There is a lot of good information here, but unfortunately a lot of hyperbole, and a lack of sources to allow us to check your numbers.
First, the headline, which conveys emphatic certainty. Contrast that with the body, which says
“all signs point to it being about 65% more infectious than the old one, albeit with large uncertainty and error bars around that. ”
“I give it a 70% chance that these reports are largely correct.”
(Bolding mine)
Next:
The media told us it was nothing to worry about, right up until hospitals got overwhelmed and enough people started dying.
This is a gross generalization, similar to those made by people set out to demonize the media regardless of the facts. A quick google shows dozens of warnings from CNN from January to late March.
The first US death was mid February. We reached 1000 deaths (“enough” is a very broad term) around March 26.
Back to the first quote above—it mentions “all signs” pointing to something. Best I can tell, it was one study. Please correct me if I am wrong.
What evidence went into the 70% chance estimate?
Under “The Numbers/Predictions” heading- where did the predictions come from? What assumptions were made in creating the predictions? We have no idea.
Under “Deaths” through “Test Counts”—where did the tabular data come from? There is a source for one chart, but that is it. Your comment on the chart seems dubious.
the increased cases in the deep South are mostly [due to] increased testing.
but you only show testing data for NY and USA. Furthermore, if the increased cases are only due to increased testing, positivity should be flat. Your data show it is rising in the South, which supports the premise that the cases are increasing independent of testing.
More hyperbole here:
This definitely does qualify under “hot damn, look at this chart.” This is a huge, dramatic increase in infections happening very quickly. A doubling in one week.
Here is the graph as presented.
Here is the same data in a larger context.
The new variation was detected first in the UK in September. Cases went from about 20 on September 1 to 370 in mid November. Then they *dropped* to 213 before jumping up to 500.
This does not seem to be caused by something in September. If it were, the exponential growth rate we see in December would have started back then.
France had a higher rate of increase, probably not due to this new strain, and nonetheless brought it under some control.
The rate of increase in the UK since Dec 6 is about the same as the US in November.
So while it is possible the new strain is causing the recent surge, it is quite likely that other things have a larger influence.
And finally
Multiple sources confirm that there is no reason to expect a six-months-later second dose to be any less effective a booster.
So why not link to those multiple sources? The nearby link to the margilanrevolution.com does mention the possibility of a 6 month later dose being an option, but provides no data to back that up, other than a single example of a vaccine for a completely different disease.
But ln(370/20)/ln(2) = 4.2. This means that the new strain doubled 4 times between September and mid-November, suggesting a typical doubling time of just over two weeks.
This is approximately what is observed at the end of December.
But indeed, I don’t understand why the number of infected people suddenly decreases at the end of November. An explanation would be helpful.
Where can we find the source saying that there were about 20 cases of new strains in September?
But indeed, I don’t understand why the number of infected people suddenly decreases at the end of November. An explanation would be helpful.
As henryaj says above, the UK was in a national lockdown Nov 5 - Dec 2. Accounting for a lag in catching it → positive test, that matches the graph reasonably well
There is a lot of good information here, but unfortunately a lot of hyperbole, and a lack of sources to allow us to check your numbers.
First, the headline, which conveys emphatic certainty. Contrast that with the body, which says
(Bolding mine)
Next:
This is a gross generalization, similar to those made by people set out to demonize the media regardless of the facts. A quick google shows dozens of warnings from CNN from January to late March.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/world/cnn-coronavirus-coverage/index.html
The first US death was mid February. We reached 1000 deaths (“enough” is a very broad term) around March 26.
Back to the first quote above—it mentions “all signs” pointing to something. Best I can tell, it was one study. Please correct me if I am wrong.
What evidence went into the 70% chance estimate?
Under “The Numbers/Predictions” heading- where did the predictions come from? What assumptions were made in creating the predictions? We have no idea.
Under “Deaths” through “Test Counts”—where did the tabular data come from? There is a source for one chart, but that is it. Your comment on the chart seems dubious.
but you only show testing data for NY and USA. Furthermore, if the increased cases are only due to increased testing, positivity should be flat. Your data show it is rising in the South, which supports the premise that the cases are increasing independent of testing.
More hyperbole here:
Here is the graph as presented.
Here is the same data in a larger context.
The new variation was detected first in the UK in September. Cases went from about 20 on September 1 to 370 in mid November. Then they *dropped* to 213 before jumping up to 500.
This does not seem to be caused by something in September. If it were, the exponential growth rate we see in December would have started back then.
France had a higher rate of increase, probably not due to this new strain, and nonetheless brought it under some control.
The rate of increase in the UK since Dec 6 is about the same as the US in November.
So while it is possible the new strain is causing the recent surge, it is quite likely that other things have a larger influence.
And finally
So why not link to those multiple sources? The nearby link to the margilanrevolution.com does mention the possibility of a 6 month later dose being an option, but provides no data to back that up, other than a single example of a vaccine for a completely different disease.
The UK had a national lockdown in November, and lifted it at the start of December.
upvoted.
But ln(370/20)/ln(2) = 4.2. This means that the new strain doubled 4 times between September and mid-November, suggesting a typical doubling time of just over two weeks.
This is approximately what is observed at the end of December.
But indeed, I don’t understand why the number of infected people suddenly decreases at the end of November. An explanation would be helpful.
Where can we find the source saying that there were about 20 cases of new strains in September?
As henryaj says above, the UK was in a national lockdown Nov 5 - Dec 2. Accounting for a lag in catching it → positive test, that matches the graph reasonably well