they say that it's too soon/not enough people have been vaccinated for it to be the vaccine.
Why have new Covid cases fallen across the country by as much as 30%
8,401 Views |
65 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by cc_ag92
Perhaps it's the new guidelines on what is a "positive" case.
Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings plus the cold weather created a huge spike that was naturally going to come back down.
Please tell me there's a special place in Heaven for Aggie fans! It's like we are living some sort of penance on Earth.
Tx-Ag2010 said:
Perhaps it's the new guidelines on what is a "positive" case.
False. We are still counting one positive PCR as a case.
WarAGle said:
they say that it's too soon/not enough people have been vaccinated for it to be the vaccine.
I think that it's likely a large part driven by vaccinations. Healthcare workers are likey a fairly significant part of the spread - i know of mulitple cases of people catching COVID after being in the hospital for weeks for unrelated reasons. Furthermore, we were hovering around 1.05-1.1 on the Rt. If the vaccine is very effective, it theoretically wouldn't take much to push it below 1.0 and into decline... Like say 10% of the population gaining immunity through vaccines.
I agree with this.
I think it's a natural curve that's being sped up by vaccinations.
I think it's a natural curve that's being sped up by vaccinations.
Not nearly enough vaccinations for that to be a large factor. The virus spikes and recedes. Hopefully the vaccines combined with the huge number of people now with immunity will prevent another spike.
Almost a 1/3 of the population has likely gotten it. A slow down was going to happen eventually.
We are hitting at risk, urban populations, and first responders. Hospitals were a hot mess incubator. Plus a large % of the population likely have had this in the past six months.
10k shots in San Angelo doesn't equal the effectiveness of 10k shots in Austin, Dallas or Houston.
10k shots in San Angelo doesn't equal the effectiveness of 10k shots in Austin, Dallas or Houston.
Arent we at about 10% vaccinated? Id actually say that every 10% that become immune to this thing in any given area can make quite a noticeable difference. Especially if that area was already at 20-30% to begin with.
Not to mention it's getting to certain populations making the 10% even higher for hospitals, elderly, etc, in that regard
It may not be the sole reason, but I think it is already helping noticeable
Not to mention it's getting to certain populations making the 10% even higher for hospitals, elderly, etc, in that regard
It may not be the sole reason, but I think it is already helping noticeable
The CDC estimated over 90 million infected as of Nov 30th. That was almost four times the number of confirmed cases. Pretty much all of December and January the US averaged over 200,000 confirmed cases per day. Assuming the same ratio of actual infections to confirmed cases, that's close to a million infections per day for two months. That plus the existing pool of previously infected people makes the vaccinations going on then look like a drop in the bucket.
Now we're vaccinating a lot more and still accelerating. I think it should get us where we want to be but I don't think it was a large factor back then at ending the surge in cases.
Now we're vaccinating a lot more and still accelerating. I think it should get us where we want to be but I don't think it was a large factor back then at ending the surge in cases.
Maybe. But it could have also reached a bit of a tipping point. 10% added to 0, that's nothing.
10% added to 20%. Starting to get somewhere.
10% added to 30% of certain areas? Especially a (somewhat) strategic 10%?
It's possible.
10% added to 20%. Starting to get somewhere.
10% added to 30% of certain areas? Especially a (somewhat) strategic 10%?
It's possible.
But I will say that naturally, we were likely slowly getting over that curve too. Just that like others say, the vaccine noticeably spiking it downward quicker
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Being down 30% from the winter peak is still 2x the summer peak.
But yeah, probably a combo of already burning through a ton of higher risk populations at the start of cold weather and being in the backside of Thanksgiving/Christmas.
Here's hoping it keeps falling like a rock.
But yeah, probably a combo of already burning through a ton of higher risk populations at the start of cold weather and being in the backside of Thanksgiving/Christmas.
Here's hoping it keeps falling like a rock.
GAC06 said:
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Not at current levels of social interaction. This whole winter run up in cases was still at a mucb lower Rt than New York experienced in March. Yes we need more than 10% vaccinations and 30% immune from infection to jave an Rt below 1 if we act like it's 2019, but again Rt was hanging right around 1.05 prior to vaccines. It doesn't take much new immunity to push it into decline. But it's also why we still can't just demask and return to normal yet. Give it a few months and ~40% vaccination and we'll be largely done. Cases will no longer be able to grow at a problematic rate.
It's what viruses do. Happened twice with this one already.
Virus gonna virus.
Virus gonna virus.
You grossly overestimate how many people have been vaccinatd, especially those with both doses.beerad12man said:
Arent we at about 10% vaccinated? Id actually say that every 10% that become immune to this thing in any given area can make quite a noticeable difference. Especially if that area was already at 20-30% to begin with.
Not to mention it's getting to certain populations making the 10% even higher for hospitals, elderly, etc, in that regard
It may not be the sole reason, but I think it is already helping noticeable
Username checks out.
The term we typically talk about for Herd Immunity is based on the percentage of people that need to be immune in order to have a sustained rate of transmission less than 1 with no modification of behavior. For COVID, that's been estimated 60-70%.
However, epidemiologists acknowledge that the day-to-day herd immunity threshhold is much lower, based on the actual behaviors/mixing/interconnectivity of people. Therefore, at a certain level of behavior, the incidental herd immunity of a population could be 20%.
For example, let's say city X gets a disease with a 3.0 R0, requiring some 70% of people for herd immunity with no behavior changes. They instantly change their behavior such that the actual rate of transmission is reduced to 1.4. At that point, the incidental herd immunity changes to something much lower -- maybe 10%.
What's happening is that as people get sick and gain immunity, they are no longer vectors for spread. When that happens, the rate of transmission goes down. If that rate of transmission is teetering on the line of expanding (>1) or decending (<1) it will eventually topple over. And, in a natural immunity situation, the people who are most likely to get it and spread through their lifestyle will gain immunity faster, shutting down links of transmission.
However, what that does not mean is that city X could resume complete normalcy and still enjoy herd immunity. Those interaction networks fire up again and transmission to susceptible people becomes a lot more likely.
This behavior is very observable across the world in various hot spots that have flared up and then calmed down. It's very observable also in places where there have been repeat flare ups, since spread was thought to be contained and then weather/behavior changed and those trends reversed. Rate of transmission obviously isn't only a function of behavior of governmental policy, things like humidity, temperature, etc. make a difference.
The best models take all this into account and https://covid19-projections.com/path-to-herd-immunity/ is a good reference.
Current estimates are that around 30% of the US population have had COVID at some point and would have some degree of immunity. Only about 3% of the population have received their first vaccine, so it's likely not a big vector.
The US isn't locked down, but I think we can all admit that our behavior has been modified to a great extent and has someone found a rhythm. It's likely that the US is enjoying sustained Rt<1 because so many people have it, combined with that modified behavior. In another few months, we may not even need the behavior modification to enjoy the same rate of transmission if we vaccinate enough people.
However, epidemiologists acknowledge that the day-to-day herd immunity threshhold is much lower, based on the actual behaviors/mixing/interconnectivity of people. Therefore, at a certain level of behavior, the incidental herd immunity of a population could be 20%.
For example, let's say city X gets a disease with a 3.0 R0, requiring some 70% of people for herd immunity with no behavior changes. They instantly change their behavior such that the actual rate of transmission is reduced to 1.4. At that point, the incidental herd immunity changes to something much lower -- maybe 10%.
What's happening is that as people get sick and gain immunity, they are no longer vectors for spread. When that happens, the rate of transmission goes down. If that rate of transmission is teetering on the line of expanding (>1) or decending (<1) it will eventually topple over. And, in a natural immunity situation, the people who are most likely to get it and spread through their lifestyle will gain immunity faster, shutting down links of transmission.
However, what that does not mean is that city X could resume complete normalcy and still enjoy herd immunity. Those interaction networks fire up again and transmission to susceptible people becomes a lot more likely.
This behavior is very observable across the world in various hot spots that have flared up and then calmed down. It's very observable also in places where there have been repeat flare ups, since spread was thought to be contained and then weather/behavior changed and those trends reversed. Rate of transmission obviously isn't only a function of behavior of governmental policy, things like humidity, temperature, etc. make a difference.
The best models take all this into account and https://covid19-projections.com/path-to-herd-immunity/ is a good reference.
Current estimates are that around 30% of the US population have had COVID at some point and would have some degree of immunity. Only about 3% of the population have received their first vaccine, so it's likely not a big vector.
The US isn't locked down, but I think we can all admit that our behavior has been modified to a great extent and has someone found a rhythm. It's likely that the US is enjoying sustained Rt<1 because so many people have it, combined with that modified behavior. In another few months, we may not even need the behavior modification to enjoy the same rate of transmission if we vaccinate enough people.
Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Not at current levels of social interaction. This whole winter run up in cases was still at a mucb lower Rt than New York experienced in March. Yes we need more than 10% vaccinations and 30% immune from infection to jave an Rt below 1 if we act like it's 2019, but again Rt was hanging right around 1.05 prior to vaccines. It doesn't take much new immunity to push it into decline. But it's also why we still can't just demask and return to normal yet. Give it a few months and ~40% vaccination and we'll be largely done. Cases will no longer be able to grow at a problematic rate.
But the decline wasn't driven by vaccinations. And in a few months we absolutely should be able to be completely normal
GAC06 said:Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Not at current levels of social interaction. This whole winter run up in cases was still at a mucb lower Rt than New York experienced in March. Yes we need more than 10% vaccinations and 30% immune from infection to jave an Rt below 1 if we act like it's 2019, but again Rt was hanging right around 1.05 prior to vaccines. It doesn't take much new immunity to push it into decline. But it's also why we still can't just demask and return to normal yet. Give it a few months and ~40% vaccination and we'll be largely done. Cases will no longer be able to grow at a problematic rate.
But the decline wasn't driven by vaccinations. And in a few months we absolutely should be able to be completely normal
Yes it is. It's not the biggest driver relative to pretending it's 2019 - that's probably social distancing. But it is the biggest driver relative to December. Nothing has changed except another 10-12% of the US population is now immune and that is enough of a change to cause the Rt to drop below 1.
December and January had the highest case count of this whole thing. But you're right, it was the tiny number of vaccinations during that time that turned the tide. Good Lord
Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Not at current levels of social interaction. This whole winter run up in cases was still at a mucb lower Rt than New York experienced in March. Yes we need more than 10% vaccinations and 30% immune from infection to jave an Rt below 1 if we act like it's 2019, but again Rt was hanging right around 1.05 prior to vaccines. It doesn't take much new immunity to push it into decline. But it's also why we still can't just demask and return to normal yet. Give it a few months and ~40% vaccination and we'll be largely done. Cases will no longer be able to grow at a problematic rate.
But the decline wasn't driven by vaccinations. And in a few months we absolutely should be able to be completely normal
Yes it is. It's not the biggest driver relative to pretending it's 2019 - that's probably social distancing. But it is the biggest driver relative to December. Nothing has changed except another 10-12% of the US population is now immune and that is enough of a change to cause the Rt to drop below 1.
Where are you seeing that 10% have received both doses of vaccines?
Username checks out.
I Am A Critic said:Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:Gordo14 said:GAC06 said:
We likely added more than 10% to 30% in infections alone
Not at current levels of social interaction. This whole winter run up in cases was still at a mucb lower Rt than New York experienced in March. Yes we need more than 10% vaccinations and 30% immune from infection to jave an Rt below 1 if we act like it's 2019, but again Rt was hanging right around 1.05 prior to vaccines. It doesn't take much new immunity to push it into decline. But it's also why we still can't just demask and return to normal yet. Give it a few months and ~40% vaccination and we'll be largely done. Cases will no longer be able to grow at a problematic rate.
But the decline wasn't driven by vaccinations. And in a few months we absolutely should be able to be completely normal
Yes it is. It's not the biggest driver relative to pretending it's 2019 - that's probably social distancing. But it is the biggest driver relative to December. Nothing has changed except another 10-12% of the US population is now immune and that is enough of a change to cause the Rt to drop below 1.
Where are you seeing that 10% have received both doses of vaccines?
Google Covid 19 vaccine tracker. 9.9% of the US population has been vaccinated.
But the drop in cases started well before today
GAC06 said:
December and January had the highest case count of this whole thing. But you're right, it was the tiny number of vaccinations during that time that turned the tide. Good Lord
10% is not a tiny number when the virus is transmitting at a 1.03-1.05 Rt. It's a really simple concept. If a further 10% of interactions do not result on transmission then the Rt drops into the .9-.95 range and the cases come down rapidly due to compounding effects over a month/month and a half. Throw it in excel and you'll understand how significant the difference is between 1.03 and .95 - it's a very simple model. Another way to think about it is we went from ~30% immunity (December) to ~40% immunity (today) most of which was driven by vaccines (not all because obviously some people were already immune got the vaccine). That isn't a tiny change. Good lord
There is a tipping point in here that is occurring between how viruses cycle, life style modification mixed with the first part of vaccine roll outs.
My mostly un-educated opinion is that cases spike because as someone said virus gonna virus. We change behavior (socially distance, smaller groups, etc). That causes the virus to slow its spread some. Then as the virus cycles down combined with that change in behavior helping accelerate that some. Now add in the vaccinations which will only accelerate that.
What is interesting is at what point that tipping point occurs when combined with the social/behavior changes.
My mostly un-educated opinion is that cases spike because as someone said virus gonna virus. We change behavior (socially distance, smaller groups, etc). That causes the virus to slow its spread some. Then as the virus cycles down combined with that change in behavior helping accelerate that some. Now add in the vaccinations which will only accelerate that.
What is interesting is at what point that tipping point occurs when combined with the social/behavior changes.
More people were infected in December than were vaccinated. That's why your 30% plus 10% is silly. It was 30% before December and infections outpaced vaccinations. The 10% vaccination number is from today. New cases started falling weeks ago. That's why your original comment that the decrease was "largely" due to vaccinations doesn't make sense.
But don't take my word for it, let's hear some experts:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9219379/Why-coronavirus-cases-falling-fast-New-infections-drop-44-three-weeks.html
" Health experts say it is too soon for vaccines to be playing a major role in the decline with just 8% of the population having received the first shot and fewer than 2% being fully immunized
Officials say the drop is likely due to a higher number of people who've had the virus than official counts suggest, as many as 90 million people, and fewer people traveling than did over the winter holidays"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9219379/Why-coronavirus-cases-falling-fast-New-infections-drop-44-three-weeks.html
" Health experts say it is too soon for vaccines to be playing a major role in the decline with just 8% of the population having received the first shot and fewer than 2% being fully immunized
Officials say the drop is likely due to a higher number of people who've had the virus than official counts suggest, as many as 90 million people, and fewer people traveling than did over the winter holidays"
But but but 8% + 2% = 10%.
Username checks out.
WarAGle said:
they say that it's too soon/not enough people have been vaccinated for it to be the vaccine.
They are actually down over 50% since mid January.
Probably a mix of above (seasonality), but also in large part because of herd immunity from all of the asymptomatics that never knew they got it in the first place.
Featured Stories
See All
Rashaun Agee named Southeastern Conference Co-Player of the Week
by Richard Zane
Postseason pain provides Aggie veterans with something to prove
by Kayla Gaither
4:32
6h ago
1.4k
13:56
4h ago
1.8k
8:22
3h ago
1.2k
'Relentless': Terrence Kiel II expects a lot of A&M's offense
by Ryan Brauninger