Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.

[EnglishEdward]

@ Samson

We know that old people are much more likely to die of Covid-19 than youngsters,
so if old people tended to vote for Donald Trump more; then a chart of coronavirus
death rates against Donald Trump voters, will inevitably show a good correlation.

But a correlation between those two measurements does not demonstrate cause and effect.

It would be much more impressive if you could find an age neutral correlation
(i.e. corrected for age) between Donald Trump voters and coronavirus death rates.

 

[Gorbles]

@ Samson

We know that old people are much more likely to die of Covid-19 than youngsters,
so if old people tended to vote for Donald Trump more; then a chart of coronavirus
death rates against Donald Trump voters, will inevitably show a good correlation.

But a correlation between those two measurements does not demonstrate cause and effect.

It would be much more impressive if you could find an age neutral correlation
(i.e. corrected for age) between Donald Trump voters and coronavirus death rates.

I mean, I'm sure it's pretty easy to demonstrate a link between GOP and / or Trump supporters and anti-vaxxer theories, I'm sure. Maybe that's the correlation that's needed.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I cannot speak about the USA.

But in the UK we are told that:

(a) ethnic minorities have lower vaccination rates
(b) ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Labour.

Now a correlation can be identified, but it
means nothing about cause and effect.

I'd prefer it if the graphs in this thread
are not muddled in with political slants.

 

[Drakle]

The rough calculation made by the article I linked is

https://acasignups.net/21/09/12/simple-actuarial-analysis

As you can see, from Election Day through the end of June, the situation completely reversed itself: The COVID-19 death rates in the reddest counties began to run higher than in the bluest counties...as much as 2.66x as high, in fact.

First, you have to remember that not every American who has died of COVID since last November is a voter. A small percentage are either under 18 or aren't U.S. citizens. Even among those who are, total voter turnout among eligible voters last November was only around 66%...historically high, but that still removes a good 1/3 from the equation right off the bat.

That leaves perhaps 229,000 potential U.S. voters who died between 11/04/20 - 6/30/21.

The biggest unknown by far is what proportion of them were likely to vote Democratic or Republican in 2022. In the table below, I've made a spitball guesstimate about the proportions within each bracket:

If my assumptions above are close to accurate (which is admittedly a big "if"), it would mean something like 87,000 Democratic voters and 124,000 Republican voters died during that time period, plus another 18,000 or so independents or swing voters, for a net loss of ~37,000 more Republican voters than Democratic nationally.

Here's the bar graph with data starting on July 1st, through yesterday (September 7th). The Y-Axis scale is obviously much smaller since the total deaths are much lower, but the trendline is far more stark: Since the beginning of July, the death rate in the reddest counties has been as much as 7.6x higher than in the bluest counties:

Again, assuming this is reasonably close, it would mean something close to 13,800 more Republican voters have died over the past 2 months or so than Democrats nationally.

As for Nebraska and Florida: Again, I'm reluctant to include this in the table above, but if you put a gun to my head I'd say the "net GOP voter deaths" since 6/30 would be around 4,000 higher if both of these states were included; call it perhaps ~18K more GOP than Dem voters having died of COVID since the end of June.

If so, that'd be a total of perhaps 55,000 more so far this cycle (~146K GOP, ~91K Dem, ~20K Swing/Indy).

What about going forward between now and November 2022?

That's mostly an unknown, of course...but the biggest unknown is the total number of additional COVID deaths the nation is facing between now and then.

Let's assume it ends up being something like 150,000 more Americans dying of COVID between now and then, at roughly the same ratios as in the June - September data above (that is, roughly 80% GOP & 15% Dem). That would boil down to something like 74,000 additional Republican voters and 14,000 additional Democratic voters, for a net loss of 60,000 more GOP than Dem voters nationally.

The grand total would then stand at somewhere around ~105,000 Democratic voters, ~220,000 Republican voters and ~26,000 swing voters having died nationally between 11/04/20 - 11/08/22...or a net loss of perhaps 115,000 more Republicans than Democrats overall.

115,000 is a fairly large margin. After all, 2016 was decided by 77 744 votes in three states. a House race in 2020 was decided by 4 votes. And Democrats wouldn't have a senate majority, if not for a Senate race in New Hampshire that was decided by 1017 votes.

I cannot speak about the USA.

But in the UK we are told that:

(a) ethnic minorities have lower vaccination rates
(b) ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Labour.

Now a correlation can be identified, but it
means nothing about cause and effect.

I'd prefer it if the graphs in this thread
are not muddled in with political slants.

Well, I haven't paid too much attention to the UK, but I don't think the Labour Party or the Tories are Pro COVID, nor have they been targeting their voters to avoid vaccines. Both have been encouraging it. While the GOP is discouraging vaccination.

 

[Gorbles]

I cannot speak about the USA.

But in the UK we are told that:

(a) ethnic minorities have lower vaccination rates
(b) ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Labour.

Now a correlation can be identified, but it
means nothing about cause and effect.

I'd prefer it if the graphs in this thread
are not muddled in with political slants.

The difference is Labour are not openly promoting alternatives to the established vaccines. In that respect they are two unrelated data points. Meanwhile, when people talk of Trump, they talk about the literal former President of the United States who has suggested a wide range of things people have had to rush to clarify shouldn't be taken as medical advice.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The LOLP (Keir Starmer's) recommendation that the UK procure its vaccines via the
EU procurement would have slowed down UK vaccination for all UK ethnicities.

 

[Gorbles]

The LOLP (Keir Starmer's) recommendation that the UK procure its vaccines via the
EU procurement would have slowed down UK vaccination for all UK ethnicities.

That's not the same as being anti-vaccination. C'mon.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The terms of the master EU contracts with the vaccine suppliers implicitly give the EU the power to
prioritise the delivery of vaccines in the event of their being a clash in member states ordering.

Now the UK instead directly funded vaccine development and infrastructure build, and had a separate
contract, yet the EU still tried to deprioritise delivery to the UK despite the UK being worst hit by Covid-19.

Only the naive would think that if the UK had used the EU procurement, the EU would not have
used their position as master contract holders to EITHER deprioritise delivery to the UK, OR
demand other concessions from the UK. In my view following the EU procurement route would
therefore have EITHER further entangled the UK under EU control (no doubt Keir Starmer's intent)
OR resulted in an extensive delay, perhaps as long as three months, to the UK vaccine roll out.

Now obstructing vaccine roll-out, as Keir Starmer tried, is anti-vaccine.

 

[Gorbles]

The terms of the master EU contracts with the vaccine suppliers implicitly give the EU the power to
prioritise the delivery of vaccines in the event of their being a clash in member states ordering.

Now the UK instead directly funded vaccine development and infrastructure build, and had a separate
contract, yet the EU still tried to deprioritise delivery to the UK despite the UK being worst hit by Covid-19.

Only the naive would think that if the UK had used the EU procurement, the EU would not have
used their position as master contract holders to EITHER deprioritise delivery to the UK, OR
demand other concessions from the UK. In my view following the EU procurement route would
therefore have EITHER further entangled the UK under EU control (no doubt Keir Starmer's intent)
OR resulted in an extensive delay, perhaps as long as three months, to the UK vaccine roll out.

Now obstructing vaccine roll-out, as Keir Starmer tried, is anti-vaccine.

As much as I dislike Starmer, no, it's not. "anti-vaccination" means to be specifically opposed to being vaccinated. Not to be allegedly obstructed by legislation and apparent red tape.

Otherwise we could have a super-fun tangent about the Tory's efforts in handling the pandemic and how that allegedly makes them all anti-xavvers too

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I’m going to half-hiney this one: blah blah blah, civil rights and compulsory vaccinations

The present situation does not match historical precedents very well. In the cases it does match, it looks bad, because the only FDA-approved vaccine is still in comparative short supply vs vaccines available as a whole. Mandating experimental drugs is not the realm of good historical outcomes, for obvious reasons.

I don't buy a conspiracy on par with historical sterilizations etc in this case, but incompetence resulting in bad outcomes is certainly a possibility.

Obviously, that's a clear case where R&D should solve a reasonable concern, but I'm months into not having a good set of biodistribution data. And there's literally no need for that.

Yeah. This lack of information is extremely frustrating. Not only would having more of it make the strongest case for the vaccine, having it not available is suspicious/lends credibility to resisting/hesitating wrt the COVID vaccine in a way that data would not support resisting other vaccines. More transparency/information is worth a lot more than forcing people to do something "for their own good" in a way that does not hold up to scrutiny/consistency of standards.

I don’t think there’s any way to fully resolve the bodily autonomy-society-expediency equation. At some point, a majority, or a very active minority, will have to draw a line on where these points all intersect.

Pretty much this. There must some standard for where we put this line, and that standard should be consistent.

I guess I value society and expediency more than autonomy on this question given the tools available to us now. It’s kind of like the speed limits question—we could end highway injury today if we lowered them all to 5 miles per hour and put 25-foot long Nerf bumpers on all the cars. But the costs of that policy would be so great that I don’t think anyone else would want it.

Same cases can be made for costs of various COVID policies. At some point you do more damage than good, if going too far to extremes.

 

[GinandTonic]

It seems to me Edward and Gorbals are talking past each other here.

There seems to be a causal like between Trump support and a lack of vaccination.

There is a correlation between voting right and being older and having worse covid outcomes.

There is a correlation between voting left and being an ethnic minority and vaccine refusal and worse covid outcomes.

Trump support does seem to be a causal factor rather than a mere correlation.

As much as he's not on my Christmas list, BoJo did a good job of sticking danger money orders into prospective vaccines. European procurement was, shall we say, less agile. BoJo may have made the right call, but this has no relevance to the probability of a Starmer voter croaking of covid.

 

[Gorbles]

There seems to be a causal like between Trump support and a lack of vaccination.

I mean, I already pointed this out, to little effect. It's not so much a matter of talking past as regretting involving myself in someone's alternative reality in a thread that isn't even about the UK explicitly

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Trump support does seem to be a causal factor rather than a mere correlation.

What's the basis for this being a causal factor, beyond the correlation?

There is a correlation between voting left and being an ethnic minority and vaccine refusal and worse covid outcomes.

That reminds me, for those that like to assert/infer "systemic racism" based on outcomes/correlations, regardless of intent or any clear link from policy to racism...they must necessarily conclude that vaccine mandates are "systemically racist" using their own standards.

Those standards are still stupid just like they always were, because correlation does not by itself imply causation. It will be interesting and informative to see how willing people are to stick to their established standards, though.

 

[Gorbles]

What's the basis for this being a causal factor, beyond the correlation?

Not anything you're ever going to accept as a causal factor, so I recommend people don't try.

 

[Drakle]

That reminds me, for those that like to assert/infer "systemic racism" based on outcomes/correlations, regardless of intent or any clear link from policy to racism...they must necessarily conclude that vaccine mandates are "systemically racist" using their own standards.

Preventing minorities from dying is racist.

Your logic is impeccable.


Anyway, Conservatives are generally more likely to favour fewer COVID restrictions, but the US case is an extreme outlier. Except for Greece which is its own special basket case. Its fairly clear that the US Right has been driven rabid by a number of factors.

Also in terms of being vaccinated or not, the biggest factor over all else, is voting Trump or Biden.

You can't wave that away. Well, you can't, if you think in good faith.

 

[Samson]

Mandating experimental drugs is not the realm of good historical outcomes, for obvious reasons.

I would love to know what you are referring to here.

 

[bernie14]

It's not happening, and it doesn't matter, because the hospital loads would be far more manageable. Vaccinated people are far less likely to catch it, and even if they do, are less likely to spread it, and are infectious for a far shorter time span. Look at infection maps or data on spread.



Natural immunity as an argument is stupid because it requires getting COVID, which means possible death. It should not be presented as an argument for anti-vaccine loons to twist, because it is getting people killed. And it shouldn't be a vaccine exemption excuse, because that just provides an avenue for anti-vaxxers to cheat the system or get themselves purposefully killed, and removes consistency. The cost of vaccinating people who have already had COVID is very low.

You don't encourage people to get bitten by snakes to build their immunity to venom. Or to play Russian roulette.

Excerpt

Vaccines have been available for months. There is plenty of information available. Positive incentives have been in place in the States for a while. All this has been done. It still isn't working, because of propaganda networks and stubborn denial of reality. That means public health must be upheld with negative incentives. Public health has never been about individual choice, it's about society health or harm.


Anyway, this entire anti-public health reaction re COVID is ridiculous, because people did not act like this in regards to other public health matters. A thread about Tuberculosis treatment.

the natural immunity science seems like a great argument AGAINST having heathy kids immunized

 

[Drakle]

the natural immunity science seems like a great argument AGAINST having heathy kids immunized

No.

 

[warpus]

Are black Americans not getting vaccinated due to opposition to the vaccine or ease of accessibility or some other reason?

 

[bernie14]

No.

Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report

In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03 of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death

Deaths from COVID ‘incredibly rare’ among children

Of 3,105 deaths from all causes among the 12 million or so people under 18 in England between March 2020 and February 2021, 25 were attributable to COVID-19 — a rate of about 2 for every million people in this age range. None had asthma or type-1 diabetes, the authors note, and about half had conditions that put them at a higher risk than healthy children of dying from any cause.
Taken together, the unusually comprehensive studies could provide some comfort to parents who have been shielding children who they thought might be vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19. “There’s a general feeling among paediatricians that probably too many children were shielded during the first wave of the pandemic,” Russell Viner, who studies adolescent health at the University College London, told reporters.

Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so.

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.