Covid 8/5: Much Ado About Nothing

Getting into the weeds on the CDC’s new guidance and scaremongering, and the study they cited as justifications, caused this week’s post to get rather long. That was necessary, but if you don’t need the details, by all means skip the sections in question in favor of this summary: The CDC’s failure to apply Bayes’ rule, correct for base rates or locate sufficiently large or remotely representative samples knows few if any bounds, and their conclusions are still mostly the same conclusions my model had reached weeks ago. Very little has changed. Our new model of Delta is almost entirely the same as our old model of Delta. 

The other big development is the continuing fights over the growing number of mask mandates and vaccine mandates, and the potential descent of our children into a potentially permanent ever present young adult dystopia.

Not Covid, but worth mentioning up top: The latest set of grant applications to the Survival and Flourishing Fund are due on August 23. If you have a long term future oriented organization, I’d urge you to consider applying, more details at the link or later in this post. 

In other news, there’s a good righteous FDA Delenda Est rant from Scott Alexander, if you’d like one. 

Cases followed their expected path, and deaths followed.  

Let’s run the numbers.

The Numbers

Predictions

Prediction from last week: 610,000 cases (+55%) and 2,450 deaths (+20%). 

Result: 589k cases (+50%) and 2,889 deaths (+41%).

Deaths still went up slower than cases or lagged cases, but it seems we can’t continuously get giant additional weekly declines in the CFR. Only predicting a 20% rise there seems overly optimistic in hindsight and I’m considering it a bad prediction on my part. From here it seems right to predict rises in death that are only slightly lower than the rise in cases lagged several weeks.

Prediction for next week: 855,000 cases (+45%) and 4,100 deaths (+40%). 

I still do expect deaths to go up slightly less than cases, partly because there’s lag everywhere in the system, but I no longer expect the underlying ratios to change much going forward. Case growth should slow down as behaviors adjust, and there’s some chance at any time we hit the peak although I expect that to still be at least a few weeks away. 

Deaths

DateWESTMIDWESTSOUTHNORTHEASTTOTAL
Jun 24-Jun 305504597061861901
Jul 1-Jul 74593296121281528
Jul 8-Jul 145323986891451764
Jul 15-Jul 214343417321701677
Jul 22-Jul 2849138510091572042
Jul 29-Aug 469347714153042889

Death rates are far lower than they were in previous waves, and are still rising slower than cases, but the hope that we’d see only +20% this week was fully dashed. 

Cases

DateWESTMIDWESTSOUTHNORTHEASTTOTAL
Jun 10-Jun 1623,70014,47225,7528,17772,101
Jun 17-Jun 2323,85412,80126,4566,46469,575
Jun 24-Jun 3023,24614,52131,7736,38875,928
Jul 1-Jul 727,41317,46040,0317,06591,969
Jul 8-Jul 1445,33827,54468,12911,368152,379
Jul 15-Jul 2165,91339,634116,93319,076241,556
Jul 22-Jul 2894,42960,502205,99231,073391,996
Jul 29-Aug 4131,19786,394323,06348,773589,427

Similar growth in all regions. Vaccination levels matter, but also people adjust to their current situations in various other ways.

Vaccinations

I am slightly worried that the rise in vaccinations largely represents booster shots – I don’t know if that would mess up the statistics or not. If the numbers represent only first and second doses, they are very good news. Third doses aren’t useless (again, I’d happily accept one), but they’re less valuable than first or second doses by a lot, and counting them would give the wrong impression of the situation.

(This map is a few days old but seemed enlightening anyway.) There’s clearly state effects here, with Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri doing better than similar areas slightly across the border. The map mostly corresponds closely to where there are the most cases, so people are responding to what is going on around them. 

Eliezer asks a fine question:

I don’t know the answer to either half of this question. The first half is whether they actually do go out and get someone vaccinated – I’m guessing they probably do, since no one piped up to say they didn’t and I don’t see why not, but that’s a very weak guess. The question is whether this increases supply or only redirects supply (and if it redirects, whether it does so from where it would be wasted entirely, or not).

I’ve tried at various points to figure out what the true supply constraints are, and to what extent ‘pay more money’ causes there to be more vaccine doses. There have been a lot of claims about various bottlenecks. I continue to believe that money is indeed a medium-term constraint on supply of Covid-19 vaccines, and I strongly believe that expectations of payment for such vaccines are a strong long-term constraint both on this vaccine and on other similar creations in the future.

So at a minimum, the general action of doing things such as this, which at least do bid up the price, seems like a good use of funds. Not as good as ‘fund manufacturing capacity when it matters most’ but still better than most uses of funds.

I’d also note my continued frustration with calculations on whether interventions, including vaccine efforts, are worthwhile that frame it entirely in terms of dollars per life saved. Then count only the directly saved lives. That is one good metric to track, but it is far from the whole story of the benefits of such efforts, which in such cases I believe point almost entirely in one direction. In our haste to quantify effects and rely on multiplication, it is important not to count only that which we can explicitly measure and directly observe.

It looks like we have even more support for vaccine mix and matching being not only effective, but more effective than the best vaccine on its own (paper).

What some of us are curious about is what happens if you go in the other order, and do AZ last, especially AZ as the third shot, because many of us are in the position of having had two mRNA shots. If we can take a cheap second or third shot with less short term side effects and get better protection that way, we’d like to know. But I anticipate we may never know about this, because once mRNA shots get thought of as ‘better’ it’s impossible to run the experiment ‘ethically.’ 

A theme this week, as we’ll see with the CDC’s new data, is that when you ban good data collection, you end up obsessing over what little data collection you happened to be able to do instead. 

Also, it would be nice if we didn’t let mRNA vaccines expire unused, which it seems we are about to do in some states. Likely worth being louder about this but don’t know how to do so productively. Oh, and the way this was presented implies that the only reason they’re ‘expiring’ is that they technically have a ‘shelf life’ that’s running out and all we have to do is change that number, the shots themselves are totally fine.

Vaccine Approval

The FDA still has not fully approved the Covid-19 vaccines. Why?

They required a ton of data and paperwork, which they need to carefully work through despite knowing all the conclusions already, and they didn’t feel like putting ‘all hands on deck’ to do this busywork until a few days ago.

As Alex Tabarrok puts it, Welcome to the Club. This is what the FDA always does. It doesn’t consider the evidence in front of its face, imposes requirements that lead to applications too heavy to lift, then takes its sweet time evaluating those applications, while it continues to not give permission and thus while people needlessly die. That’s standard operating procedure.

For Covid vaccines, we have had the biggest Phase IV trial in the history of the world. The vaccines are clearly safe and effective. They are sufficiently safe and effective that we are mandating the vaccines wherever we can, there are huge public campaigns to increase vaccination rates, and those who refuse the vaccine are being painted by all Responsible Sources and Very Serious People as some mix of irresponsible, stupid, selfish and victims of a con, among other similar things. 

So in this particular case, things grew sufficiently egregious that increasing numbers of people, including increasingly some of the Very Serious People (e.g. Eric Topol), pointed out the situation.

This is good. 

Ideally it causes people to recognize that the problem is the standard operating procedure in the general case, rather than the particular issue in this specific case, but at a minimum this does seem to be speeding up the process.

You see, the FDA finally got on the case (WaPo)!

Or, as StatNews puts it

Note the future tense on that, dated June 30.

Previously, at most some hands were on deck, but soon all hands will be on deck, or at least more hands will be on deck than one would otherwise expect. Regardless of where all those hands were previously and how light they make the work, this is excellent news. So, given all hands on deck and overwhelming evidence of both safety and efficacy, how long is this going to take?

Don’t worry, it’s much faster than normal. Here’s when it started:

The application process was sufficiently onerous, and/or required sufficiently robust data, slash didn’t feel sufficiently urgent to Pfizer, such that Pfizer didn’t submit until May 7. It can be debated how much of that part of the delay is on the FDA, versus how much is on Pfizer, or on Moderna who waited until June 1.

It has now been two months since Moderna submitted, and three months since Pfizer submitted. All hands are on deck, we are going ‘much faster than normal’ yet we are still not done. Think about what this means for normal.

It is good to see acknowledgement that the FDA’s job is risk management, and that they should consider the potential upside of speeding up their actions, which is the same as considering the downsides of slowing down their actions, versus a reasonable baseline of ‘approve this yesterday because obviously.’ This then is, presumably, the best they can do. And Biden won’t interfere to speed things up, presumably because that would not be ‘following the science’ or what not.

The FDA also still hasn’t given its approval for mRNA booster shot follow ups to the J&J shot, despite it being quite overdetermined that this is a good idea, forcing this to go ahead without them and without proper record keeping, likely resulting in a bunch of bad record keeping and also slowing this down quite a lot.

There also are not any officially approved tests for Covid-19, either, although that does not seem to bother people in the same way so it is not an urgent matter. The failure to authorize much better and cheaper testing is urgent, but that’s been true for over a year, and I’ve given up on that.

Bloomberg breaks it down like this in their newsletter, which reiterates the basic facts but is even more skeptical of the outcome and is somehow trying to justify the delays:

There were reports of the hope that this will happen in the Fall, which means some time before December.

Getting the approval in December would be almost completely too late. At that point, if we were going to have another Delta wave, it would be far too late for new vaccinations to have much impact on it, and either the extra vaccinations won’t be necessary, or else essentially everyone would already have antibodies. 

The good news is that after this happened, the timeline seems to have moved up:

It turns out that putting all hands on deck actually matters, and concluding things you already knew isn’t all that hard after all. 

What about fears that this will ‘further undermine confidence’ or look ‘rushed?’ I estimate those costs at exactly zero, versus the benefits of getting rid of the quite valid and successful ‘the vaccines are not approved’ argument. If you tell a regular person ‘no, the FDA needed six months to review the application properly and they rushed it and finished in three’ I do not expect such arguments to get much traction.

Regardless of how many more weeks or months we must wait, these delays are unacceptable, and entirely unnecessary. Authorize these vaccines today, and demand resignations as needed to make that happen. 

Vaccine Mandates

Last week, I got a surprising (to me, anyway) amount of very forceful pushback from commentators on how authoritarian it was to make association with people dependent on them not being likely to become sick and to make those around them sick, or to require those who choose to not reduce that risk to mitigate the resulting risk to others at their own expense. I disagree with this assessment, and have said my peace on the matter. Others are welcome to continue talking about it, if desired.  

This is a pretty big new mandate, and the most coercive since you’re not allowed to quit the military, but also the kind of thing you sign up for when you join:

Previously, there was a survey asking vaccine hesitant troops why they were refusing the vaccine. In addition to the usual responses, one of them was ‘I never get to tell the army no, and now I can.’ That highlighted how weird it was that there wasn’t a mandate in place already, which was due mostly to the vaccine still being on emergency use authorization. Which is not the way I model a military capable of winning wars responding to this situation. 

We also picked up Disney and to some extent Walmart (WaPo).

Importantly, we also picked up Tyson Foods. Meat packing is an important bottleneck that caused supply chain problems back in early 2020, and is also an environment almost built to spread Covid-19. 

New York City has mandated vaccinations for indoor dining and gyms

It turns out that much more coercive vaccine mandates are widely popular (original post, survey):

Here are some crosstabs:

And by region, note that only the Dakotas and Wyoming are under 50% (and even they are over 50% for the airplane question):

The mandates we are actually discussing and implementing are ‘if you want this job where you interact with people in person you need to be vaccinated’ which I’d put at somewhat less coercive than even requiring vaccination to board an airplane, which now has 70% support. 

One thing I find most interesting about this survey are the relative support numbers. Requiring everyone to be vaccinated is more popular than requiring vaccinations for school, where children are already required to get vaccinated for any number of other things. It makes sense that college student requirements would be more popular than either of those, and that the airplane requirement is more popular still since it puts people into close quarters with random other people, and also because people don’t understand how good ventilation is on airplanes. 

What is more striking than the order is the small size of the gaps here. It doesn’t matter much what the scope or target of the mandate is, something like 90% of people are either for all the mandates or against all the mandates. 

One can also compare these numbers to the adult vaccination rates. 64% of respondents favored requiring everyone to get vaccinated. Approximately 68% of adults are at least partially vaccinated. And 70% favor requiring vaccinations for air travel, a higher percentage than are vaccinated themselves.

The crosstab they didn’t list, but I very much want to see, is how much those groups correspond. How many people are unvaccinated but think it should be mandatory? How many are vaccinated, but think it shouldn’t be? To me this seems like the most important crosstab, and also the thing most important to control for here. I want to see if their percent vaccinated matches the population’s number, including by region. 

Regardless of that, it sure looks like Americans don’t only not draw much distinction between types of mandate. They don’t even draw much of a distinction between their personal choice to get vaccinated, and a full vaccination mandate!

This is a general problem, where people fail in practice to draw much of a distinction between “Yay X” and “X is mandatory.” If X is a yay, send in the men with guns and ensure X happens. Or more commonly, “Boo X” and “X is forbidden.” 

There are some people who are very, very against vaccination mandates of all kinds, but they are very much in the minority. 

Noticing and caring (correctly) that mandates have a much higher burden of proof than ‘the thing is typically a good idea’ puts one in a much smaller minority even than that. 

Also from the survey:

I hate the ambiguity in the wording here but I presume it means about 20-30% of respondents are in those hard-to-get categories, which leaves 70-80% who aren’t. 

In other news, let’s ask what everyone really cares about. Covid-19. Who to blame?

A hidden point of data here is that 73.1% of people responding are vaccinated, which (given an adult vaccination rate at the time of just under 70%) gives us an estimate of how biased survey responses are likely to be. 

Mask and Testing Mandates

LA’s positive test rate will be going down soon. Every child (and teacher) in an LA United school will need to get tested weekly, even if vaccinated.

In New York, and in many other places, the teachers’ union is strongly opposed to this, with any testing of the unvaccinated to be covered fully at taxpayer expense, while they previously insisted on keeping schools closed until teachers could get vaccinated no matter the case level, which is a hint as to what game they are playing to win. 

It’s not like it’s a handful of holdouts, either…

These numbers are much lower than the adult population’s vaccination rate in the area. It’s mind boggling that 40% of teachers in NYC schools remain unvaccinated. This is the group charged with ‘educating’ our children? Union can’t allow teachers in classrooms until they’ve been vaccinated, then almost half of them refuse to get vaccinated. We’ve made a huge mistake.

I realize it’s impossible for multiple reasons, but my preferred scheme would be not only to mandate vaccinations going forward, but take this opportunity to start over and fire every teacher not currently vaccinated as not qualified to teach anything to children, and go from there.

UNC not only doesn’t have a vaccination mandate and justifies that decision based on a misunderstanding of the law, there’s a slight additional problem:

So our current standard is that we don’t require the vaccination, lots of students lie about it anyway in case that changes, and if we don’t explicitly get them to affirm that their statements are true then we can’t hold them accountable even if we find out they were lying? Sounds about right. Academic standards are not what they used to be. 

Vaccine Hesitancy

Who is vaccine hesitant? Some data

I find it interesting (for non-Covid reasons) that everything here lists both the positive and negative effects, except when females are less likely to be vaccinated, and then it’s only the positive effect. The argument that the two are mirrors of each other is not one the source would likely be happy to be quoted on in this day and age, given its implications.

Especially since it seems like dudes intend to rock but in fact keep putting off their rocking until a future date (link to data):

:

(Reminds me a little of this graph about which animals people think they can beat in a fight, which was covered as ‘men think crazy things’ but that’s not how I read the actual numbers). 

From the replies, another chart:

There are some contradictions between the data sets, but mostly they tell similar stories. I also like the ‘only if required’ category because it puts a reasonable estimate slash lower bound on the benefits of a requirement, which would be the vaccination of 6% of adults or 18% of non-vaccinated adults. 

Samo Burja argues that one side was always going to be anti-vax while the other was pro, so we should be thankful it’s blue America that was pro rather than the other way around. If one has to choose, giving whoever controls the media the right position does seem better, so the question is whether he’s right that we had to choose. I don’t think this is obvious – one side may be coming out against motherhood but we can draw hope from the fact that we still have broad support for apple pie. 

Andrew Yang may not be a successful candidate, but he will forever live on in our hearts both for wearing a ‘math’ pin and as the ‘pay people money’ guy:

How about vaccine lotteries, do those work? Yep, those work.

New York’s combination of new requirements and new incentives? Yep, those work.

How about requiring the vaccine in order to fly? Yep, incentives matter again. We don’t have magnitude here, so unfortunately this doesn’t provide that good a natural experiment on how much people value the ability to fly. But I don’t think that’s even the second most interesting thing here, despite being what I noticed being called out…

There’s the top four all which are big, and the bottom four which are small but meaningful, although ‘more likely’ is a far cry from ‘turns a no into a yes.’

The big two are the first two, because they’re both not coercive and they’re free. Full F.D.A. approval would be helpful for fully half the remaining people. Getting the vaccine to personal physicians, which also should have happened a long time ago many times over, also helps with half of people. 

Combine those two, and my guess is you pick up a large percentage of the remaining ‘gettable’ people, no coercion required. That doesn’t mean the $100 cash wouldn’t help, I’d throw that in too, but notice that the $20 food coupon (worth less than $20!) gets you more than halfway there at a fifth of the price. That makes sense, the marginal demand curve should slope downward here, and I’m still happy to pay the marginal costs to bump the payment to $100, especially since it would mostly go to poorer people anyway.

One concern is that all these ‘rewards’ might make people hold out next time to try and get the rewards. Again, people respond to incentives. The good news here is my model does not think this much matters. Yes, some people would move from taking the early free option to holding out for the bribe, but mostly that delays people during the period when demand exceeds supply, and hence no bribes are on offer. So it’s good, actually. If in March, everyone knew that anyone would get $100 for being vaccinated starting in April then that’s a way of allocating scarce resources by price without everyone losing their heads over it. Sounds good to me. So what if you end up having to bribe some people who would have gotten it for free? 

Also, a gentle reminder that incentives matter in all directions, and sometimes mistakes get made

If you think lying to say you’re vaccinated is easy, lying to say you’re not vaccinated is even easier, as long as you’re willing to endure the things people say to those who aren’t vaccinated.

Delta Variant 

There are three core messages here.

Two of them are that Delta is more transmissible and causing a new wave, and that vaccinations work. Those are true and important.

The third is that we have the power to stop it, and defeat the virus once and for all.

That one seems to me to be false, at least for meaningful definitions of ‘we’ and ‘have the power to stop it,’ and especially ‘once and for all.’

Yes, at some point, likely not that long from now, things will turn around the way they did in India, the UK and the Netherlands, once we’ve had enough time for the control system to adjust and for enough people to be infected and/or vaccinated. That won’t be the end of Covid, and it won’t count as having stopped it, so much as having gotten through it. 

The important thing is that the ship has almost entirely sailed. We’d prefer to get more vaccinations and otherwise improve things on the margin, but over the range of mask mandates and other new countermeasures, are we going to change what happens much from here? If we did, are we going to be willing to keep those countermeasures online indefinitely? Are we going to be willing to mandate vaccinations and if necessary booster shots sufficiently effectively to get paid off for buying all that time?

It seems like the answer is clearly no. That doesn’t mean it’s senseless to take reasonable precautions on the margin, but this is mostly only a battle worth fighting if one can win. If failure is inevitable, and we’ve mostly gotten as many vulnerable people vaccinated as we’re going to get, it would be better to fail fast. 

That is a central fact to keep in mind when looking at the new mask mandates and other updates coming out of the CDC and elsewhere. Preventive measures make sense when they are necessary to control spread, and also sufficient to have worthwhile benefits. The window available is not impossibly narrow, but it is not infinitely wide either. And in the possible (or at least theoretically possible) worlds in which vaccinated individuals are at great risk of infecting others, I don’t see how we could hit the window.

Also, before we discuss the CDC’s new mask mandate and its justifications, a reminder that if you institute a mask mandate, it’s important to follow that exact mandate yourself.

And even if you do sometimes violate the rules you’re telling everyone else to follow, you definitely shouldn’t be explicitly exempting yourself from those rules.

Similarly, there are also reports that Pelosi has violated the house mask mandate on at least three occasions, in addition to all the Republicans who are violating it to own the libs.

The CDC Reinstates Its Mask Mandates

Point: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Counterpoint

The political strategy of ‘flat out deny saying the thing you said when the video cameras were rolling’ has its disadvantages, such as the media usually having easy access to what was being filmed by those video cameras. I understand it when your brand is going to be ‘I lie all the time, what are you going to do about it?’ but that’s very much a pro-malarkey stance. 

One refinement is where you don’t quite say the thing explicitly, and can sort of claim that you only said it implicitly, as is the case here. Fooling people on such things tends to be infrequent, but it does enforce that you have the power to decide what you did and did not say retroactively, and thus your alignment with the destruction of the public record. So I suppose there are some strategic advantages.

In any case, the term ‘forever’ and the term ‘at the time’ are not close friends, and Delta has been known since well before the statements about taking off one’s mask forever. Did the situation change? Yes. Is the situation worse than would have been reasonably anticipated? I think yes, the developments of the past two months have been worse than expected. But, well, yeah. Imagine it flipped.

That’s distinct from the question of whether reinstating these mask requirements makes physical sense. If it turns out the messaging earlier was a mistake, I’d prefer owning the mistake to pretending a mistake wasn’t made, but it’s still better not to keep the mistake running – if it was indeed a mistake. 

So, what facts changed that perhaps should change minds? Why are they suddenly saying things like this?

They waited days to publish the data. The CDC initially did the infuriating thing of refusing to release their data, which even the mainstream media like WaPo pointed out was terrible but they did then release the data, and we have it now.

One theory on what might be causing this.

Which results in completely false things like this:

And also various news reports like this, which seem like the point – get people scared before they can analyze the data. 

Which results in:

To go with the general trend of, well, this:

The first half of this isn’t fully true, but it’s way too true

:

Another communications problem:

It’s tricky when you both want to tell people how great the vaccine is and promise how people can return to their normal lives with no worries whatsoever, to get them to take the vaccine, and then also turn around and lie about how ineffective the vaccine is in order to scare them into not changing their behavior afterwards. It’s even harder doing both simultaneously. Everyone involved gets whiplash. I almost sympathize.

The CDC’s new mask mandate is in areas with sufficient spread, which means it’s constantly expanding in scope each day in ways that are completely inevitable, so it would have been better to bite the bullet for everyone at the same time:

To make it easy to find, analysis of the study itself gets its own section. 

The Provincetown Study

For those not looking to get into the weeds, this was an outlier situation, there were tons of base rate errors that the study makes no attempt to correct for, we learned very little, and mostly the CDC is making a big deal over all this for no good reason.

For those who want to dive into the weeds here, let’s get to it. 

So the headline findings are claimed to be (1) among cases that could be identified, vaccinated and unvaccinated people had similar cycle threshold values (and by implication, perhaps had similar ability to spread the virus) and (2) 74% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons, versus 69% vaccination coverage for the area.

The suggestion to reimplement restrictions is standard issue, but I note here that if vaccines were sufficiently ineffective in practice against Delta, there would be no reasonable way to stop the pandemic, and I’d want to do the opposite of the implications listed here and stop trying.

Most vaccinated patients were symptomatic:

Four of five hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated. None of them died. 

“A cluster-associated case was defined as receipt of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) result ≤14 days after travel to or residence in the town in Barnstable County since July 3.”

So it’s all Delta, and 74% of identified cases were symptomatic, including 79% of vaccinated cases, with the usual mix of symptoms. 

…and that’s pretty much it.

Here is the bulk of their #analysis:

“The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak. As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases. Second, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias. Third, demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants; further study is underway to identify other population characteristics among cases, such as additional demographic characteristics and underlying health conditions including immunocompromising conditions.*** MA DPH, CDC, and affected jurisdictions are collaborating in this response; MA DPH is conducting additional case investigations, obtaining samples for genomic sequencing, and linking case information with laboratory data and vaccination history. Finally, Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load.††† Although the assay used in this investigation was not validated to provide quantitative results, there was no significant difference between the Ct values of samples collected from breakthrough cases and the other cases. This might mean that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 is also similar. However, microbiological studies are required to confirm these findings.”

That’s what the CDC updated on? This is what’s causing a chorus of “Vaccinated people may spread Covid as much as unvaccinated people”? That’s it?

All right, so what’s actually going on here in this study?

I’m not going to go full Not Necessarily the News, but it’s remarkably tempting, because the sample is clearly nothing like a normal one.

The first big hint is that this took place during a series of gatherings, mostly of men, and that most of the infections were of men so it’s clear that this happened mostly among those attending the gatherings rather than the background population.

The second even bigger hint is that the numbers look absolutely nothing like the numbers we observe in the general population, on several measures. 

The infected population is mostly male, and of course it was mostly travelling and engaging in unusually high risk activities and almost certainly stuck in a superspreader event. 

Most cases (74%) were symptomatic, which isn’t normal when looking carefully for cases.

Most cases (74% again) were in vaccinated people, which was higher than the population percentage that was vaccinated in the surrounding area. We know vaccines are effective at preventing Covid-19 and at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, and even if they’re not as effective as we think, less than zero is not on the table here, ‘cmon.

Vaccinated cases were more likely to be symptomatic than non-vaccinated cases, which we also know isn’t normal, on top of there being more such cases than the population baseline.

The Ct values in vaccinated patients were as high as those in unvaccinated patients, which was one of the banner headlines in the scare tactic articles, but viral loads themselves were not measured, and again we know that infections in the vaccinated are less severe. 

So there are essentially two ways to interpret this data.

Method number one is to become The Man of One Study, think that vaccines suddenly have entirely stopped working, ignore all the other overwhelming evidence to the contrary that’s actually everywhere – even the anti-vax crowd mostly admits the vaccines work – and then reason from there. You could argue that it magically permits full infection and transmission and hospitalization but still prevents death since there were no deaths in this sample, but that doesn’t actually make any physical sense. 

Of course, none of the rest of that scenario makes any physical sense either. Wrong Conclusions Are Wrong, and taking the results of this study at face value flies in the face of the whole vaccinated people not getting Covid, not getting sick from Covid and not dying from Covid phenomenon that has very much persisted under Delta. 

I didn’t quite explicitly Defy the Data on the Israeli vaccine effectiveness measurements, but I did point out the data didn’t make any sense even internally and that they really, really didn’t make sense versus observed population data elsewhere, and that the ‘these vaccinations were older’ explanation wasn’t actually going to fly. Whereas the 88% effectiveness number out of the UK made me sad, but was also plausible, made sense and could live in the same physical world we observe, so I took it far more seriously. 

That’s a roundabout way of saying that taking the study’s data is, when taken at face value, Obvious Nonsense, and thus we will be using method number two.

Method number two is to ask what could have caused the study to get these answers that on their face are Obvious Nonsense, realize that this has everything to do with base rate fallacy and the failure to apply Bayes’ theorem, with mostly vaccinated people attending the gatherings, and the pattern whereby infections are identified and tracked missing asymptomatic infections en masse which are concentrated among the vaccinated, and vaccinated people being more likely to get tested, and so on, in some combination.

This thread looks at the basics under method two, points out how much worse things would have been in Provincetown without vaccines, and concludes the study doesn’t tell us much.

Twitter was in general top form, here is a small sample.

Oh, and what kind of event was it that had this many men and so many infections? Well, as it turns out…

The cohort being 85% male makes it clear that the virus did not spread to the area’s general population much, and stayed focused on the people who travelled there largely in order to have sex. Which is a reasonably good way to get very exposed to Covid-19. So. Yeah.

The Leaked CDC Slides

The Washington Post got hold of the CDC’s slides. If you can, I encourage you to click through and look at the slides yourself, it’s much easier to read them there, they’re all worth seeing and I can’t be copying over all of them.

The first slide gets off to a great start, with a worthy cause:

Slide two notes that breakthrough cases may reduce public confidence in the vaccines, which is true enough, and I noticed I was pleasantly surprised it didn’t say that news of those breakthroughs was what was reducing confidence. 

Then comes slide three, which is a very good data visualization and tells where their heads are actually at with regard to the vaccines.

An 8-fold (87%) reduction in incidence, and a 25-fold (96%) reduction in hospitalization and death. That’s exactly in line with all the other estimates. I agree with those numbers, good job. But how has ‘the war changed’? 

Slide four shows that a rising percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are among the vaccinated, and explicitly notes this is because of the increase in vaccinations, and the tendency for the most vulnerable to get vaccinated more often. Again, good, but that’s the old war.

Slide 7 shows early vaccine effectiveness, which was quite good:

The rest of the pre-Delta section goes into a bunch of other numbers, which all tell similar stories, all of which matches up with what we knew previously. Nothing to report here other than that we’re all on the same page.

This is their big picture understanding of Delta absent vaccinations:

This again is exactly in line with previous estimates, although it has reasonably large error bars. If anything here is different, it’s that this is saying Delta is not much deadlier than the ancestral strain.

Bunch of other as-excepted stuff, then this is the first mention of the new study:

Interestingly not present in the slides are the Ct values for non-breakthrough infections outside of Barnstable County, MA’s outbreak. I find this absence quite odd.

In slide 19 they uncritically report the Israeli data that has been shown to come from faulty statistical methodology (and which never made sense in the first place).

In slide 20 they assume 50% of infections are reported, which seems crazy high, and also model assuming no distancing of any kind which seems like a pure counterfactual. Then, they use the results of that model to conclude the need for ‘universal masking.’ The need for containment without benefit of immunity from infections is left as an unstated assumption. 

Slide 22 is their summary:

I mean, all right, sure, all of that is true as far as it goes. If you want to prevent continued spread with current vaccine coverage, and no distancing, without waiting for the resulting infections to do the job for you, yes you will at a minimum need a lot of masks. 

Finally, recommendations:

Suddenly they’re going down on this last slide to 75% effectiveness (with a conspicuously missing ‘or greater’ given that it’s there in the previous line), which is not what you’d conclude from their previous slides, but that almost feels like a quibble. 

It seems that ‘the war has changed’ here doesn’t mean anything new, it simply means that Delta spreads easier than Alpha at exactly the ratio we previously believed, with exactly the vaccine effectiveness levels we previously believed, except it’s being compared to a hypothetical situation without Delta rather than what should have been fully recognized weeks ago if not earlier. Whoops.

This Chise thread on Twitter makes it clear things are worse than I realized upon first reading. Among other things you’ll find there: 

That seems generous, as these are at best kind of evidence of viral loads. Plus even then, the amount of failure to control for any of the things is very much not small. 

In case you’re wondering what study Chise is referring to there, here’s a link, it’s the Singapore study (thread / study):

I mean, we mostly knew this already, and the sample sizes here are low, but now Studies Show. So even if the Ct ranges are similar at one point (with the huge error bars, it’s impossible to know), that doesn’t mean what it’s being taken to mean.

About that issue of sample size. In all these studies that show ‘no difference’ the sample sizes are tiny, and the confidence intervals quite large. Here’s the graph from the Provincetown study:

As discussed above, Ct value is not exactly what we want to measure, but even if it was, and even if we ignore all the other problems here, these are very wide error bars. The Wisconsin study has the same problem and also concluded that Ct scores were similar after throwing out any results with sufficiently low Ct scores. 

The war has changed thanks to Delta. The war has not changed in the past two weeks. Except insofar as the CDC has decided to change its approach to fighting, taking a maximally dark interpretation of the data rather than offering anything importantly new, in ways that don’t hold up to scrutiny or checks for base rates, and how much that’s going to mess various things up. 

The only explanation I can come up with is that previously the CDC had and/or was painting a very wrong picture that vaccinated people were fully immune

I don’t know to what extent this was what was happening, either intentionally to encourage vaccination and/or unintentionally via misunderstanding the science, and it’s not always possible to make those two distinct. What I do know is that if previously you had the false impression that vaccinated people were completely safe, and then changed your story to vaccinated people being only mostly safe, perhaps that would explain what happened this past week?

In summary, this:

Thinking of the Children

There’s a video at the link, he definitely said this, and I’d hope this would illustrate how completely and utterly insane the whole thing is and that we should maybe not listen to the other insane recommendations either. 

Even within your own household, children too young to be vaccinated are too vulnerable to allow you to show them your face. Ever. 

With that, we get to the post going around this week explaining (for those who don’t know this already) exactly what we may be doing to our kids forever, even if only for the opening picture that should now haunt your dreams:

You can decide for yourself how to think about the photo above.

The difference between official school policies and young adult dystopian novels is that no one would buy this in a young adult dystopian novel, because it’s fiction and therefore has to make at least some sense. 

Meanwhile, as noted earlier, many teachers remain unvaccinated (40% in NY), and in most places the teachers’ unions have put a stop to any talk of a mandate.  

It’s one thing to say that people make individual choices, but does this look like freedom or individual choice to you? Or does it look like a Geneva Convention violation for our young prison population, potentially doomed for years to come to never see a face, based on something that is not at all a threat to them and never was? Do we hate our children that much?

Apply for the Survival and Flourishing Fund

They’re giving away a bunch of money. I’m helping figure out where to send it, and I encourage anyone with a worthy cause helping with our long term future to apply. Here’s the announcement, with more details at the link:

The Survival and Flourishing Fund, a virtual fund backed by philanthropists Jaan Tallinn and Jed McCaleb, is organizing the distribution of est. $8MM-$12MM in grants this November, with applications from orgs due on August 23.   Applications are essential to enabling the grant recommendation team to learn about and debate the pros and cons of each organization under consideration, both old and new.  So, please encourage applications from any awesome charitable projects you know about that are trying to support humanity’s long-term survival and flourishing! 

In Other News

I’ve been accused recently of ‘carrying water’ for the government because of my stance on vaccination policy. Unsurprisingly, I don’t see it that way. Despite admiring those who do get paid for this, I’m not one of them, and on Tuesday I learned that such people exist. 

I have between 5k and 100k followers! Presumably I qualify. Check, please. Every little bit helps.

Scott Sumner’s thoughts on what we should do now.

Your periodic reminder from Scott Alexander: FDA Delenda Est. He’s in full righteous fury form, which is reliably top quality. I will quote the concluding section:

Mostly I am in violent agreement with the post, with the one exception being where Scott essentially shrugs and says ‘incentives, what are you gonna do?’ and refuses to hold anyone accountable for the whole thing or hold out any hope we could do better without raising the general sanity waterline. In order to understand what’s going on, it is vital to understand that many important actions in the system are actively perverse, and are chosen because they are worse rather than better, hurting people rather than helping them, and that people are rewarded for having an actively reversed morality and punished for having a normal one. Costs are benefits, and benefits are costs, not that anyone would then dare be seen doing a calculation. And it’s also important to note that the blame dynamics and other incentives involved, to the extent they are real and contraining, are not inevitable consequences of the sanity waterline’s current level, they are the dynamics that happen to exist, have lots of path dependence and could be changed. 

Scott’s proposal for unbundling the FDA seems like an excellent second-best alternative to my preference for burning the building to the ground and salting the Earth. His first proposal, with five approval tiers, is more complex than I believe to be necessary – counting fully unapproved things, there are 6 tiers. Then again, the entire American health care system is far more complex than necessary, a lot of which is engineered for blame avoidance combined with fraudulent extraction of money, so it can’t be quite as simple as it sounds.  

Your periodic reminder that Emergency Use Authorization didn’t exist at all until 2004. So things could have been so, so much worse. 

Not that things are great now, we are told to follow a particular regime whether or not it makes any physical sense.

Although it can in some cases be done, presumably via lying:

Death counts might be a little low after all?

AI fails to help with Covid. It is noteworthy that AI provided no assistance, and this offers some explanations. Data sets are terrible, and combining them often meant overlap where data in the training set got into the test set. Labeling relied on humans and incorporated their ‘biases.’ Fonts from hospitals and other contextual clues were used to cheat. The same techniques got used over and over again by everyone, so the failure of one attempt was highly correlated with the failure of other attempts. The results were not clinically ready.

I believe that these are real and important problems, but as a complete explanation I am not buying it. Several times, we heard stories of promising AI diagnostic techniques. In each case, the story was that there was this thing that would work, but the regulatory burden of being allowed to use it meant nothing would ever happen. Then we never heard about the situation again, the same way we never got rapid testing without AI or any number of other low hanging fruit improvements. 

Also, if we didn’t have good data sets on which to train the AI, maybe don’t consider that purely a fatal flaw in AI, and rather consider that also a fatal failure to collect data. In general, it sounds like we tried ‘throw off-the-shelf existing techniques at the problem using what data is around’ and that was about it. 

The WHO has called for a ban on booster shots, in the belief that somehow this will direct vaccine doses to those who don’t have them, rather than resulting in there being less vaccine doses available. I will still happily accept a booster if offered one. 

Lamda variant said to show vaccine resistance in the lab in a preprint. I can’t find any way to distinguish the things said here from a harmless situation or from signs of the next big thing, but it’s not a good sign. Need to keep an eye on it in any case. 

Nature’s write-up of Fast Grants. It’s super effective, or at least has a lot less wasted time.

For those in need of it: Thread explaining why vaccines decrease risk of dangerous variants rather than increasing it. 

For those who need it or are curious: Nature post on how Covid infects cells.

Tyler points out that no one involved in the testing process at Mexican hotels has any incentive for those tests to ever come back positive. Whoops.

China is finally running into trouble with the Delta variant. Their efforts at containment so far have been valiant, but if their vaccine is as ineffective as it looks and they continue to be unable to admit this, the task is not going to be getting any easier. Containing the original variant for the past year had big advantages, but it also means no immunity other than from vaccinations. And if and when containment fails, it’s going to be prohibitively expensive to try and put it back in place. 

Financial Times article explaining the breakthrough infections has this excellent visualization:

I think this is pessimistic, and that vaccine protection against death is several times lower than this, but the representation here is excellent.

This is not a great sign or a great look

The government wishes to remind you that you should wait to protest the lockdown until after the lockdown has been lifted.

Scott Aaronson introduces us to his term blankface, for a perspective on one of the causes of our problems responding reasonably to situations.  

A lot of people say they’ll quit if forced to go back to the office, with almost 20% saying either definitely or probably, and another 20% being unsure, and a lot of people being eager to go independent.

I would be surprised if most of this were not cheap talk, but even a small amount of it not being cheap talk would be expensive. Also, good for the people involved, cause they’re right, offices are mostly terrible, even if I’m excited to sometimes go into an office once it becomes possible. The last time I had to go to an office and be ‘on’ all day five days a week, even at an unusually good place to work with great people, it made me completely miserable until I figured it out and left. 

Alex Tabarrok points out that the exact same ‘first doses first’ logic is now being applied to ‘second doses first’ as opposed to third doses, and attributes this to status quo bias. I think that’s mostly right but imprecise and would frame it more as action vs. inaction, falling in line behind authority and the avoidance of potential blame, but it’s mostly the same thing. And yes, the arguments about third doses are the same as the ones about second doses. This is similar to the shift in the UK to where second doses that are insufficiently delayed (e.g. are on the original schedule) are considered super risky because the immunity resulting isn’t as good. 

EDIT NOTE: A previous version of this post highlighted comments on CNN by the director of the NIH saying that parents should mask indoors with their own children, at home. It turns out that the reaction was sufficiently awful for him to walk it back and say he misspoke, and this isn’t the general policy, so I deleted the references. Still pretty crazy that he said it out loud, and the actual policy is not ideal, but it’s… better.

Not Covid

In existential risk news, Scott Alexander brings us an updated look at long term AI risks. Assessments of these risks by those working in this field are super high compared to what one should be comfortable with given the stakes, but are remarkably low compared to what one might expect from people in the field. They’re also remarkably spread out, in a way that doesn’t feel like an attempt to model the future so much as an attempt to give answers that seem reasonable. Make of that observation what you will. 

Biden intentionally violates the constitution, but feels bad enough about it to admit it explicitly. 

This WaPo article has more details. It seems that all his lawyers told him no, this is blatantly illegal and forbidden and that which is forbidden is not allowed, including what is described as ‘quadruple checking the tires’ but when this was found to be an unacceptable conclusion, a search was on to find a new lawyer, somewhere, who would present a legal theory that could be presented as having a non-zero chance of standing up in court, and that’s about the level of legal argument they found, but Biden takes too much pride in his understanding of government and straight talking attitude to hide what was going on. 

He did all this in order to extend the eviction moratorium, which has now gone on over a year, and is essentially the taking of private property without compensation. If we are extending this now, when does it end? What happens to the rental market? 

Not directly Covid, but words of wisdom on how to tell whether someone breached a contract:

And now for something completely off-topic:

I’d say ‘I hope you’re happy about it’ to all the people I know who voted for it, except for the fact that they are definitely happy about it.

My model, based on what was motivating them, says: They’re mildly disappointed that eggs and veal will remain available for purchase but happy about the improved conditions and higher prices. And they’re downright giddy about the prospect of pork potentially being unavailable. 

Want everything to grind to a halt? Propositions!

Alas for them, supply and demand don’t work the way the headline writers think…

Adding an extra 15% cost effectively forces such farms to choose to either supply California or supply others, which creates two distinct pork supply chains, which adds further to costs. The thing is, that’s the costs to adhere to the requirements, not the costs to demonstrate compliance. As with all such things, by the time all the paperwork is done, the costs might be considerably higher for that reason as well. The lack of any guidance on exact requirements or enforcement mechanisms is a lot of why almost no one is prepared to meet the new requirements – you can’t comply until you know what compliance means. Plus even if you did know, what will tomorrow bring?

But to me that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part, to me, is that last line, which is an estimate of the elasticity of demand for pork, and it’s shockingly high.

This is saying that if the pork supply was cut in half, all it would take would be a 60% increase in prices to clear the market. Wait, what? We’re that sensitive to prices on something this cheap? Because pork prices at the local supermarket are stupidly cheap, in a ‘can you believe civilization lets us eat meat for almost no money’ kind of way. 

As in these are the Instacart prices:

You can pay a lot more to get higher quality stuff, if you so desire, but the prices really are super low. Bacon is more expensive by the pound, but I hope those involved are using smaller portions. Choose life.

So you’re telling me, you raise these prices by 60%, and half the time people say ‘nah, let’s get something else instead.’? I definitely would not have expected that. It seems more like what would happen if a particular source increased prices, rather than all sources of pork together.

And then we come to a very strange statement:

Increasing prices by 60% is estimated in California to cut demand in half. If 15% of the nation’s pork goes to California now and half of it can’t in the future, then that’s 8% more for the rest of us, which in a perfect world might cut prices a few percent. 

I don’t see much danger in these standards becoming nationwide, unless other states are persuaded to pass similar laws. If California eats 15% of the pork at current prices, and compliance with their rules raises prices 15%, and raising prices 60% cuts demand in half, then it stands to reason that raising prices 15% would cut demand by 12%, so even if everyone made the move at once it’s barely worth it, and you’re going to get eaten alive by whoever didn’t make the move. This seems like it’s above the threshold of cost that California can impose. 

But then again: You never know. Incentives matter.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Covid 8/5: Much Ado About Nothing

  1. A1987dM says:

    > These numbers [among the NYPD etc.] are much lower than the adult population’s vaccination rate in the area.

    That’s partially because the adult population includes retirement-age people and the NYPD etc. don’t. The difference with the number among “Insured under age 65” shown further down is much smaller.

    • TheZvi says:

      That is fair, one should adjust for age (in both directions). Of course frequent involuntary interactions with strangers should make the number higher, etc, but it’s not as terrible as it looks.

  2. A1987dM says:

    > You know what else we really shouldn’t be doing and is actually an existential risk to be messing with? Creating mirror life.

    Where can I read more about the risks of doing that?

    • TheZvi says:

      I unfortunately don’t have a good link, does anyone know of one or want to offer a better/longer explanation? But the mechanism is that mirror life would be indigestible to non-mirror life, and if it got into the ecosystem things could go very, very badly.

      • A1987dM says:

        But indigestible just means if you eat you eventually just shit it right back out, not that it’s toxic, right? And non-mirror life is also indigestible to mirror life, so mirror life outside the lab would just starve to death.

      • A1987dM says:

        Never mind, I forgot autotrophs exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_life#The_concept last paragraph

      • BMKR says:

        Yeah, “mirror life” gives off very strong “The Flood From Halo” vibes–the superficial evolutionary biology sounds plausible, and then you try to think up the mechanism for it to be bad and don’t come up with anything.

        Compare to Cane Toads, which are, in their Australian range, indigestible, have no natural enemies, outcompete local life forms, etc, etc, and note that although they are an ecological and economic disaster, they aren’t even close to being an existential threat. And they have a mechanism of ecological harm that is unavailable to mirror life (eating regular life)!

        As you say, you *might* have to worry about autotrophs, but wikipedia’s statement that they have no natural enemies is nonsense: mirror-cyanobacteria in the terrestrial realm would have as their enemies, like, literally every plant species on earth that can get their leaves above the ground and intercept the light first. Things could conceivably get pretty bad in the ocean, but the destruction of ocean ecosystems would not be an existential threat (remember that our mirror-cyanobacteria are still pumping out regular old non-chiral oxygen and fixing regular old non-chiral carbon dioxide, which is probably the only thing we really need the ocean for).

        Also, it’s not at clear that we would have to worry about autotrophs. The same selective pressures that you would worry might favor mirror life also favor life based on any other kind of chemistry, and yet we have yet to observe non-Woese life, despite billions of years of opportunities for it to evolve. This suggests to me that unique chemistry may not be the selective advantage that people believe (likely because having the option to free-ride off other organisms, particularly other very-trophically-different organisms, is underrated).

      • A1987dM says:

        After reading the articles cited by Wikipedia, my impression is that dumping a whole cyanobacterium? cyanobacterion? cell of cyanobacteria into the ocean could indeed be a big deal, but a strand of DNA coding for French-language text rather than for any biologically important protein shouldn’t be risky (except in the case of deliberate malice from one of the humans involved, but https://www.xkcd.com/1958/ seems applicable)

      • A1987dM says:

        Hit “Post Comment” too soon…

        > dumping a whole cyanobacterium? cyanobacterion? cell of cyanobacteria into the ocean could indeed be a big deal

        because it could keep reproducing and reproducing until the atmosphere ran out of CO2, which would be pretty bad for us [citation needed]

      • A1987dM says:

        > The same selective pressures that you would worry might favor mirror life also favor life based on any other kind of chemistry, and yet we have yet to observe non-Woese life, despite billions of years of opportunities for it to evolve.

        Or maybe just that abiogenesis is very very unlikely, like ~20% chance per billion year per planet -level unlikely.

    • TheZvi says:

      I had a request to delete the paragraph to avoid drawing attention to the issue, so I removed the link. Either the people saying nothing to worry about are right and there’s nothing to be done, or the people saying it’s risky enough that we shouldn’t even talk about it are right and there’s nothing to do be done here, so either way nothing to be done.

      • BMKR says:

        Possible middle ground: although I’m clearly on the side of “there isn’t x-risk here”, there are still very wide error bars around the question of How-Threatening-is-non-RNA/DNA/protein-based-life (“non-Woese life”).

        This is a question that could be extremely relevant within decades. Imagine a Europa lander finds cells in an ocean sample. The benefits of studying them (especially the benefits of studying them on earth) are enormous. We really want to know what the risks are to do the CBA.

        One piece of evidence that would be really useful in doing this calculation is whether or not there is currently non-Woese life on earth. Our current capability to detect rare, microscopic non-Woese life is effectively zero. If, for instance, life has evolved dozens of times on earth in the past billion years and there are lots of little relict groups still lying around everywhere, that tells us that non-Woese life doesn’t really pose any threat that putting it in a BSL-4 won’t fix. On the other hand you could imagine findings like, “gosh, it really looks like there was an enormous diversity of non-Woese life between 3-4 BYA, and then it all suddenly got donked by Woese life, that sure is concerning, maybe these things should stay on Europa.” Or you might not find any non-Woese life, but at least you tried.

        How do you detect non-Woese life? This seems like a hard problem, and I am increasingly annoyed that all of the microbial ecologists who call themselves “astrobiologists” in order to get grant money from NASA aren’t working on this. But in this case, looking for mirror life is relatively low-hanging fruit: if you had the necessarily polymerases, and a method for making the nucleotides, I think it would be (expensive but otherwise) pretty trivial to make a mirror Illumina sequencing kit, which would give you the technological capability to screen for already-existing mirror life the same we currently screen for novel Woese-life microbes.

        I would therefore distinguish the “mirror [chiral biological molecule]” research pretty strongly from gain-of-function. Gain-of-function fails the research-double-effect principle, in that you can’t get anything useful out of it unless the dangerous thing happens. This isn’t the case here. Developing methods for manufacturing mirror-terminator-nucleotides are not in themselves risky, and have potentially very large payoffs attached, and are really quite far away from facilitating things that are inherently risky.

  3. AnonCo says:

    I understand that you do not want to address it anymore, but I have to at least point out that your “authoritarian” / “coercive” beliefs do not even seem to be consistent – at least as they are presented here.

    Zvi:
    -All teachers not vaccinated should be fired
    -Hurray for the military mandating vaccines
    -Hurray for large employers mandating vaccines

    Also Zvi:
    -Wearing masks at home is dystopia nightmare
    -Band practice in tents is Geneva Convention violation for young prisoners

    Do you truly not see the irony here?

    I do not mean from a best-covid-science perspective. I mean from a free society perspective.

    You have literally become the Very Serious People yourself.

    Dictating that YOUR particular brand of authoritarianism is good, but someone else’s is very bad. But we should listen to you because your Science(TM) is right.

    We both know your science actually is right – THIS TIME.

    But how do you not see the irony of approving of this is one case, and just hoping it will continue to be used for good in the future?

    If your posts over the last year have taught us anything is that the “Very Serious People” opinions and the “actually good” opinions only line up for actually doing good occasionally and accidentally at best.

    • TheZvi says:

      Understood. I don’t see any inconsistency, for various reasons, and I do not think explaining myself beyond what I say in the posts would be enlightening.

    • Tom W says:

      It’s consistent in that Good Things are right and should be mandatory, while Bad Things are wrong and should not–I suspect that just about everybody’s beliefs on everything ultimately boil down to this with enough investigation.

      I think the possible benefits of mandating vaccines in any plausible way (getting maybe another 5-10% of the population vaccinated in the next couple months, which will provide a slight but measurable degree of protection against the next couple Scary Mutations) do not come close to justifying the costs (further distrust in The System as breakthrough cases and side effects [real or perceived] pile up, widespread vax fakery, creeping advance of Do-As-The-Smart-People-Say style authoritarianism, general reinforcement of the attitude that We Must Stop This Virus At Any Cost).

      I also think these costs are likely to be much more long-term than the benefits.

      But obviously Zvi has started from different assumptions, or made different calculations!

      • AnonCo says:

        @Tom W

        >”It’s consistent in that Good Things are right and should be mandatory, while Bad Things are wrong”

        Not exactly the point I was making though. Again, not about covid – I agree which is good and bad in this case. Go one-meta down.

        The inconsistency is in that it is the exact same people deciding what Good Things and Bad Things in both cases.

        So it’s more like:

        These people are saying these are the Good Things, so I support them in enforcing these Good Things on you.

        But over here, those exact same people saying these Bad Things. I do not support them in enforcing these Bad Things on you, even though I just said they should have that power – whoops!

        It just seems totally silly to me to happily grant that power to the state and then be shocked when they enforce it in idiotic ways, as they always will.

        So you both do and don’t want to Do As The Smart People Say.

        You cannot have mandated vaccinations without Band Practice In Tents Child Prison.

      • Dave says:

        >It’s consistent in that Good Things are right and should be mandatory, while Bad Things are wrong and should not–I suspect that just about everybody’s beliefs on everything ultimately boil down to this with enough investigation.

        Some do put a premium on freedom for its own sake, including freedom from employer coercion. Indeed, to most people it matters at least somewhat. Not all good things should be mandatory.

        Supporting Trump is a bad thing, but I don’t think people should be fired for supporting Trump.

        I’m not ultimately sure how I feel about workplace coercion to force vaccinations, but it seems at least somewhat troubling. If it’s OK to mandate vaccines, that’s only because so much is at stake. Punishing people for declining medical care is a very disturbing measure to have to take.

      • Tom W says:

        @AnonCo

        When you put it that way, I entirely agree!

        Zvi, I think it’s fair to be a big fan of vaccines, but I really think you should examine your positions a little more carefully. There’s no hypothetical future in which mandating vaccines delivers a country without covid (or even a USA that’s anywhere near 100% vaccination), and quite a few in which the Very Serious People mandate vaccines, fail to deliver a country without covid, and the various consequences of those events make a lot of things worse for a lot of people.

    • kaminiwa says:

      1) What benefits does holding Band Practice in tents offer? Do you really think that this provides equivalent protection to vaccinating teachers?

      2) Given the shared air environment, and the fact that we all work from home, what benefit is there from wearing masks at my home?

      3) In what way does “failing to wear masks at home” endanger non-consenting third parties?

      “We should enforce rules in those cases where there is a huge amount of evidence to the effectiveness of said rule” doesn’t seem like an unreasonable stance from a Covid -or- Freedom standpoint. Indeed, pretty much every freedom I enjoy is subject to such restrictions (yelling fire in a theater, etc..)

      • remizidae says:

        >“We should enforce rules in those cases where there is a huge amount of evidence to the effectiveness of said rule” doesn’t seem like an unreasonable stance from a Covid -or- Freedom standpoint.

        The question is, whom do you trust to judge the evidence about the effectiveness of a given rule? “Let’s give the government more power, as long as they only use it for good things” isn’t a tenable proposition. Giving Them more power means They get to use it for whatever They want.

      • TheZvi says:

        Having seen this play out, I think there are a few distinct disagreements here, and without getting into advocacy for a side, I want to try and disambiguate them, and think it’s worth diving in one last time to do so and then will fully step back:

        1. The fully general argument against letting the government or authorities decide, mandate or do anything, ever, because (A) the ones we have are terrible and (B) this is no accident and such things are always terrible, and therefore the burden on allowing governments to do anything, or allowing anything to become de facto mandatory, should be very, very high.

        This is a fully general argument, but that doesn’t make it wrong, and it’s a very strong argument and I largely buy it for governments, and consider this to be a big cost to pay. I certainly feel that anyone who says I think good things should be mandatory and bad things forbidden is not passing my ITT.

        2. The argument that what employers decide to mandate to their employees should also count as this kind of coercion.

        I mostly don’t buy this. I think that it mostly goes the other way, that telling employers what they can and can’t condition on is the thing we should be wary of doing by default, and that telling people they have to avoid infectious disease in order to work for you is pretty freedom-positive and reasonable.

        3. The argument that vaccine mandates/requirements are an important escalation of authoritarianism/coercion, versus other covid and non-covid policies, and would substantially move the powers available to governments/authority.

        Several of you seem to think this is obviously true. I think it’s mostly false. Vaccine requirements have strong externality-based justifications and are common practice. I respect that others disagree here.

        4. The argument that vaccine mandates won’t accomplish anything and/or that Covid isn’t a big deal for vaccinated people who should just ignore all this so why do you care?

        In practice people are not going to act this way, and also I think the risks of long Covid put this in a different class than e.g. ‘the flu’ although vaccines do change the game quite a lot.

        There seems to be a cluster of people who have all 4 of these opinions at once, and the combination of these disagreements, I think, is making my positions look stupid/inconsistent to them.

        Any further response, I’ll do in the mainline posts (and this is largely a test run of these thoughts to put them in the main in a future week).

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        Replying to Zvi’s ” telling employers what they can and can’t condition on is the thing we should be wary of doing by default”

        In most versions of this world, you’re using the state’s monopoly on force to enforce this conditioning though e.g. by punishing those who lie to their employers. It is not clear whether or not this is a reasonable use of government resources. So it’s not just “let’s let employers condition on what they want” but also “the government will help employers condition on certain factors”.

    • myst_05 says:

      (IMO)

      Zvi supports things that allow for faster return to normal life as it was in 2019.

      Zvi opposes things that didn’t exist in life as it was in 2019.

      Vaccines were mandatory in school and military environments in 2019. Masks at home and playing clarinet in a tent was not normal. Hence one is good and the other is bad.

  4. MB says:

    In regards to Provincetown outbreak, it being mostly men and Provincetown, I would like to know how many are immune compromised. I have not seen that mentioned.

  5. Basil Marte says:

    Federal Dementor Association.

    > What about fears that this will ‘further undermine confidence’ or look ‘rushed?’
    I’d say that people who [are going to] say such things have drawn their bottom line (i.e. to distrust the FDA/vaccines/narrative/…) first, and are fitting their justification to whatever the environment presents.

    > So what if you end up having to bribe some people who would have gotten it for free?
    I don’t think that’s the policy, or the mental state of the policymaker. IMO they think they have a very precise finish line to cross (75% of the population vaccinated) and until that happens, they try to crank up the input signals to the system, like a very simple control mechanism. (Of course, there are alternative endpoints: the people/media losing interest because covid goes away, or Very Serious People coming out and setting a new finish line that had been crossed earlier and thus it’s suddenly Mission Accomplished anyway.) This escalation of begging/bribes does create the incentive to hold out even after “a bribe” is offered. We’re already seeing bribes accumulating: e.g. a Walmart employee will get both the $150 from the company and the participation in the state lottery.

    • TheZvi says:

      I agree that the policymakers aren’t thinking in these terms. It’s still important to think through such consequences, because they’re real, but yeah they’re mostly thinking about what they can do now to improve what happens now, and mostly I think that the conclusions they reach are the right things to do.

      • Basil Marte says:

        I agree that the rewards-for-vaccination policies are CDT::great, and that in practice the large variety of restrictions makes the existence of rewards mostly a moot point, but it’s still not LDT::great to reward people for vice/stupidity.

  6. drewyallop says:

    Too many adverbs….

    >

  7. lordfrezon says:

    I went on and got a shot of Pfizer at a local supermarket on Monday for my third, no appointment needed. It’s been about 6 months since I got my last shot in February, and I figured it couldn’t hurt. Symptoms were way less sever than Moderna2nd, and the longest part of the process was them running my insurance card. When asked what would happen if I didn’t have insurance, they said there was some form or code they could input. Not medical advice, but going to a Pfizer distributor and saying you don’t have insurance seems like a good plan to me. Fake ID optional.

    In good news, there was a middle aged woman getting her first shot with her unmasked (and assumedly fully vaccinated) daughter with her next to me in line, so at least people are feeling the pressure somewhere.

  8. Clueless Boi says:

    I’m double vaccinated, but I still don’t know what to do in case I notice suspicious symptoms in myself or among my family members. :(

    1. Should I go out to get tested or wait at home?

    2. Should I increase the dosage of potentially helpful supplements (vitamin D, C, zinc, quercetin)?

    3. When should I call for the ambulance and go to the hospital (% SpO2)?

    4. I am most likely to catch delta during the upcoming peak(s), when the healthcare system will be the least accessible. I can catch another infection or be subject to the medical error in the hospital, not to mention the hospitalization-related stress. Treatment standards vary a lot from place to place. Late treatment worsens my outcomes. What if I should really consider early treatment by taking low doses of Two Drugs I Shouldn’t Mention Here, as recommended by the Alliance I Shouldn’t Mention Here? Who should I contact to obtain some reliable opinion on this?

    Systemic regulations are largely beyond our influence, avoiding exposure has its limits depending on where you live and work, so these are the only things we can individually consider after the vaccination.

    • TheZvi says:

      1. If symptoms make you suspect Covid, testing is worth doing – it will be good to know for sure either way, especially if things take a turn for the worse. Not quite a free action, but pretty close.

      2. I would take more Zinc/D/C in that spot myself, given the cost-benefit. Can’t speak to quercetin. If you already have enough doubt it does much.

      3. My guess is that by the time you’re actively measuring %SpO2 you likely want to go, but this isn’t an area I have expertise in and I’d listen to medical advice.

      4. I can’t speak to that, others are welcome to, but I certainly wouldn’t use those things as reasons not to get other treatments the way you would have anyway. My guess is the healthcare system isn’t going to be in that much trouble in most places, but I agree it could happen.

      And obviously you can also consider what precautions you do or don’t want to take before you get Covid, which is a lot of what I discuss in general.

      • Evan Þ says:

        Re (3), I think you’re discounting worry. If I got COVID last year, I expect I would’ve been second-guessing myself every time I felt I wanted to take a deep breath. I got a pulse oxymeter back in Spring 2020 just in case.

        (Now, I’m vaccinated, so I think I could get my brain to shut up by reminding myself of that.)

      • C says:

        Thanks!

        3. I intend to measure it on a regular basis, and I don’t know whether e.g. <90% should be a reason to call 911. What if I feel very bad with 92%, or quite good with 84%, or meh with 90%? Dispatchers tend to have varying criteria.

        4. In some countries, more people died because of the inefficient healthcare system (full emergency units, lack of access to oncological care, reluctance to call 911) than due to Covid-19. Late administration of remdesivir and prednisolone in a high-total-risk environment sounds to me like a way worse idea than the early at-home administration of I & F, the studies seem to support my opinion, but again, I don't know who I should listen to in the conflict between Faulty Institutional Consensus and Some Online Contrarians.

        I live in a small block with multiple families, so delta will be most likely circulating in the ventilation regardless of the precautions I'll take.

    • myst_05 says:

      Regarding #4, instead of taking weird drugs, I’d much rather take an extra shot of the vaccine. If you’re in the US its trivial to do.

    • remizidae says:

      @C If you are measuring pulse oxidation repeatedly, you’re going to get a LOT of false positive low readings. Those things are not that precise. This, combined with the level of worry you seem to have about COVID, which could cause psychosomatic symptoms, is a lot more likely to cause you to seek medical care unnecessarily than to avoid medical care when you need it.

      My unsolicited advice would be not to measure pulse oxidation at all unless you have symptoms. And try to dial down the neurosis!

      • A1987dM says:

        Huh, what? I use one almost daily (mostly to check my heart rate when exercising, but sometimes just out of curiosity when I’m bored) and I can’t remember it ever going below 95% for more than half a second. They do have a ±3%-ish uncertainty, but that’s almost always good enough to know whether or not to go to the hospital.

  9. DCM says:

    Zvi, have you seen any good data on the reinfection rates for delta for those previously infected with alpha, but not vaccinated? I have not been able to find anything useful on this topic. Seems important for forward modeling.

  10. Chris says:

    Did you notice that the chart from Financial Times is log scale? Vaccinations create orders of magnitude improvements against lethality.

    RE: pork price elasticity, it doesn’t strike me as super surprising. Beef and chicken are easy substitutes, is (non-bacon) pork ever 60% better than chicken or beef?

    • TheZvi says:

      I’m not a bacon person myself so I’m the wrong person to ask but given how much bacon makes you fat (e.g. the famous xkcd), and how much many people like it, I have to assume that yes, for a lot of people it is? I never liked it myself.

  11. cakridge2 says:

    One thing to note in the hesitancy crowd, one that a lot of us may not see, but there’s already A LOT of anger on their side. Vaccine mandates will only make that worse, and I fear they may see it as the final line they’ll allow the world to cross.

  12. The Lambda-escaping-vaccines paper was done on the Chinese vaccine, so there’s at least some hope that it won’t replicate, or at least won’t replicate to a similar extent, on the better vaccines.

  13. JohnofCharleston says:

    Two interesting reports from the past week:

    Andrew Sullivan was in Provincetown during the cluster and knows many of the people affected. It’s worth noting that Sullivan is HIV-positive (he mentions it in the dispatch), as are many of the men who’ve been going to Provincetown every summer for decades:
    “One bar in particular — the home for a dance party with the inspired name of “Fag Bash” — resembles a kind of dank dungeon where sweat drips from the ceiling and mold reaches up the walls. It might have been designed for viral transmission. A big swathe of the crowd had also just come from a week of Pride partying in New York City and were likely not, shall we say, at their immunological best. It was a muggy, viral heaven in a classic post-plague burst of bacchanalia. I’m way too old for that kind of thing these days, and don’t like crowds, and so stayed away, finishing the audio version of my forthcoming essay collection. Good call, it turns out.”
    https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/let-it-rip-f9c?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0ODY5NzE1LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozOTIzMzM1OCwiXyI6IkdnRUtCIiwiaWF0IjoxNjI4MTkzMDk0LCJleHAiOjE2MjgxOTY2OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi02MTM3MSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.NfNKTdccndZqIPip5QJ4rMv4oade9nz33g6W7bo_dpk

    Report on the origins of COVID from the House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff. Not the most reliable source these days, I’ll grant, but they cite publicly-available data for (almost?) all of their claims. Two key take-aways:
    1. The core virus definitely came from nature, but the spike protein may have been added as part of gain-of-function research.
    2. We can’t know for sure if the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but based on their behavior September 12, 2019, they certainly seem worried about the possibility.

    Click to access ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf

  14. Matty Wacksen says:

    > to make association with people dependent on them not being likely to become sick and to make those around them sick, or to require those who choose to not reduce that risk to mitigate the resulting risk to others at their own expense.

    I appreciate the effort towards being precise, but “to make those around them sick” suggests you are making everyone around them sick whereas the truth is far more nuanced. You might be (with low probability, see incidence numbers) increasing the probability slightly that someone around you who has also not taken the vaccine gets sick. You might also have had covid already; in which case you are also immune. If you are young and/or vaccinated, covid is (probably) not a big deal. If covid gets endemic (as many people seem to think), then everybody gets in anyways and so vaccines don’t play a big role. It’s over, covid is no longer a big deal.

    Even if vaccine mandates were a good idea, I don’t think setting the precedent of allowing idiots(*) to mandate what you should do with your body under the guise of “it’s best for the public” is the kind of thing I want in a society.

    (*) The FDA is not the only decision-making body filled with idiots; if you allow for these kinds of mandates stupider ones *will* follow.

    • TheZvi says:

      To be even more precise I should have said to be more likely to make those around them sick, etc etc, and I actually regret not doing it, but you gotta draw the line somewhere and I don’t think anyone was misled there. I hope anyway.

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        “those around them” feels like a motte-and-bailey; are we talking about the vaccinated or unvaccinated here?

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        I don’t want to be (too) annoying, but I guess I’d like a quantification of the order of magnitude that the change in risk is in :) I’ll start with my suggestion for something like the “expected risk to vaccinated others of not being vaccinated – same quantity but being vaccinated” for a vaccine mandate as:

        Delta_Risk = Vaccine_Effectiveness*(1 – Probability(Prior Infection)) * Probability of being infected that year conditional to no prior infection * Number of vaccinated people you infect in a place like the one instituting the mandate infected * expected harm from covid to one vaccinated person once infected

        Here Delta does not refer to the variant, I’m assuming the vaccine is as effective as a prior infection, this is a first-order approximation, etc…

        The first term is of the order (0.6*(1-0.2) = 0.5), the second term is of the order 0.2, and the third term is of the order 0.5 for an employer if we’re being *very* generous, though obviously depends on the setting; so the resulting expression is something like 0.05*expected harm from covid to one vaccinated person; so we’re talking about 1/20th of a flu per year under the assumption that “covid for the vaccinated is like the flu”.

        Am I missing something?

      • TheZvi says:

        Roughly I’d assume that if you catch the virus unvaccinated you infect about 1.5 people under current conditions, half at work seems reasonable so 0.75, and if we assume 70% vaccinated and 90% vaccine effectiveness that’s 0.2 people at the vaccinated rate, times the chance you get infected because you weren’t vaccinated, which conditional on not having been infected yet could de facto be very high going forward, except that those people also go on to infect those around them to some extent, so we actually need to use the infinite series (0.75 + 0.75^2 + 0.75^3… which adds to 3 (not quite because you hit immunity along the way but still), but likely means you’re effectively at more like 0.5 times the probability of infection.

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        Replying to Zvi: first of all, thanks for the calculation! Your calculation leaves out prior immunity but that’s a small constant factor.

        >and if we assume 70% vaccinated and 90% vaccine effectiveness that’s 0.2 people at the vaccinated rate

        I don’t understand this calculation, are you saying an infected person infects 0.75 vaccinated people at work on average? Please consider the fact that people (usually) don’t just show up to work when sick, what kind of growth rates we’d need to see in places like the UK for this to be consistent, etc..

        >which conditional on not having been infected yet could de facto be very high going forward,

        If it’s very high going forward, then the people the unvaccinated person will infect would probably get it from elsewhere anywhere since covid prevalence is so high. You can’t at the same time assume low prevalence (an unvaccinated person infects 1.5 people who would otherwise not have gotten infected from somewhere else) and high prevalence (the unvaccinated person probably gets infected). I don’t see where in your calculation the “conditional on not having been infected” is needed.

        >except that those people also go on to infect those around them to some extent, so we actually need to use the infinite series

        No, you’re either (a) double counting here and/or (b) assuming that the 0.75 vaccinated people who got infected are actually unvaccinated. With (a), I mean that If A is unvaccinated and infects B, and B is unvaccinated and infects C, then the risk increase “caused” by A shouldn’t include the risk increase “caused” by B.

      • TheZvi says:

        So what I’m saying is, 0.2 vaccinated people infected directly if everyone is vaccinated, based on 0.75 total people. Then if we charge you for secondary infections and so on, since they otherwise don’t happen, you can multiply that by 4 if you have a normal mix of vaccinated and not. And while people do stay home sick sometimes, that is the baseline and Delta spreads before symptoms often.

        I did fail to adjust for prior infection and future infection, if we assume you can only get it once. In any case, I think that’s the useful work here.

    • Matty Wacksen says:

      Replying to Zvi:

      >So what I’m saying is, 0.2 vaccinated people infected directly if everyone is vaccinated, based on 0.75 total people.

      Ok, so 0.75*90%*70% is not 0.2, what calculation are you doing to reach 0.2?

      >Then if we charge you for secondary infections and so on, since they otherwise don’t happen

      See my previous comment, you can’t do this since you’re double counting; we are after all looking at the risk “caused” by one unvaccinated person and you can’t just look at the whole future causal chain as “caused” solely by that person if all the people in the chain before *and* after that person could have prevented it. (Even though it brings up complicated moral questions, I’ll accept the “fully vaccinated” part of the causal chain, but higher order terms – i.e. vaccinated people infecting vaccinated people – here had better be neglible if the vaccine works well enough).

      Even if we (wrongly) accept the secondary infections as part of the calculation, you are looking at the wrong infinite sum unless you think vaccinated infected people are just as contagious as the unvaccinated. Assuming as a simplification that they are not contagious at all, then if of 0.75 infected people, 0.2 are vaccinated, that leaves 0.55 unvaccinated infected people and the geometric sum converges to 2.22. I’ll grant that the end-result of 2.22*0.2 is still close to 0.5, but I think you made a miscalculation to reach the 0.2.

      But even if we fully accept your reasoning, is the cost of 0.5 flu-like illness cases a *year* really worth the dignitiy you are taking away from someone by forcing them to do something to their bodies against their will in a direction that has become strongly politically polarized?

      • TheZvi says:

        The 0.2 comes from, 0.75 people infected total (vax + not-vax), about 2/3rds vax, adding in the vax reduction and doing a little math, I did it on a spreadsheet. You can plug in your own numbers there.

        I think it’s fair to count any given action in terms of its *marginal* impact on what happens. I agree that replacement effects should stop that, since it reduces marginal impact, but if I got it from Agnus, she got it from Jim, and we all admit it must have been Louise who gave it to him, then Louise not getting it means I don’t get it either, and it’s a marginal cost – again, if you don’t think that counts then don’t count it, but I think it counts.

        For the geometric sum, I think ‘vax means not infectious’ is a big overstatement, and I forget if I was already adjusting for the thing in question, but we agree this impact isn’t that big (and you think it’s zero moral weight here anyway).

        Is 0.5 flu-like illnesses a reason *not to employ someone* is the question here, not holding them at gunpoint. Work mostly involves telling people what to do with their bodies all day in ways people don’t like large and small, and you can quit, etc etc. Nor do I think ‘dignity’ is relevant here, or that the people who disagree decided to ‘politicize’ a decision should interfere with private freedom of contract, and I actually think you’d hate the implications of that if you thought it through, based on your other positions.

        Anyway, sounds like our ‘disagreements on price’ here wouldn’t convince either of us to change our minds.

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        Replying to Zvi:

        > You can plug in your own numbers there.

        Sure, if you share the spreadsheet.

        >then Louise not getting it means I don’t get it either, and it’s a marginal cost

        Well yeah, but then what’s the marginal cost of Agnus and Jim not being vaccinated? If you employ 100 people, how many times are you going to calculate the marginal cost? Looking at marginal costs makes sense if your system is somewhat linear near the point, but this isn’t that kind of setting. There’s also the point that the counterfactual where nobody gets it via a different route is quite strained.

        >Work mostly involves telling people what to do with their bodies all day in ways people don’t like large and small, and you can quit, etc etc.

        Obvious motte/bailey here, just because work involves “telling people what to do with their bodies” doesn’t mean that “anything an employer tells their employee to do with their bodies is ok”. How would you feel about an “anti-vaccine mandate”, in which an employer fires anyone who gets vaccinated. Is that still “you can quit, etc, etc”?

        >Anyway, sounds like our ‘disagreements on price’ here wouldn’t convince either of us to change our minds.

        Your words, not mine. The current price by your calculation is 0.5*flu. How low would it be until you say it is unreasonable/ for an employer to demand vaccination from an employee?

      • Matty Wacksen says:

        Can an employer request proof of circumcision? Sure, there are strong tribal correlations (as there is with the vaccine) so it seems a bit discriminatory, but at the same time all the experts (just ask any Rabbi/Imam, insert “scientist” here for the vaccine) are agreed that the procedure is without risks and probably protects against disease (whether spiritual or physical is not neccessarily clear).

  15. J says:

    Thanks Zvi, always appreciate your thoughts. FWIW, while I always enjoy the whole post, the main things I’m looking for these days are:
    1. Best current estimate of mRNA effectiveness against Delta
    2. Best guess on future path of the pandemic

    My guesses would be 60-90% for #1, and 1-2 months to peak in the US at levels similar to the earlier highs, at which point it’ll settle into some endemic level for the long term at maybe 10-20% of the peak. Reasonable?

    • TheZvi says:

      #1: At this point I’d be surprised if it wasn’t at least high 80s for infection (or at least symptomatic disease) and it’s higher for death/hospitalization, mid-90s minimum.
      #2: My gut says we hit a peak like India/UK/Dutch had, so yeah a similar level in cases (but not deaths) and then a long term endemic situation of some kind.

      • Liam R says:

        What’s to say future variants won’t emerge similar to Delta (or more transmissible/deadly)? Just the fact that we keep vaccinating more and more people globally?

    • Tom W says:

      Not Zvi, but re 2: the current Delta surge is following last summer’s pattern of being most dramatic in hot places (Florida etc) where people tend to hang out in the air conditioning, so if nothing else intervenes, changing weather conditions will deliver a peak in the early fall. But based on other country’s experiences with Delta it’s also quite possible we’ll hit a dramatic peak earlier on–this is more difficult to predict, but my gut says “sooner than we think, potentially even in the next week or two”.

      Long term, I think this idea of some “stable endemic level” is unlikely to happen. We’re much more likely to see a regular seasonal pattern of waves, much like the flu, as weather conditions change across regions, immunity levels vary, and new mutations appear, take over, exhaust their own “fuel supply”, and fade back into the background.

      I am confident that we will see a late fall surge, mostly in colder northern regions, likely composed of a new variant (or a few) which have slightly better immune/vaccine escape than Delta does, and more vaccinated people will be infected as their original protection slowly wears off. How will we handle that one? Based on the current example, my guess is “dramatic, ineffective overreaction”.

  16. David Speyer says:

    Francis Collins has since tweeted that, while he did say that parents should mask at home with unvaccinated kids, this is not what he meant to say. https://twitter.com/NIHDirector/status/1422654529087189000

  17. Ben Simon says:

    From the AI study graph:

    (a) summarises the conditional probability estimates for five scenarios in which AI causes an existential catastrophe, conditional on an existential catastrophe due to AI having occurred

    Given the conditional, I don’t think this study tells us how worried anyone is that AI will cause a catastrophe. It tells us that people don’t agree on what form such a catastrophe would be. If anything, I think that should make us less worried. Five people shouting the same warning is more concerning than five different warnings.

  18. What makes you so afraid of mirror life? As far as I can see, it has the exact same capabilities as regular life, except regular life has a 4 billion years evolutionary head start.

  19. Liam R says:

    OK, hivemind. Should people who have had two doses of an mRNA vaccines go get a third dose?

    Ethically, it doesn’t seem to be a problem as there’s a ton of surplus, in the USA, at least.

    Scientifically, does it increase protection all that much to do it?

    • A1987dM says:

      If the second dose was less then six months ago, probably not — maybe get an antibody test and decide based on the results.

      IANAD, this is not medical advice, etc.

  20. D says:

    I live somewhere with very high vaccination rates (well over 80% of eligible 12+ at first dose, nearly all with mRNA vaccines) and very low prevalence after a rather rough winter and spring. This is one of the safest places in the entire world. We’ve just had the announcement that things are going back to normal in pretty much every, dropping the mask mandates and distancing requirements for stern recommendations and so on, with vaccine passports still required in a few specific large group settings.

    Public reaction among the well-meaning, right-thinking, very-online crowd has been:
    -Think of the children! The public health people are anti-science butchers to let anyone go back to school unmasked without vaccines available!
    -This is all too fast! We should just wait and see! For some indeterminate length of time that might be forever!
    -Delta is literally ebola-varicella-measles and we are in more danger now with 80% vaccination than we were a year ago!

    Since we’re clearly on the path to everyone getting infected occasionally by this new boring endemic cold virus, the risk to children remains tiny compared to other risks we accept every day without blinking, vaccination rates are nearly topped out, and those antibodies start dropping off pretty quickly to make room for non-sterilizing cellular immunity, I believe we are currently as “safe” as we will *literally ever be*, and we will be equally or less “safe” (in terms of community prevalence, not deaths/hospitalizations/actual risk to ourselves) five years from now, and therefore not going back to normal now is basically refusing to go back to normal ever.

    I really wasn’t expecting this much resistance to going back to normal after the original “flatten the curve to protect the health system” argument became irrelevant. Clearly there’s a combination of status quo stickiness and silly tribal signalling.

    What am I not getting here? It’s completely unacceptable in any tribe to assert that the vaccines are safe and effective and *therefore* we’re all good now and can drop all the NPIs.

    • Tom W says:

      Suggesting such things has become heresy–the orthodox belief is that Anything Is Necessary To Stop The Virus. That’s all it is!

    • Bobboccio says:

      Kids used to play at home alone and in groups with no parental supervision. That became something that just isn’t done. Which became something that is now illegal in many places.

      Safetyism at work.

  21. K says:

    Iceland has been having a spike in cases after having had a month or so of no restrictions. Their data breaks down infections by vaccination status which is interesting.

    69% of the country is fully vaccinated (86% of the 16 and older population who are the ones mostly eligible so far). The fully vaccinated have been around 68% of the cases since the start of this wave in mid July.

    Might need a few more days to see if its just the same kind of spike as in the UK, the Netherlands and Malta recently. Also probably missing a few datapoints to really measure vaccine effectiveness. But offers how endemic this thing can become even with high vaccination rates.

    https://www.covid.is/english (click data and see “Number of vaccinated individuals among domestic infections”) Any thoughts?

  22. Econymous says:

    Given the increased viral load in Delta infections, would we expect PCR tests to have more false positives from lingering viral fragments post-infection?

    • TheZvi says:

      Possible, but I doubt it’s a big issue. Certainly we should see less false negatives.

      • Econymous says:

        I wonder how much that would impact Rt estimates. If Delta is 10% more discoverable (in whatever way), it would look like Rt was climbing faster than expected as Delta’s relative prevalence grew.

        Perhaps this is part of the story of why Delta recedes faster than Rt seems to suggest?

  23. Blackstone says:

    My naive approach to covid would be: anyone who is highly vulnerable/worried about it should a) stay home and b) get vaccinated. Everyone else can go about their lives as usual. People in the first group can join them when they’re fully vaccinated. I.e. the default is normality, vulnerable people can take extra precautions if they wish to, and no coercion is necessary. What’s the problem with this approach?

  24. Craken says:

    I’m surprised at the references almost every week to Topol. In October he boasted, in terms that made clear his political motive, of delaying approval (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine–for weeks. Insofar as his plot was effective, he effectively murdered thousands of Americans. He clearly had the mens rea for mass murder. He wears a white coat not a klepto-suit; he is an Establishment “expert” not a mere politico; he has no excuse at all.

    Had I been previously infected, I would refuse vaccination. Why add that risk? But, no account is taken of this aspect of reality in the rush to force-vaccinate the herd. This reminds me of the problem with monocultures: there is a risk of long term harm from vaccination, which could potentially be mitigated by *not* vaccinating everyone. Sometimes it’s worth growing lower yield bananas in some fields to ensure the whole crop isn’t wiped out in one stroke of bio-lightning.

    When I read the nicely reasoned four point breakdown of the vaccination mandate controversy in the comment above, it occurs to me that I would have digested that kind of reasoning very differently 20 years ago. The ruling class has burned its credibility with me down to ashes. They remind me most of all of the Soviet apparatchiks of 1990 or so–the endgame of a long degenerative ratchet. Dead wood and clowns.

  25. Pingback: Covid 8/12: The Worst Is Over | Don't Worry About the Vase

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s