"Facts about COVID-19": Swiss Propaganda Research Article

[pamojja]

@pamojja , can you please give a timecode for the point you are making in the video you posted; it is a 41 minute video, and I don't really want to watch all of it.

It is basically in every minute of this interview of this retired epidemiologist having worked as such for 35 years. Maybe just listen to the first 10?

One of the most interesting parts of the video starts around minute 14. It's about when the rate of infection slows in relation to when social distancing and school closures begin.

But agree with andyguitar, minute 13:40 is where the most compeling argument is placed. However, it is basically the observation of pandemics during his whole life as an epidemiologist, that resperiatory infection pandemics behave that way every year. - Which of course begs the question what went wrong with the 1918 spanish flu? There might be many factors which in retrospect might not be easily verified (lasting worldwar, starvation, terrible immunity..).

 

[pamojja]

It looks light antibody testing might not be that helpful either, one third of the discharged patients in China tested with very low antibody levels (source).

Huch, that would give it indeed a very negative turn. Let's only hope it doesn't get replicated by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. What gives me hope it wont, are the observations of Professor Knut Wittkowski in the video of post #115 just above. In that the curves in far advanced eastern countries already reached their peak just at the time of lock-down. And not some days later, if it indeed worked as many think it would have.

 

[percyval577]

By accident I just saw the live presentation of first results from "Covid-19-Cluster-Study", Streeck and others.
The study is carried out in Ganglet/Heinsberg, an area highly affected in Germany.

So far 509 persons from the half of the sample households have been examined for the study. It took ten days.

acute infected - PCR test - 2%
immunity - antibody test - 14%
case fatality - 0.37%
mortality - 0.06%

So, according to the study so far, 0,37% of the infected people have died, and 0.06% of the population have died (from or with the virus). 14% of the population in Gangelt/Heinsberg have been infected (or still are, respectively), and 2% are indeed acute infected.

The 14% are the lowest estimation from different methods (Streeck didn´t give the other numbers).

 

[pamojja]

minute 13:40 is where the most compeling argument is placed.

Found now a not yet peer-reviewed abstract with all the data and graphs:

The first three months of the COVID-19 epidemic: Epidemiological evidence for two separate strains of SARS-CoV-2 viruses spreading and implications for prevention strategies

Abstract

About one month after the COVID-19 epidemic peaked in Mainland China and SARS-CoV-2 migrated from China westward to Europe and then the U.S., the epidemiological data begin to provide important insights into the risks associated with the disease and the effectiveness of intervention strategies. Like other respiratory diseases, including the 2003 SARS epidemic, the virus remains only about two months in any given population, yet the peak incidence and the lethality can vary. The data suggest that at least two strains of the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 virus have evolved during its migration from Mainland China to Europe. South Korea, Iran, and Italy were hit by the more dangerous "SKII" variant. While the epidemic in China is about to end, and in Europe about to level off, the course of the epidemic in the younger US population is still increasing and the peak level will likely depend on which of the strains has entered the US first. The same models that help us to understand the epidemic also help us to choose prevention strategies. While containment merely prolongs the time the disease circulates until the proportion of immune people is high enough for "herd immunity", reducing disease severity, either by vaccination or by early treatment of complications, is the best strategy against a respiratory virus disease.

 

[JES]

But agree with andyguitar, minute 13:40 is where the most compeling argument is placed. However, it is basically the observation of pandemics during his whole life as an epidemiologist, that resperiatory infection pandemics behave that way every year. - Which of course begs the question what went wrong with the 1918 spanish flu? There might be many factors which in retrospect might not be easily verified (lasting worldwar, starvation, terrible immunity..).

His argument is basically that we should opt for the heard immunity strategy and let the infection run its course, which is actually what some countries like Britain were officially doing, but then quickly backtracked. I find it a bit hard to believe that almost all countries in the world would make drastic lockdowns unless there was very strong science and models behind this.

On the other hand, Sweden does remain quite open, restaurants, schools and everything except for big events are still running, so by following the developments in Sweden we'll soon get a picture if this kind of strategy will be working. Most of us neighboring countries think the Swedes are crazy, but if they are able to bounce back from this epidemic sooner, they'll obviously have their economy back running much quicker, but I'd hate to be their health authority in charge if it turns out tenths of thousands of more people will end up killed by the epidemic in Sweden compared to their neighbouring countries.

 

[percyval577]

His argument is basically that we should opt for the heard immunity strategy and let the infection run its course, which is actually what some countries like Britain were officially doing, but then quickly backtracked. I find it a bit hard to believe that almost all countries in the world would make drastic lockdowns unless there was very strong science and models behind this.

I think with the exception of NZ, and maybe China, Korea and Singapore no country has stepped away from the concept of herd immunity.

At least in Germany and the US it has been explicitly about "flatten the curve", but then having a herd immunity.

Korea and Singapore might actually want to stop the virus as much as possible.

And only NZ just announced their will to eradicate the virus and to strictly control the border (so to say). In NZ there are cases only in the hundreds (120?), so it even might be possible to achieve an eradication without too much inaccuracy.

 

[pamojja]

I find it a bit hard to believe that almost all countries in the world would make drastic lockdowns unless there was very strong science and models behind this.

the very reason I started this thread. I couldn't find. Only models without strong science behind at all, but always starting out with most unlikely worse-case scenarios. Thats why all predictions based on those models have been multiple times downgraded already by multiples..

And if one still doesn't believe there isn't any sound science for the shutdowns (without being able to provide any), then one would have to explain why the peak of mortality in those far advanced countries occured during, and not about 2-3 week after the shutdowns. With the time the infections in average needs to turn deathly (source).

The shutdown is surely preventing further infections and deaths in the short term, but in the long-term it could prevent herd immunity which usually stops such pandemics within 2 months. As was always the case with respiratory infections pandemics year after year for which there is strong science (with the exception of 1918, as already mentioned). Which in the long term could actually artificially prolong the epidemic, causing more deaths than ever before.

 

[Bergkamp]

The shutdown is surely preventing further infections and deaths in the short term, but in the long-term it could prevent herd immunity which usually stops such pandemics within 2 months.

The key policy in many countries, as well as my own, is to stay within ICU capacity, hoping to build herd immunity. All measures that are taken are with this goal in mind. Basically every major European country, and some states in the US, are currently running at full capacity, many even had to substantially increase the # of ICU beds.

In the Netherlands for example, the national institute for infectious diseases has found that the measures taken thus far have significantly reduced R0, however we are still running at full capacity (after doubling capacity in the past couple of weeks). That means that any measures thus far are fully justified, because if they wouldn’t have been taken we would exceed capacity and the amount of people dying (unnecessarily) would skyrocket.

As well as overcrowding ICUs, another reason why governments aren’t just going to let this thing spread is that there is barely any evidence that herd immunity is a realistic scenario, in fact more new evidence is showing that people get reinfected. Obviously no government is going to take any risks with this.

The recent report (have it only in Dutch) that people with mild symptoms don’t accumulate enough antibodies to become immune is especially worrying, since that could imply, as far as I understand, that a vaccine for this disease would be useless.

 

[andyguitar]

Which in the long term could actually artificially prolong the epidemic, causing more deaths than ever before.

Yes and if it bounces back in the winter it will be much worse as it will coincide with the flu season.

The recent report (have it only in Dutch) that people with mild symptoms don’t accumulate enough antibodies to become immune is especially worrying, since that could imply, as far as I understand, that a vaccine for this disease would be useless.

A vaccine is to far in the future to be of any help this year I expect.

 

[pamojja]

Basically every major European country,.. , are currently running at full capacity

Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg, all very small countries along with rhe region accross the German border Heinsberg, are sadly worse hid areas. So regions in France, Spain, and England. But even in Italy most regions don't face an ICU crisis. Nowhere here in Austria or Germany, which even flew a couple of hundred patients from those countries in.

That means that any measures thus far are fully justified, because if they wouldn’t have been taken we would exceed capacity and the amount of people dying (unnecessarily) would skyrocket.

As well as overcrowding ICUs, another reason why governments aren’t just going to let this thing spread is that there is barely any evidence that herd immunity is a realistic scenario, in fact more new evidence is showing that people get reinfected.

(like the declining peak of mortality in eastern countries during the shutdowns, and not later which would prove the shutdown really was what worked). Herd immunity saved us every year in the past from a non-selflimiting respiratory disease pandemic. And people might get reinfected exactly because we tinker the first time in history in not letting it happen.

 

[Bergkamp]

Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg, all very small countries along with rhe region accross the German border Heinsberg, are sadly worse hid areas. So regions in France, Spain, and England. But even in Italy most regions don't face an ICU crisis. Nowhere here in Austria or Germany, which even flew a couple of hundred patients from those countries in.

The whole of Italy does face an ICU crisis. Simply because patients from the North are transferred to other regions. Why else do you think they’re transferring patients to Germany? The fact is, Italy, England, France and Spain are facing major capacity crises but if you’re even going to try and deny that I guess there’s not much point in going into further discussion. England and Spain aren’t transforming major event centres into hospitals for the fun of it.

Also, you disregard The Netherlands and Belgium as ‘small countries’ but then give Austria, an even smaller country, as an example to prove your own point. With cherry picking data everybody can claim the truth.

(like the declining peak of mortality in eastern countries during the shutdowns, and not later which would prove the shutdown really was what worked).

I gave you real facts. Netherlands is running at full capacity, R0 went down because of the lockdown, people in ICU is a direct result of the R0.

You’re giving me examples from Eastern countries (which because of many reasons aren’t very comparable with Western countries) where a lockdown supposedly didn’t work (I’ve never seen any proof of this) I’m giving you an example where a lockdown did work, but for some reason what I’m saying is ‘circular thinking’ and what you are saying are facts? Sure.

Herd immunity saved us every year in the past from a non-selflimiting respiratory disease pandemic.

What herd immunity did for other illnesses does not guarantee in any way that it will work for this one, and again, nobody is going to take that risk.

And people might get reinfected exactly because we tinker the first time in history in not letting it happen.

Reinfection has completely nothing to do with policy or strategies. It depends on the body and the illness. If the body isn’t making enough antibodies after infection with this illness, or the antibodies disappear over time, you can herd immunity whatever you want but it’s not gonna work.

 

[andyguitar]

Reinfection has completely nothing to do with policy or strategies. It depends on the body and the illness. If the body isn’t making enough antibodies after infection with this illness, or the antibodies disappear over time, you can herd immunity whatever you want but it’s not gonna work.

The alternative to herd immunity or vaccine induced immunity is containment which at this stage is impossible.

 

[pamojja]

Why else do you think they’re transferring patients to Germany?

Bolding by me:

In Italy the situation is now beginning to calm down. As far as is known, the temporarily increased mortality rates (65+) were rather local effects, often accompanied by mass panic and a breakdown in health care. A politician from northern Italy asks, for example, „how is it possible that Covid patients from Brescia are transported to Germany, while in the nearby Verona two thirds of intensive care beds are empty?“

Also, you disregard The Netherlands and Belgium as ‘small countries’

I didn't disregard the Benelux countries at all. You completely misunderstood. That is one huge region including the most hid in North Germany. And as all till now mostly affected reagions can be visualized by using this satelite picture of average NO2 pollution during the last 3 years. Nothing to do with smallness at all. Infact the largest area of Europe affected. Beside North Italy.

but then give Austria, an even smaller country, as an example to prove your own point. With cherry picking data everybody can claim the truth.

Again nothing to do with 'smallness'. I also mentioned Germany. There are many other examples:

• Many clinics in the Europe and the US have been lacking patients and some have had to introduce short-time work. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, even emergency patients sometimes stay at home out of fear, which may lead to extra deaths.
• Several media have been caught trying to dramatize the situation in clinics, sometimes even with manipulative pictures and videos. In general, many media outlets do not question even doubtful official statements and figures.
• The first Swiss hospitals have to announce short-time work due to the very low capacity utilization: „The staff in all departments has too little to do and has reduced overtime in a first step. Now short-time work is also being registered. The financial consequences are severe.“ As a reminder, a study by ETH Zurich based on largely unrealistic assumptions predicted the first bottlenecks in Swiss clinics by April 2. So far this has not happened anywhere.
• In Switzerland, there was a pronounced wave of influenza at the beginning of 2017. At that time, there were almost 1500 additional deaths in the over 65-year-old population in the first six weeks of the year. Normally, around 1300 people die in Switzerland every year as a result of pneumonia, 95% of whom are over 65 years old. By comparison, a total of 762 deaths with (not caused by) Covid19 are currently reported in Switzerland.
• The official US Covid19 projections so far have overestimated hospitalisations by a factor of 8, ICU beds needed by a factor of 6.4, and ventilators needed by a factor of 40.5.
• The US television station CBS was caught using footage from an Italian intensive care unit in a piece on the current situation in New York. In fact, dozens of recordings by citizen journalists show that it is currently very quiet in the hospitals on the US East and West Coast, described as „war zones“ by the media. Even the „corpse refrigerator trucks“ prominently shown in the media are unused and empty. (Note: Some of these authors may draw unverified conclusions.)
• Contrary to media reports, the register of German intensive care units also shows no increased occupancy. An employee of a Munich clinic explained that they had been „waiting for weeks for the wave to hit“, but that there was „no increase in patient numbers“. He said that the politicians‘ statements did not correspond with their own experience, and that the „myth of the killer virus“ could „not be confirmed“.
• Also in Swiss clinics, no increased occupancy has been observed so far. A visitor to the cantonal hospital in Lucerne reports that there is „less activity than in normal times“. Entire floors have been closed for Covid19, but staff „are still waiting for patients“. The hospitals in Bern, Basel, Zug and Zurich have also been „cleaned out“. Even in Ticino, the intensive care units are not working to capacity, but patients are now being transferred to the German-Swiss departments. From a purely medical point of view, this makes little sense.
• In Spain, 15% of test-positives are doctors and nurses. Although many of them show no symptoms, they have to go into quarantine, causing the Spanish healthcare system to collapse.
• In Germany, some clinics can no longer accept patients – not because there are too many patients or too few beds, but because the nursing staff have tested positive, although in most cases they hardly show any symptoms. This case illustrates again how and why health care systems are getting paralysed.
• The British Guardian reported in February 2019 that even in the generally weak flu season 2018/2019 there were more than 2180 flu-related admissions to intensive care units in the UK.
• An Italian study of August 2019 found that flu deaths in Italy were between 7,000 and 25,000 in recent years. This value is higher than in most other European countries due to the large elderly population in Italy, and much higher than anything attributed to Covid-19 so far.

You’re giving me examples from Eastern countries (which because of many reasons aren’t very comparable with Western countries) where a lockdown supposedly didn’t work (I’ve never seen any proof of this)

Again comprehesion confusion. I didn't say blundly it didn't work. I even said that in the short term it saved lifes, but the long term might cause prolongation of the pandemic. It is very easily compareable between eastern and western countries if you considered my arguments. The date of the implementation of lock-down can be compared with each country to see, if 2-3 weeks later due to the lock-down the mortality number goes down. But what till now was found was that the peak was already reached during the lock-down! Therefore a lock-down, which would only decrease mortality some time later, can't be taken as proof. If 2-3 weeks later the mortality number doesn't decrease as it already did during lock-down.

Read the study I posted the abstract from. There you'll see for yourself.

nobody is going to take that risk.

Many countries have been too late anyway. And some countries did by using more targeted precautions instead of a complete shutdown. Both are taking risks.

Reinfection has completely nothing to do with policy or strategies.

It worked the last 100 years. Now it probably wont due to a policy implemented for the first time in human history on such a grant scale. Therefore with no precedence and complete lack of sound science.

 

[percyval577]

You’re giving me examples from Eastern countries (which because of many reasons aren’t very comparable with Western countries) where a lockdown supposedly didn’t work (I’ve never seen any proof of this)

I am trying to get a clue in the effect of lockdown in different countries (looking at the new cases and new deaths on the worldometer).

One problem is of course that the measurements will hardly be comparable. But at least a tendency of a common pattern should be visible. Until now I havn´t noticed it (admittedly with my slow computer I am a bit restricted).

In Iran new deaths had plateaued before new cases started to decline. (Still new deaths don´t decline.) This might be the most obvious example that the lockdown perhaps has not the effect we would expect in terms of logic. Other countries may show the same, in a weeks time we will be able to see it better.

(1918 the lockdowns showed clear success, as far as I am aware of.)

 

[pamojja]

Some more in a blog also about the situation in the US:

Those of you who have spent any time debating or discussing the current coronavirus “pandemic” on social media will almost certainly have encountered an argument that goes something like this:

“Coronavirus is nothing like the flu, the seasonal flu doesn’t overwhelm health services like this.”​

But is this true? We’ve done some research.


In 2018 hospitals all across the United States were full to capacity with flu patients. Alabama declared a state of emergency. Elective surgeries were cancelled, patients were turned away.


California hospitals were “war zones” where people were treated in hastily erected tents.


The same year ICUs in Milan were “totally overrun” with flu cases.


In December of 2019 the NHS had to implement “emergency temporary beds” in 52% of its hospitals to account for their regular “winter crisis”. Most of those hospitals still had temporary beds operating from the previous winter.


Last November experts were publishing reports warning that the NHS was under too much pressure to deal with the seasonal flu.


The 2009 Swine Flu pandemic turned out to be no worse than a bad flu season in the end, but nevertheless had a huge impact on hospitals across the United States.

...rest at site: https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/02/coronavirus-fact-check-1-flu-doesnt-overwhelm-our-hospitals/

 

[pamojja]

(1918 the lockdowns showed clear success, as far as I am aware of.)

In which way? Were there even such international lockdowns with all non-essential work and out-door activities banned (during a world-war?). And didn't it cause the highest mortality of all pandemics? Suddenly ending after the second wave?

The wikipedia article isn't helpful or mentions lock-downs as cause to its ending:

End of the pandemic

After the lethal second wave struck in late 1918, new cases dropped abruptly – almost to nothing after the peak in the second wave.[58] In Philadelphia, for example, 4,597 people died in the week ending 16 October, but by 11 November, influenza had almost disappeared from the city. One explanation for the rapid decline in the lethality of the disease is that doctors became more effective in prevention and treatment of the pneumonia that developed after the victims had contracted the virus. However, John Barry stated in his 2004 book The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History that researchers have found no evidence to support this position.[4] Some fatal cases did continue into March 1919, killing one player in the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals.

Another theory holds that the 1918 virus mutated extremely rapidly to a less lethal strain. This is a common occurrence with influenza viruses: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out[4] (see also "Deadly Second Wave", above).

 

[andyguitar]

There was no lockdown in the uk during the 1918 Spanish flu.

 

[pamojja]

I found it to be considered that it may take 17 days from infection to death.

That was also saying my source, therefore about 2-3 weeks after the implementation of lock-down there should be at least some decline obvious.

Your calculation, though a good start, seem however to make a fatal mistake. You're not counting deaths each day, in which it should show after 17 days - but daily new infections. With which it has been found to be proportional to the amount of testing, at consitently between 10-20% coming back positive. Even the years before covid coronaviruses had been found at that same percentage in respiratory diseases. That means if one tests little, one still gets 10-20% positive results. If one test exponentially, one still only get 10-20% of that.

 

[pamojja]

Also until now only China, Philippines, Hongkong, Spain, Japan, France, Taiwan, Iran, South Korea, Italy, USA, San Marino, Australia, Thailand, Slovenia, Iraq, Switzerland, UK, Netherlands, Egypt, Panama, Argentina, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Iceland, Morocco, Lebanon, in that order have passed at least 30 days since their respective first covid death. Only up to Iran already 50 days. Tomorrow Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Domincan Repubic, Albania, Bulgaria, Guyana, will follow with 30 days in.

Untill today the 8 red out 27 countries had multiples (~6 times in average) than the average influenzia/pneumonia mortality of all affected countries (San Marino taken out due the low population size, where 34 covid deaths untill now is already 34 times more than usually die there during that time of influenza/pneumonia)

I marked those blue (only 20% deaths to usual) instead of green (40% to usual), which despite not showing abnormal mortality, I wouldn't have any trust in their numbers. Also in countries not far enough in the epidemic, to be able to say anything about.

 

[pamojja]

By accident I just saw the live presentation of first results from "Covid-19-Cluster-Study", Streeck and others.
The study is carried out in Ganglet/Heinsberg, an area highly affected in Germany.

So far 509 persons from the half of the sample households have been examined for the study. It took ten days.

acute infected - PCR test - 2%
immunity - antibody test - 14%
case fatality - 0.37%
mortality - 0.06%

So, according to the study so far, 0,37% of the infected people have died, and 0.06% of the population have died (from or with the virus). 14% of the population in Gangelt/Heinsberg have been infected (or still are, respectively), and 2% are indeed acute infected.

The 14% are the lowest estimation from different methods (Streeck didn´t give the other numbers).

The results of the representative study of the Austrian population - though sadly only by PCR testing - came back today at 0.32%. A result that looks pretty similiar to the study of Vo after self-isolation.

Of the 1,544 people tested for the sample, 0.32 percent were positive. In terms of the population, that is about 28,500 people. Taking into account the range of fluctuation, there was a 95 percent probability that between 0.12 and 0.76 of Austrians were infected with SARS-Cov-2 in the period from April 1 to 6, or between 10,200 and 67,400 in absolute numbers.

The upper range of the interval is thus significantly higher than the previously known numbers of infected persons, which were largely determined by testing in suspected cases. According to the official figures, between 1 and 6 April there were between 10,500 and 12,200 infected persons.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)