Many places in India had very large initial epidemics, and it has been proposed that some cities (i.e. Mumbai) might have been at or near herd immunity towards the end of last year
The new massive waves even in areas with many infections before raise several possibilities, none of them great
1. reinfections 2. variants 3. large over-ascertainment of past infection
Reinfections without variants are quite unlikely to be driving this, based on past evidence. So either we dramatically over-estimated how many people had been infected in the past (possible, not that likely) or there are numerous reinfections due to variants
Unless there's another explanation? I really don't see how else you could get a second massive wave in a place that reportedly had 40-60% of the population infected in pretty well-done serology studies last year
If explanation 3 is true, then it means that even in really hard-hit areas we are probably far away from any herd immunity threshold long-term
If explanation 2 is true, then herd immunity through natural infection may be entirely impossible 😬
In terms of explanation 3, I think it is entirely possible but I have talked to the researchers who conducted seroprevalence studies in India and they are some of the better ones I've seen in the developing world
There are still many sources of bias, and it's entirely possible that they over-estimate seroprevalence, but I'm not sure it is the most likely explanation any more
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Chronic disease has caused COVID-19 deaths, if we didn't have so much diabetes fewer people would've died" - incredibly dumb argument for many reasons, not least that it is true of LITERALLY ALL HUMAN DEATHS
Yes, if we had solved the biggest medical issue of the modern age fewer people would've died of COVID-19
What of it?
I mean, seriously, we've been trying to 'fix' NCDs for decades, and while they are in theory somewhat preventable they are still a large and growing problem in most places in the world
The basic idea here is that we could be either undercounting or overcounting COVID-19 deaths
I think the most likely explanation is some combination of the two
Based on some very careful examinations of death reporting systems, we can say that there are probably some portion of deaths that are recorded as due to COVID-19 but were not caused by the virus
2/n The article in question is a review of face masks. At face value, it's essentially an opinion piece arguing that masks are ineffective ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
3/n Digging a little bit deeper, some of the stuff in here is pretty obviously wrong. For example, this incorrect statement about 99% mild/asymptomatic is referenced to Worldometers (not a specific graph, just the site)
In the US, the exact incidence of COVID-19 infections per week is hard to estimate, but it's probably been about 10% of the whole country infected since January (roughly), for a weekly incidence of ~0.5%
The vaccines used in the US are 80-95% effective, and about 100 million people have been vaccinated in that time period
Fascinating study demonstrating the issues with selection bias in seroprevalence estimates
Using a selected sample of participants, the estimated prevalence of past COVID-19 infection doubled (!) nature.com/articles/s4146…
The study is really interesting. They used an existing representative sample of people aged >30 to estimate the population prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2
They then added a second group. These were people who had not previously signed up to the existing cohort, but were eligible
An update on this whole bizarre experience - the journal has now published a "typeset" version of the paper, which has deleted the lengthy personal attack
There are quite a number of issues remaining, but this at least is good
The author has now included a slightly odd statement in the appendices. It's worth remembering that the original appendix contained a number of factually inaccurate statements about myself and co-authors
I would also suggest that hurting people's feelings is a bizarrely patronizing thing to say. Defamation of PhD students in published scientific work is about more than "feelings"