QtownDave

Earlier this summer, the Summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee set about crunching data on more than 40,000 genes from 17,000 genetic samples in an effort to better understand Covid-19. Summit is the second-fastest computer in the world, but the process — which involved analyzing 2.5 billion genetic combinations — still took more than a week.

When Summit was done, researchers analyzed the results. It was, in the words of Dr. Daniel Jacobson, lead researcher and chief scientist for computational systems biology at Oak Ridge, a “eureka moment.” The computer had revealed a new theory about how Covid-19 impacts the body: the bradykinin hypothesis. The hypothesis provides a model that explains many aspects of Covid-19, including some of its most bizarre symptoms. It also suggests 10-plus potential treatments, many of which are already FDA approved. Jacobson’s group published their results in a paper in the journal eLife in early July.

https://elemental.medium.com/a-super...d-31cb8eba9d63

invisible

Than you. I have one follow-up question then. If mortality is 0.3%, how does this corresponds to the numbers here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVI..._and_territory

If 0.3% is the correct number then with 6m infected in US death should be 18k, not 188k - 10 times higher number which is 3% of mortality.

Or if 0.3% is the correct, then for US case 6m are only detected/diagnosed cases and in reality 60m or 20% of country population already had it.

fransknorge

You are right, if IFR is 0.3% and there are 188k (excess death is > 200k) then real infections numbers are circa 60m.
BUT IFR is 0.3% in a specific context. If the healthcare are overwhelmed locally for that region the IFR can go up to 1%.

GadgetFreak

Well, they don’t really know that precisely how many asymptomatic cases there are. They know diagnosed cases and some estimates of deaths. Deaths probably being higher than estimated. But I’m pretty sure the 6 million are detected cases.

TTT

I believe the consensus is the latter. The CDC estimated that about 10x the confirmed cases had been infected back in June.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...-times-larger/

Link to CDC study from JAMA stating a 6x-24x difference: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=072120

But as I said, fatality rate is very country dependent. Countries that didn't protect their vulnerable populations well will have higher death rates. I'm sure we will see the same thing in states as well.

stimpy

Yes it's possible. I should have been clear that I don't know what will work across strains or will not work. Perhaps no one knows yet. Which is why it may be foolish to be predicting when vaccines will foster international travel. If country A produces a vaccine tor its citizens, that may not be accepted by country B not just for political reason, but because it simply doesn't work in country B.

Worse yet, what happens when people get their vaccines and believe they are now invulnerable. Then some random infected traveler arrives from another country with another strain and infects some of the local population? I'm not sure enough people are aware of the potential outcomes of the vaccines currently in the works. That said, I of course hope that a good working vaccine can be produced that covers all the potential varieties of SARS-CoV2.

TTT

That's a really interesting point about vaccine passports. There is going to be a lot of wait and see in the next couple of years.

PanAmWT

The face masks given to me at UCSF hospital when I went in as a patient, and those wearing by my daughter at ZSFG hospital (she just completed a rotation at ICU), are the same as the ones our group donated to the hospitals. Some of the boxes on the table at UCSF hospital Mission Bay entrance are identical to the ones I purchased from Amazon,

GadgetFreak

It’s good that they have a steady supply then. Based on the above post you responded to it seems like the supply problems might be localized.

doctoravios

Exactly. 0.3% might be the overall mean IFR but there is a confidence interval attached to the point estimate and IFR varies by age (much higher in the elderly). So it does not necessarily mean 60m have been infected if most deaths are occurring in the elderly where IFR would be much higher and if the point estimates for IFR in younger people have a high degree of imprecision due to local availability of high dependency medical care.

I find IFR not a particularly straightforward metric for COVID-19 as it varies so much depending on patient/healthcare service factors rather than the virus itself and CFR is a complete non-starter as COVID-19 encompasses so many illnesses it seems impossible to define what represents a "case".

Loren Pechtel

This is assuming the disease is equally spread across the population, something which likely isn't true as behavior influences whether you are infected or not.

littlefish

Just a reminder the 0.3% rate quoted earlier, and which is recent and from what I think is good data, is for the country of Iceland.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116

Transposing the Iceland 0.3% to other places should, therefore, look to take into account factors which may be different. Indeed, others may look at the study and data and disregard the number entirely!
Other studies/data from other places give different numbers.

I don't have a recent number for Germany, but if one pops up, I'd want to take a look as that might be an indicator of what a large industrialised country should be able to achieve at this time. A benchmark so-to-speak.

fransknorge

There has been more and more paper recently that proves that airborne transmission does occur:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...0412020319942#

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2770172

TTT

In the UK the rate is estimated to be between 0.3% and 0.49%

• https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estima...io-in-england/

PanAmWT

1. By now most everyone agrees that outdoor is safer than indoor, and ventilation is important. A poorly ventilated room is more dangerous.

2. But people are still debating the significance of airborne transmission.

Why? It seems to me that #1 . above is the most convincing argument for aerosol transmission. How else can you explain #1 . if aerosol path is rare?