https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920305377

Abstract
This study investigated the relationships between antisocial traits and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures. The sample consisted of 1578 Brazilian adults aged 18–73 years who answered facets from the PID-5, the Affective resonance factor of the ACME, and a questionnaire about compliance with containment measures. Latent profile analyses indicated a 2-profile solution: the antisocial pattern profile which presented higher scores in Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking, as well as lower scores in Affective resonance; and the empathy pattern profile which presented higher scores in Affective resonance and lower scores in ASPD typical traits. The latent profile groups showed significant differences between them and interaction with the containment measures and weeks. The antisocial and empathy groups showed significant differences. These differences were sustained in the interaction with the containment measures and weeks separately, but not when all were interacting together. Our findings indicated that antisocial traits, especially lower levels of empathy and higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, and Risk-taking, are directly associated with lower compliance with containment measures. These traits explain, at least partially, the reason why people continue not adhering to the containment measures even with increasing numbers of cases and deaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920304219?via=ihub

Abstract
In a nationally representative sample from Poland (N = 755), we examined the relationships between the Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) and collective narcissism (i.e., agentic and communal) on the one hand, and behaviors related to the COVID-19 pandemic at (1) the zero-order level, at (2) the latent variance level, and (3) indirectly through health beliefs about the virus (i.e., the health belief model) on the other. We focused on preventive and hoarding behaviors as common reactions toward the pandemic. Participants characterized by the Dark Triad traits engaged less in prevention and more in hoarding, whereas those characterized by collective narcissism engaged in more hoarding only. Coronavirus-related health beliefs mediated patterns of prevention (fully) and hoarding (partially) in the latent Dark Triad (Dark Core) and collective narcissism. However, specific beliefs worked in opposite directions, resulting in a weak indirect effect for prevention and a null indirect effect for hoarding. The results point to the utility of health beliefs in predicting behaviors during the pandemic, explaining (at least in part) problematic behaviors associated with the dark personalities (i.e., Dark Triad, collective narcissism).

 

The Russians may have actually created a vax! https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/rus...hows-no-serious-side-effects-lancet-says.html

 

The Russians may have actually created a vax! https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/rus...hows-no-serious-side-effects-lancet-says.html

I'm sure they created a VAX. Creating a VAX isn't the problem as there are 100's of candidates in the pipeline, proving it's actually effective at preventing COVID-19, effective at providing Herd Immunity to the general population and works without short or long term side-effects is what takes so long.

Take the shot and jump into the pit.

Very dangerous...You go first.

 

Letting the virus run rampant through a population is madness that absolutely nobody is suggesting as the cure.

Your good buddy, Dennis the menace in another thread said that. Just go out and live life no worry about spreading or getting.

It's blatantly obvious in that linked article that Herd Immunity is being linked to high death rates.

The link said that to achieve herd immunity as it stands now, "213 million people in the U.S. would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity, leaving 1,385,800 Americans dead." https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88401

The promise of a reliable, fully tested vaccine, that undergoes normal procedures will not be here soon. No matter what the CDC/FDA is being pressured into saying. And even if they do make one "available" now, 2/3 of the people say they won't get the first vaccine. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ake-vaccine-right-away-poll-shows/5696982002/

So the only way herd immunity before that is to have ~1,385,800 dead, that's if things keep going the way they are now. That's the meaning I and many others get from that link.

 

Very dangerous...You go first.

Agreed and I won't be the first in line for a vaccination. In fact, unpredicted outcomes may not rear their heads for years afterward. I will never forget being given a flu shot in the 50s and by the time my mom got me home I was already running a high fever. Of course, the Doc said "Oh he must have already contracted it before being vaccinated". Yeah, right... Vaccines have come a long way since then, but still...

 

So the only way herd immunity before that is to have ~1,385,800 dead, that's if things keep going the way they are now. That's the meaning I and many others get from that link.

'That's the meaning I and many others get from that link'

That's so wrong it's painful to consider the twisting of facts needed to have that opinion but It's a right I will defend as always.

‘‘Herd Immunity’’: A Rough Guide

 

That's so wrong it's painful to consider the twisting of facts needed to have that opinion

But it's one that many immunologists are saying, people who do it for a living, not experts on a forum.

 

But it's one that many immunologists are saying, people who do it for a living, not experts on a forum.

'If the U.S. allowed the coronavirus to spread unchecked in an attempt to try to achieve so-called herd immunity, the “death toll would be enormous,” White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci warned on Thursday.'
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...4-million-americans-infected-17-million-dead/

Disease modelers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project that as much as 65% of the American population could eventually be infected by the new coronavirus, according to the New York Times.

The models: According to the report, the CDC shared its models with 50 expert teams, all working to estimate how fast the virus will spread and how severe the cases of flu-like illness it causes will be.

The worst-case figures reflect what would happen if no action is taken to slow the virus, which spreads from person to person. If this transmission is unchecked, each person with the virus could infect about two to three others, causing the contagion to grow.
...
Modeling the true course of the pandemic will depend on better scientific information and must reflect the effects of countermeasures as well as issues such as reserves of medical equipment.

There is a nuance from those immunologists that you are missing. Things are not going to be static and remain the same as the pandemic progresses. Everyday we are refining virus protection procedures and treatments to reduce death and serious effects. I read, actually listen to the experts and try to follow along as best I can.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.26.20162420v2

We demonstrate how to incorporate this heterogeneity into a wide class of epidemiological models, and derive a non-linear dependence of the effective reproduction number Re on the susceptible population fraction S. Persistent heterogeneity has three important consequences compared to the effects of short-term overdispersion: (1) It results in a major modification of the early epidemic dynamics; (2) It significantly suppresses the herd immunity threshold; (3) It also significantly reduces the final size of the epidemic. We estimate social and biological contributions to persistent heterogeneity using data on real-life face-to-face contact networks and age variation of the incidence rate during the COVID-19 epidemic. In addition, empirical data from the COVID-19 epidemic in New York City (NYC) and Chicago, as well as 50 US states provide a consistent characterization of the level of heterogeneity. Our estimates suggest that the hardest-hit areas, such as NYC, are close to the heterogeneity-modified herd immunity threshold following the first wave of the epidemic. However, this type of immunity is fragile as it wanes over time if the pattern of social interactions changes substantially.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-tricky-math-of-covid-19-herd-immunity-20200630/

However, in an ongoing pandemic with no guarantee that a vaccine will be available anytime soon, the heterogeneity of susceptibility has real implications for the disease’s herd immunity threshold.

In some cases it will make the threshold higher. This could be true in places like nursing homes, where the average person might be more susceptible to COVID-19 than the average person in the broader population.

But on a larger scale, heterogeneity typically lowers the herd immunity threshold. At first the virus infects people who are more susceptible and spreads quickly. But to keep spreading, the virus has to move on to people who are less susceptible. This makes it harder for the virus to spread, so the epidemic grows more slowly than you might have anticipated based on its initial rate of growth.

Shaman, too, thinks that uncertainty about the naturally acquired herd immunity threshold, combined with the consequences for getting it wrong, leaves only one path forward: Do our best to prevent new cases until we can introduce a vaccine to bring about herd immunity safely.

“The question is: Could New York City support another outbreak?” he said. “I don’t know, but let’s not play with that fire.”

I absolutely agree with this.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/key...cts-over-410000-total-us-deaths-by-jan-1.html

HME released three new projections based on different assumptions: a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario and a most likely scenario. The most likely scenario estimates that Covid-19 will kill 410,450 people in the U.S. by Jan. 1. The worst-case scenario, which assumes that restrictions and mask directives will ease, projects up to 620,028 people in the U.S. will die by then and the best-case scenario, which assumes universal masking, predicts that 288,380 people in the U.S. will die from Covid-19 in 2020.

On a call, Murray added that widespread mask use likely won’t be enough to drive down spread of the virus in the fall and winter. He said the question, from a policy perspective, is what kind of social distancing restrictions will be most effective, and there’s not enough public data to answer that question, he said.

Enjoy what's left of summer.

 

Interesting video on the science behind Covid testing:

 

Example:
These states have a Effective Reproduction Rate · Rt below 1.0
Rt is the average number of people who become infected by an infectious person. If it’s above 1.0, COVID-19 will spread quickly. If it’s below 1.0, infections will slow.

Texas:
https://rt.live/us/TX

I live in Texas

I've been hiding in my daily life, where people still have face to face conversations. Masks are only worn in stores. People get sick, stay home for a week or two and come back just like they always have. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has been hospitalized, and I ask most people I talk to.

EDIT:
the above isn't meant to imply that I "don't believe in it." Just that around here, it isn't taken as seriously as in some other places, and there doesn't seem to be any abundant evidence to indicate that it should be. And i am asking here, to uncover anything that might challenge my observations. My mind is open. I am receptive to other people's observations. Just not to "the news" or biased articles.

I'm curious why it isn't more prevalent here when so many don't take the recommended precautions. Causality... are we not taking it seriously because it isn't as prevalent here? Or is it not prevalent here because we aren't taking it seriously? The latter case seems doesn't seem very logical. Logically we should be getting our butts kicked for not wearing our masks. But we really aren't. What gives?

 

"Herd immunity" has many common and somewhat differing definitions. In common to those definitions is the reduction of Ro to a level that the epidemic infection fails to spread. I have always used the term in this thread to describe naturally acquired immunity following subclinical infection -- the prevalence of which is very high in some populatons. By definition the sequelae are minimal if at all.

I am no expert, but my understanding is that if we have to rely on the naturally acquired immunity that this may be like other coronavirus's currently circulating - temporary - leading to the virus continually circulating in the community, just like the common cold. This would make it almost impossible to protect the vulnerable - it would be like trying to prevent the elderly getting a cold. My understanding was that there is some hope that a vaccine can produce a longer lasting, perhaps more reliable immunity depending on what part of the virus it targets. Hopefully a vaccine also provides the possibility of booster shots, rejuvinating your immunity without you getting sick.

I don't understand "By definition the sequelae are minimal if at all.", by observation and early studies it appears that they may be significant. ('Sequelae' is how doctors refer to conditions that seem to result from an earlier illness.)

What do you think the vaccine(s) will be? What do you think an mRNA vaccine does?

I (vaguely) understand that a mRNA vaccine hijacks part of the cellular machinery to make the antigen to trigger the immune response. This is a novel vaccine, and I guess my preference (from a position of almost pure ignorance of the details of vaccine technology) is that if we are going to rush a vaccine rollout I would prefer an established platform. That said, if I am given the choice between (1) a mRNA vaccine that has been through phase 3 trials of 30,000 people with no safety concerns and that significantly prevents Covid-19, or (2) getting Covid-19 in which case we know that for the (gedanken) same trial of 30,000 people it would have killed many and have probably left sequelae () in an as yet undetermined number, I think the rational choice is to take the vaccine.

 

Well said. Kudos to your realistic perspective of things.

Thanks, Stay safe there in Mexico.

 

I live in Texas



I'm curious why it isn't more prevalent here when so many don't take the recommended precautions. Causality... are we not taking it seriously because it isn't as prevalent here? Or is it not prevalent here because we aren't taking it seriously? The latter case seems doesn't seem very logical. Logically we should be getting our butts kicked for not wearing our masks. But we really aren't. What gives?

IMO the numbers started heading south and so far have stayed south in Texas when pure drinking bars were closed. Young(er) people drinking, in close crowded conditions, with air-conditioning recirculating tainted air are the perfect conditions for covid-19 super-spreaders. Bars are open in Oregon but the patrons and owners of all political stripes enforce distancing precautions and mask laws like The Punisher. No quarter for idiots that think they are invincible.

I was born and raised in Texas. You need to kick them in the head a few times to get the message across if they think something's not 'fair' or a infringement of their freedom. But when it does get across they don't mess around.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/0...52.1587981876.1599265123-386061422.1599265123

"If I could go back and redo anything, it probably would have been to slow down the opening of bars, now seeing in the aftermath of how quickly the coronavirus spread in the bar setting," Abbott said during an evening interview with KVIA in El Paso.

Abbott added that the "bar setting, in reality, just doesn't work with a pandemic," noting people "go to bars to get close and to drink and to socialize, and that's the kind of thing that stokes the spread of the coronavirus."

 

https://apnews.com/bc8888eb4e70c1dd77566e536404afe5

Antibodies that people make to fight the new coronavirus last for at least four months after diagnosis and do not fade quickly as some earlier reports suggested, scientists have found.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2028079

The most striking observation was that antibodies remained stable over the 4 months after diagnosis, a finding captured in a subgroup of longitudinally monitored subjects. Unlike previous studies,2 this study suggested stability of SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity. Discordant results may simply be attributable to sampling biases. Infections and vaccines generate two waves of antibodies: The first wave is generated by early short-lived plasma cells, poised to populate the systemic circulation, but this wave subsides rapidly after resolution of acute infection. The second wave is generated by a smaller number of longer-lived plasma cells that provide long-lived immunity (Figure 1).6 Thus, sampling soon after infection, during wave 1, may point toward a robust though transient waning. Conversely, sampling later or over a longer period of time may provide a more accurate reflection of the decay patterns of the immune response. Along these lines, a rise and early decay of antibodies was observed in the Icelandic study, but with limited loss of antibodies at later time points, a finding that points to stable SARS-CoV-2 immunity for at least 4 months after infection.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

 

https://apnews.com/bc8888eb4e70c1dd77566e536404afe5

Antibodies that people make to fight the new coronavirus last for at least four months after diagnosis and do not fade quickly as some earlier reports suggested, scientists have found.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2028079


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

That's excellent news. Thanks for posting.

 

@Tesla23

The concept is simple:
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/RNA_Vaccines_White_Paper_Moderna_050317_v8_4.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986720/

The proposed mRNA vaccine infects your cells (various mechanisms are used) with a novel synthetic mRNA. It is currently believed that does not affect your somatic genome. How long does it persist in the cells? Apparently for a long time based on studies in tissue cultures of other mRNA, but I found no data from the current clinical trials of the coronavirus mRNA vaccine. Remember, our genome consists of nuclear DNA from both parents and RNA from the mother.

I thought you might like to consider that in light of your fear of coronavirus RNA in your system.

There is no mention of other consequences of inviting a novel virus into the bodies of most of your population.

Finally, mRNA vccines are not without side effects: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...p_3fXxcp76WkUn56q-Ztynlog&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

If that link doesn't work, this might: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/7/2/37/htm

There is a table on page 12/20 of the full pdf.

EDIT:
Came across these two, perhaps better references:

Phase 1 Trials:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2022483

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906799/

While preclinical studies have generated great optimism about the prospects and advantages of mRNA-based vaccines, two recent clinical reports have led to more tempered expectations22,91. In both trials, immunogenicity was more modest in humans than was expected based on animal models, a phenomenon also observed with DNA-based vaccines171, and the side effects were not trivial. We caution that these trials represent only two variations of mRNA vaccine platforms, and there may be substantial differences when the expression and immunostimulatory profiles of the vaccine are changed. Further research is needed to determine how different animal species respond to mRNA vaccine components and inflammatory signals and which pathways of immune signalling are most effective in humans.

 

If the U.S. allowed the coronavirus to spread unchecked in an attempt to try to achieve so-called herd immunity, the “death toll would be enormous,” White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci warned on Thursday.'

That would be great if the WH was still listening to him. But that isn't what is happening now, if your paying attention. Scott Atlas is in charge now, and his idea is to spread not vaccinate. An idea you said earlier was not a good thing. So with that the groups of epidemiologists are basing their numbers on.

70 percent of the population and a one percent death rate gives the numbers. But the actual death rate is likely higher than 1 percent.

 

That would be great if the WH was still listening to him. But that isn't what is happening now, if your paying attention. Scott Atlas is in charge now, and his idea is to spread not vaccinate. An idea you said earlier was not a good thing. So with that the groups of epidemiologists are basing their numbers on.

70 percent of the population and a one percent death rate gives the numbers. But the actual death rate is likely higher than 1 percent.

IMO more Media driven stories to sell soap to a wiling public that will lap it up.

Scott Atlas is not a governor (or even dog-catcher) of a state so his ideas are as powerful ( ) as yours and mine at the local level where actual decisions about the pandemic and vaccinations are made.
For some reason the Gov of Oregon is going to listen to what Scott Atlas said on some talk-show months ago and immediately drop all covid-19 protections and stop vaccinations in the state because she is stupid.
Right, that's exactly what will happen with him in charge.

If there has been one constant fact during this pandemic it's been that expert models, predictions, and options about rates of infection, death, immunity and a host of other vital factors have been inaccurate, wrong and/or biased when there is insufficient scientific data to back those statements on the high or low end of numbers.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....s-are-often-wrong/+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Michael Osterholm, chairman of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the media’s treatment of modeling has presented “a real challenge” in helping Americans understand its limits.

“I’ve not necessarily been a big fan of models; I think they’re all wrong,” Osterholm told me. “In this pandemic, it’s been a real challenge because the media tend to focus on a new model estimate when it comes out, and for 36 or 48 hours there’s all kinds of fanfare.”

As actual data on rates of infection, death, immunity and a host of other vital factors are accumulated we are seeing trends that make those worst-case, do nothing numbers look ludicrous as real possibilities because humans are intelligent creatures with the ability to quickly modify behaviors for species survival in third-word counties where the bad-case, do little is the sad reality.

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/covid-19-the-sky-hasnt-fallen-yet-in-africa/

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Microsoft founder, Bill Gates predicted it could claim about 10 million lives in Africa. His wife and co-chair of the Gates Foundation, Melinda Gates, added that without drastic actions, COVID-19 could lead to dead bodies lining the streets of Africa.

But Africa has recorded fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than other parts of the world. Despite the poor quality of health systems across the African continent, the case fatality rate (CFR) in Africa is among the longest globally, hovering around 2% against Europe’s 6.3%, South America’s 3.4%, North America (3.9%), and a global CFR of 3.7% as at August 7.

Dr Michel Yao, Emergency Operations Manager at WHO’s regional office for Africa, noted that earlier predictions (of doom) were based on the assumption that Africa would experience widespread community transmission, and weak health systems would be overwhelmed by the outbreak.

“That was a bit worrying for us – the idea that the system could be easily overwhelmed and the disease could spread faster. This was taken into consideration for the prediction,” Yao told a press conference on Thursday.

“We are pleased to see that [the worst] did not happen,” Yao added.

With the exception of South Africa, many countries are not observing excess deaths due to respiratory-related symptoms. While death and birth registration lags in Africa compared to other regions of the world, WHO AFRO officials noted that COVID-19 deaths remained low in African countries with efficient death reporting systems, implying that these African countries are seeing a true lower death rate than initially predicted.

Health experts have attributed the lower than expected case-fatality rate to Africa’s comparatively young population, which may withstand the virus better than populations with more older people. COVID-19 death rates are highest in people over the age of 65 years old.

Let's hope the low rates stay low.

 

Glad to the WH is listening to someone who is not media hog at the Washington Post. Dr. Scott Atlas may be in disagreement with earlier advisors, but at least he can't be any more wrong than they were.