerable people are more likely to develop immunity.
In other words, healthy young people will continue to unknowingly re-infect each other, while at some threshold, older people either develop immunity or die.
Combined with a much lower rate of infection than originally anticipated - 15% instead of 80%:
https://spectator.us/covid-ant... [spectator.us]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that, made me laugh :)
In other words (Score:3)
In other words, we don't know how lethal this thing really is.
You can bet your butt that we are counting every possible death - and even not so possible ones. The incentives are overwhelming to do so.
We also know for sure that we are not counting every infection - we can't, for one thing.
So it's certainly less lethal than the official numbers so far suggest, but we have no idea how much less lethal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are definitely not counting every death.
That being said, we are MASSIVELY undercounting actual cases (so many people have mild or no symptoms), so I do agree with you; true lethality is overestimated.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally we do not have perfect information, but I don't think the two are remotely comparable.
It's been estimated that only 6% of cases are being detected worldwide [sci-news.com].
I don't consider it plausible that deaths are off by anywhere close to that degree.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend reported: "I have to go to my grandmother's funeral". I asked him:
* how did she die? COVID-19?
* No, just nasty case of pneumonia.
* Isn't that what you get from COVID-19?
* We don't care.... She's dead."
She wasn't tested, isn't in the statistics. Now I'm not close enough to figure out more in this case. Just that it is likely that not everybody is getting counted. Not even the deaths... (But yeah, the ratio is much higher than with "infected").
Immune for 3-6 months (Score:4, Informative)
As always for Coronaviruses.
They aren't immune for life though (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking out of your ass. If the world's leading scientists don't know if the antibodies will last a long time or not, neither do you. So shut your ignorant virtual mouth and let's wait for the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to recommend a laxative. You'll feel much better in the morning after 4 senokot.
Seems reasonable (Score:2)
One thing to remember is that the official infection and death rates are NOT accurate, and may never be so. At best we will get estimates.
Too many people were not tested. Many got sick and recovered without ever seeing a doctor.
As for deaths, each day NYC has about 200 dead taken from their home and those dead were never tested for the Corona Virus. This time last year, that number was about 25 dead people per day. These dead are being buried without testing.
In the US, it is possible that eventually e
These numbers are _preliminary_! (Score:2)
That means they are _not_ reliable.
No. *MAY* be immune. (Score:2)
It's not clear that having had COVID-19 yields immunity to reinfection. One reasonable interpretation of existing data is that it doesn't. Another is that people who are rated "clear of it" often aren't, they've only suppressed the disease, and it will re-emerge when an opportunity arises. And, of course, another is that the tests have a high error rate (which they do...but THAT high? That was supposed to have been allowed for).
At this point one should be careful about jumping to conclusions on limited
R-R-R-READING RAINBOW BASIC LITERACY PSA... (Score:2)
OK, so the claim is:
"From the result of their blood survey, the German team estimated the death rate in the municipality at 0.37% overall,
a figure significantly lower than what's shown on a dashboard maintained by Johns Hopkins, where the death rate in Germany among reported cases is 2%,"
Wow, huge discrepancy there...
Oh wait, they aren't comparing similar figures: "overall" =/= "among reported cases".
English may be vague and complicated language sometimes, but I don't think anybody can claim that here, Amer
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because if they prepared it would not have led to "watch them waste my tax dollars on stuff nobody needs".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because if they prepared it would not have led to "watch them waste my tax dollars on stuff nobody needs".
The other variant that is common is to say that people who use government services such as perhaps low cost health care (no matter how it is actually provided) are "takers" and why should the "makers" have to pay for the "takers".
I'd like to see some kind of level of national healthcare in the US, where at least say diseases, broken bones, and other basic stuff are just come in, your treated, you leave. Knowing the republicans, we definitely will have to check for citizenship,
At the very least I hope this has taught us that everyone needs to be treated for diseases, lest they carry it to everyone else. Politics, being what they are, makes me doubt this will come to pass, but one can still hope...
I'm pretty far from having constipated angry conservative virus but that is actually a prudent measure.
I've lived in two nations that have had single payer systems and you do want to make sure they system isn't being abused. I'm not even thinking of asylum seekers either, rather the likes of tourists which should have travel insurance.
In Australia I had a Medicare number which entitled me to care, here in the UK I have an NHS number. Now this does not mean that if you don't have an NHS number you will
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. When you come into a hospital with your head under your arm, they won't ask for your insurance or bother with bureaucratic crap, they'll patch you up.
Once it's a given that you survive, they start to figure out who's gonna pay for it. And they make you pay if you're not insured, rest assured. There's that story going around that when a patient defiantly asked what happens if he tried to walk out without paying, the doc simply said "We got you on a drip and you got two working kidneys. So knocking
Re: (Score:2)
"the doc simply said "We got you on a drip and you got two working kidneys."
That sounds like something a barista would say, not a medical professional. Not to mention that the grammar is indicative of severe mental retardation or a functional age of less than 5, I would suspect that this is an anecdote made up by inbred hillbillies and not the speech of anyone who managed to pass medical school.
Re: (Score:2)
that the grammar is indicative of severe mental retardation or a functional age of less than 5
I suggest you don't go to somewhere like New York and espouse such an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
It loses a bit of its verve in the translation, I admit.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. When you come into a hospital with your head under your arm, they won't ask for your insurance or bother with bureaucratic crap, they'll patch you up.
And then bill you for it, which may lead you to lose your house, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You would prefer to keep your house and lose your life?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse by tourists in the UK is (or was before Brexit) pretty difficult, as the parent countries would pay the difference by mutual agreement. Few tourists come from other countries without cover and use the NHS. It's more-or-less a non-problem. It might actually be more of an issue next year.
Hence... My point.
The NHS is well set up to hand foreign visitors. If you don't have an NHS number and cannot demonstrate you;re a citizen of a nation with a reciprocal agreement (not mutual, reciprocal) you are presented with the NHS's price list. It's not an issue, there is no massive bureaucracy, even given the NHS's size. An Australian or German need not worry about visiting a GP on their visit to GB... but an American is advised to have insurance.
Oddly enough, I think this is one of the few things to b
Re: (Score:2)
Here comes the but(t) .. (Score:2)
1.) Indeed there are healthcare systems that have a higher capacity and often times the insurance will not cover the costs.
2.) but every healthcare system would've collapsed if no additional lock down measures would have dampend the spike of severe cases during a mass infection.
Germany had a warning case of what can happen if corona gets out of control and that was Italy.
ps.
god I'm so lucky to live in Germany with a mandatory health insurance and not to fear a serious illness so much, but the illness itself
Re: (Score:2)
The US also has mandatory health insurance, as does Italy. It seems like diverting migrants to neighboring countries while being land-locked and the de-facto ruler state of a complete Union indeed does have its benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
The Czech republic rules a union? In what universe?
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. no longer has mandatory healthcare as such. The GOP got rid of the penalties/tax for not having insurance, and the Trump Administration is now arguing that this removal makes the entire remaining ACA invalid.
I have also seen some argue that the Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act is pretty much the same as universal healthcare, but it is more must-treat-if-dying care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There would have had to be heavy triage and emergency measures, but if this would cause the medical system collapse what are we to do if something truly nasty like the Spanish Flu hits?
It's not like putting people on ventilators and in medical coma has overwhelming success rates. Being able to save a couple 10s of % extra with intensive care is great, but unless we find a medicine which decreases virus loads before we are forced to end the shutdown it will likely not have saved much more people compared to
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the shutdown is not to "saved much more people than the alternative". It is to prevent the buildup of rotting corpses on street corners leading to massive death caused by Cholera or other disease. In other words so that the number of dead is minimized by keeping the rate within the capabilities of the assembly line.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly bullshit.
That didn't happen with Spanish Flu, which did hit the working age population and predated the mass availability of refrigerated trailers.
A virgin healthcare system (Score:2)
Tell me, how would a US healthcare system, which had maintained its moral virtue, responded any better, from reasonable expectations of what could have been known in advance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, any store that has inventory left on the shelves at the end of the day isn't being "run as a business." The world does not fit your preconceived notions.
Any store that had unsold and unusable inventory on the level of 'most of the time the rooms would be sitting empty' would soon be out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
"For-profit healthcare is always going to be under capacity compared to theoretical number of people who might use it because not everyone who needs it can afford to use it."
This does not make any sense whatsoever. I presume that you mean "A for-profit healthcare system must always have a lower capacity (supply) than demand in order to maximize the profit by restricting availability only to those willing and able to pay the most". This is the manner in which all supply-side control systems work to create
Re: (Score:2)
We're destroying our economy to help a healthcare system that wasn't prepared despite years of warnings that were ignored in the name of profit and has completely FUCKED US OVER. Fuck our healthcare system, fuck it all the HELL.
Don't forget to write that on your forehead so the doctors know who not to bother treating when rationing comes.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
I get why they wouldn't want to do the peer review process when this type of data is needed now, not in August or later. Don't disparage the researchers for trying to helpful in an imperfect world.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't need to reply. (Score:5, Funny)
kan0r's comment was not peer reviewed. So by his logic it's useless and should be ignored. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You didn't need to reply. (Score:2)
So ... are we peer-reviewing that German study now too, as we speak?
<Homer>Woohoo! I'm a scientist!</Homer>
Re: (Score:2)
We're Slashdotters, not scientists. Our modpoints only work here. Gotta stay in our own lane.
Re: (Score:2)
kan0r's comment was not peer reviewed. So by his logic it's useless and should be ignored. :)
Not true! kan0r's peers (/. readers) reviewed it. Their conclusion was "-1: Troll".
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
They can't even demonstrate that they are detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and were doing this study before any proven antibody test was even available. It is possible, if not probable, that they are simply detecting exposure to *any* coronavirus, many of which make the rounds during the winter.
They claim surface tests conclusions that go completely contrary to every other study to the same.
They claim exposure conclusions go in absolute contrast with every bit of evidence in the field (e.g. the CDC now says this has an R0 of 5.7, which makes the premise that you need close, confined exposure to an infected person absolutely bonkers).
Then they released a 2 page summary and did a press release, with a professional PR firm backing them up.
This is the dirtiest research yet in this sad debacle. WORSE, they are telling the government to remove restrictions because of their completely unvalidated, unproven, absurdly-contradictory results.
This researcher absolutely deserves to be disparaged. This is as garbage science as garbage science can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether initial exposure correlates with disease severity is uncertain right now, however evidence points to it not being a significant factor. The influenza is a relatively slow replicating virus, so if you start with a large number of infected cells, and they replicate exponentially, it has more of a chance to peak before the immune system deals with it. SARS-CoV-2 is a fast replication virus that doesn't initiate an immune system response for some time -- sometimes well over a week. People who have a hig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The choir used hand sanitizer, kept a distance
They were singing. It ejects an aerosol well over 2m. Hand sanitiser would be ineffective unless they were gargling with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct precaution was not to stand in a room spreading aerosols from their mouths around over each other.
This German study claims that close to no viruses are expelled
Indeed, and other studies suggest otherwise. If it was true then given the choir took precautions they'd be OK. But they weren't. So the choir didn't take the right precautions, as the correct one would most likely have not been having the practice.
In this particular case do you think the single infected individual walked around singing into everyone's face?
Was everyone tested beforehand to know that they didn't have it and were not asymptomatic carriers beforehand? If they were distancing at 1m, then it wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.scmp.com/news/chin... [scmp.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My record is 4 years.
COVID seems to be encouraging medical science to get on the preprint bandwagon.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that (Score:4, Informative)
It is not only that the results are not reviewed yet, what happened is that the leading researchers on the study got so much pressure that they had to give a press conference showing some of their preliminary results. So this has to be taken with a grain of salt and emphasizes that we should not rush to conclusions until the researchers themselves had some time to do a proper job here.
One potential large source of error are the antibody tests used: these where very much 0.01a version tests kits and it seems that they are also sensitive to normal corona viruses antibodies and not only antibodies generated by COVID 19 infections.
That being said the death rate falls into the same ballpark as in other areas where large parts of the general population have been infected. Naturally this number is very much different from the death rate normalized to the number of symptomatic infected patients. Compared with Italy the estimate of 0.4% does not seem far off at all.
The hospitals are in a weird state in Germany at the moment. Many beds are empty (there is even capacity to take in patients from France and Italy), a lot of (necessary) operations have been postponed and now the question is what the next weeks will bring.
Peer review, schmeer review (Score:2)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims consistent with an emerging pattern, not so much.
A case fatality rate (CFR) of roughly 5 percent when cases are people to be sick enough to seek medical care, about 1.5 percent when you do more thorough testing of people showing virus on the PCR test, and this and other data points hinting at roughly a .5 percent infection fatality rate (IFR) after initial antibody screening seems plausible.
So this is not peer reviewed? Chill, dudes and dude
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily extraordinary, though it definitely requires tighter, more controlled research. One of a few things is going on here:
The preliminary findings are incorrect. Easy. Likely. Simple.
There's a genetic (or epigenetic) component making this population more resistant to harm
There's an environmental component making this population more resistant to harm
Some combination of all of the above
Random mutations among a population are known to produce different degrees of resistance. Coincidental pread
Re: (Score:2)
Given exposure, a significant amount actually get the virus. I'll assume 75-80% (given the choir example posted here). Of the folks who actually "catch" the virus, most of them do not go to the hospital. Some do and of the ones who need to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Compared with Italy the estimate of 0.4% does not seem far off at all"
Italy's estimated IFR is between 0.7% - 1.1%, which is significantly higher.
"The hospitals are in a weird state in Germany at the moment."
Germany's CFR went from 0.35% three weeks ago, to 0.75% two weeks ago, to 1.5% a week ago (5 days ago), to 2.3% today. Germany was late to see a major outbreak, but it seems to be kicking in now.
During this outbreak there have been moments when everyone points to some country or other and marvels at wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I spent about 2 hours outside almost every day when cycling. And at least here in my part of the South West there are plenty of people outside whenever the weather is sunny and warm. And while they're often in groups of just two people, something like 40% of the time (just a guess) there's more than the two allowed people in public. They also don't keep the recommended distance. Subjectively the behaviour is little no diff
Faulty Models (Score:1)
I live in a trailer park in the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is "Trailer trash" intended to mean?
What does "the sad news is USA is not #1" supposed to mean?
What is so "sad" about other countries making more progress against the disease? This is not some kind of sports competition to acquire national bragging rights. The USA can learn from other countries to develop best practices.
And why is the word "sad" used so much these days in place of "unfortunate", where back in the day some would write "unfortunately the US is lagging in infant mortality, accessibility to health care, fuel efficiency" or whatever. The word "unfortunate" is somewhat face saving in that the reasons for this are multi-factorial, some without simple or obvious solutions. What is "sad" intended to mean in this context, that the population of the US consist of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, drooling persons suffering from intellectual disability who cannot help themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sad news is USA is not #1 here.
Bullshit!
We have more confirmed cases and more deaths than any other country. We're totally #1!
(Okay, not on a per capita basis. Give us a little more time, we're working on it.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is worse than that, it would have been nice to get the whole story. These results were distributed via press conference, based on preliminary results collected on 1-1/2 pages (someone else down the thread already has the link).
There was much discussion in German press and among experts about the potential problems (e.g., The Heinsberg Quarrel (in German, accept "read with ads") [spiegel.de]):
– 14% of people were infected, but this town has been in lockup for a long time. Pretty much everybody sharing a house
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a shocker for you shitheads: NONE of the numbers are peer-reviewed! I know, hard to believe, but ourworldindata, etc is JUST SOME GUYS CALLING AROUND and putting numbers into a spreadsheet. You guys are all overpaid Javascript programmers, but the real world is not a computer program. There isn't pinpoint accuracy of any numbers you are seeing. No one is "crosschecking" deaths. I know you guys really really want Fallout type fantasies to happen, but it isn't going to.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the flu has natural immunity, i.e. not everybody gets it and, and that is the kicker, there is a vaccine that is pretty effective and has quite low incidence of negative effects. So it is in no way 0.4% against 0.1%. If you assume 17% get the flu and 70% get Covid-19, the that is already 0.4% against 0.025%, i.e. a factor of 16. Now, is you add that anybody sane in a risk group is vaccinated, that adds a factor of 3 or so. Hence even if these _preliminary_ and one-site-only numbers (and it is a