The graph illustrates what I suspect the future is going to look like. Mouseover each country in the list on the right to single its results out. I’m hoping that the case mortality might go down a bit more but I don’t think it’s going to zero no matter what we do.
And no one should expect it to go to zero. If memory serves, the US experiences 40-50K deaths per year from traditional flu. An article, from my archives, of interest:
https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/clarifying-the-true-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-same-as-the-flu-8148e38b9ab5#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20Dr.%20Fauci%20refers%20to%20the%20case%20fatality,number%20of%20people%20that%20have%20the%20disease%E2%80%99s%20symptoms.
From my perspective, as I’ve been pointing out since early days, (and I’m no virologist etc) the most policy informative and shocking statistic is the drastically increased incidence of hospitalizations and deaths somewhere in the 65-75 yr old range. (There really is no bright line distinction.) Pre this age group, covid health issues are similar, perhaps less so, than the traditional flu as a general public health matter.
And yet rather than a vigorous and focused strategy on, say, 60 years aged and older, (as I have advocated since the general contours of this disease took shape early on) policymakers have applied a peanut butter strategy with tremendous costs to those with nothing approaching a commensurate risk, as well as the more narrow economic costs to the 60+ crowd. It is truly a national scandal for the ages. All cynically political. No science. No logic. And no acknowledgement of the errors.
And with this administration, no evidence of a mid-course correction. Its too important politically for them, but the arrogance and selfishness is unforgivable. The people be damned is not good public policy.
We need fewer cases. I think that 1.6% number can decrease, especially with Paxlovid out but it wont have nearly as much effect as hoped since we cant make that much very fast. Also, monoclonal antibodies, except one kind, dont work well against Omicron. I dont expect many more people to get vaccinated so realistically cases may not change a lot. The one hope there is that Omicron is even more mild than we think so lots of people get infected without dying.
Very nice thread on Omicron at link.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1473787861056901124.html
Steve
Did you read the update? It follows.
“An email asked for the specific source of the IFR and CFR of the flu, which is <0.1% and 2–3%, respectively, in this article. I then realized that Dr. Brown cited the IFR of the seasonal flu, but CFR of the Spanish flu pandemic. For the seasonal flu, the CFR is 0.1%.
So, Dr. Fauci is right to say that the seasonal flu has a CFR of 0.1%, although he compared this CFR of flu with the IFR of Covid-19 (i.e., 1%). In this way, it is an underestimate when Dr. Fauci said that the mortality rate of Covid-19 is 10-times higher than the flu. Thus, the prior numbers I cited overestimate the lethality of the flu and discredited Dr. Fauci, which I sincerely apologize."
He, the author, was mistakenly using the numbers for the Spanish flu and not the current seasonal flu. You, and all the others of your ilk need to get over the idea this is just the flu. It is much more infectious and much more deadly. It is much more resource intensive for people who do get sick.
As an aside I keep telling you that in this "debate" those of us actually caring for pts really do read claims that have claims that do not conform with conventional thought. (Also, I dont believe most of you actually read what you cite, just the headline or first paragraph.) However, we read them critically like we would any other article/paper. Someone correctly noted that your author cited a number that didnt make sense so they asked for a citation which resulted in finding out this author was wrong. To his credit he admits it. However, he leaves the original article and we know most people wont read down to the update and hence will still believe this is just like the flu.
"And yet rather than a vigorous and focused strategy on, say, 60 years aged and older,"
So show us some examples where this has been accomplished. No science, no logic behind this. Just cynically political.
Steve
If the goal is to get case counts down; I don’t believe there is a tool that the US / States governments have to achieve that.
Vaccines (including mRNA) are only effective highly effective at preventing transmission / infection for about 4 months after a shot. That’s why Israel / Germany have approved a 4th shot — they already see data that the booster is waning. An anecdote that fits this narrative is the number of Congressman that came down this week with mild cases of COVID despite being fully vaccinated with a booster.
Of the NPI approaches; the only countries that successfully employed them to keep case counts low is China/HK. That requires things like keeping everyone locked in their homes in a city the size of Chicago; cutting international travel by 99%; and testing everyone who was within 1km for 10 minutes for a suspected case…
To control case counts; the US needs to invent a vaccine that works on the upper respiratory system.
One has to fit goals with the tools that are available. Current vaccines and drugs are effective at reducing mortality (and hospitalization).
Try thinking before writing sometime, steve. Yes, I saw the update. That wasn’t the point of referencing the article. Nor was it a comment on Fauci. It was just a reminder of the difference that exists between the two statistical measures. And it happened to also contain the statistic/reminder on the striking increase in mortality of the older population.
As for citing a controlled experiment of focusing on the older, that’s the whole point. Which apparently went right over your head. The policy is flawed. One size doesn’t fit all.
One hopes you don’t similarly go off half-cocked when treating patients.
You prefaced your citation with this. “If memory serves, the US experiences 40-50K deaths per year from traditional flu. An article, from my archives, of interest:”
Pretty clear that you once again wanted to liken covid to the flu but nice try at denial. If you wanted to point out the link to old age there are tons of papers looking specifically at that issue.
My patients? I try to make their care evidence based. Your wanting to target old people? I keep pointing out that there is no evidence that we know how to do this successfully. Feel free to provide that evidence.
Steve
The following was excerpted from a Steve Kirsch newsletter:
“PAXLOVID was recently approved by the FDA without any external meetings or disclosure. There was no opportunity for public input. Essentially all done behind closed doors.
Dr. Ryan Cole on the drug’s mechanism of action after infection explains, the Covid virus enters the cell and commandeers the cell forcing it to produce proteins. Protease enzymes must be present for the virus to successfully complete the cycle before taking the cell over. PAXLOVID or any drug classified as a ‘Protease Inhibitor’ will inhibit or decrease the Protease enzyme interfering with the virus. Ivermectin is the most successful and proven protease inhibitor in production. Just as with Paxlovid, ivermectin decreases the protease enzyme but…the benefits of ivermectin in Covid treatment are obvious and not present in paxlovid. Additional actions of ivermectin include anti-coagulant action and anti-inflammatory actions, both observed in Covid infections.
PAXLOVID requires combination with an HIV/AIDS drug, Ritonavir, preventing the breakdown of the PAXLOVID so it may inhibit or decrease the enzyme interrupting the viral life cycle. Dr. Cole reports Ritonavir also has its own black box warning and side effects include life-threatening liver, pancreas and heart issues.
According to Pfizer’s press release, PAXLOVID reduces hospitalization/death by 89%. So in the treatment group we had 5 of 697 hospitalized with no deaths compared to 44/682 hospitalized with 9 subsequent deaths.
How does that compare with the Fareed and Tyson protocol? Well, Fareed and Tyson had 10 times as many patients taking the drug combo and yet they had fewer hospitalizations (4) and the same number of deaths (0).
So you’re way better off with the Fareed and Tyson protocol.â€
The Fareed and Tyson protocols included HCQ and ivermectin. These doctors are said to have saved literally thousands of lives by using these antivirals – their practices based out of the Imperial Valley in CA.
Fareed and Tyson need to publish a study. I am sure they would have not trouble getting funding. It should have controls.
People do tend to discount them as they make claims that are clearly wrong. One of them believes that there is no asymptomatic spread. That has been so clearly documented that it is not debatable. One of the reasons it is hard to control spread. The other believes that masks cause bacterial pneumonia. First there is no real evidence of this. We should be seeing lots of admissions for bacterial pneumonia if true and we are not. Second, many professions routinely have to wear masks. This has been true for a long time. Has not been seen with them.
So they come off as a couple of crackpots. However, would babe glad to look at their study if they ever do one. I am betting they wont.
Steve