Covid-19 will be one more disease among many, and life will be marginally worse, but by about April you shouldn’t act substantially differently than if it no longer existed.
This seems quite bold given our history of variants emerging. And if Omicron infects billions, then prima facie there's great opportunity for mutation. I'd be interested to hear your credence in the following proposition:
From 1 May 2021 to 1 Jan 2030, Zvi won't act substantially differently due to risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Additionally, "one more disease among many" suggests (to me) that it won't cause 100K+ more deaths in the following few years, which also seems bold. [edit: American deaths, see replies for more]
Perhaps I should have explicitly put 'barring another major variant that disrupts this' there, but if Omicron infects most people on top of the vaccines, the damage a new variant does next time should be pretty low, and someone like me should be able to shrug it off and not care.
Could you do readers an enormous favor and put references in when you say stuff like this:
"Vitamin D and Zinc, and if possible Fluvoxamine, are worth it if you get infected, also Vitamin D is worth taking now anyway (I take 5k IUs/day)."
- First two shots don’t protect against infection, boosters do somewhat (60%?).
I'm guessing you mean "first shots obtained in spring or summer are likely to have declined by now"? Or do you mean the third shot gives you more immunity than you ever had with only 2?
I had the same reaction as Elizabeth. The data I've seen suggests that the key variable is "time since last dose". Vaccines protect against severe disease and death very well, possibly for years. But protection against infection specifically appears to peak about a month after your last dose, and drop to (around) zero about six months after your last dose.
Are you sure you're not confusing a time sequence here, with quantity or quality? Your sentence suggests that there is something "different" about getting a booster (but it's the same physical entity as the first two doses!). And even now, you say "three is better than a fresh two". Do you have a reference for that, in particular to distinguish recency from quantity?
To be concrete, I would strongly suspect that, six months after these latest boosters, you AGAIN have very little protection against infection.
This chart was from before omicron (Aug 2021), but I'm not aware of any major changes in the data: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/08/27/2021.08.25.21262584/F2.large.jpg
(From: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262584v1.full )
I'm skimmed mostly all of your covid posts, so in theory this shouldn't really be teaching me anything new, but I found it to be a very useful compilation. Thank you!
I was wondering if you had updated your thoughts on how much viral loads matter since your April 2020 post on it. I live in a co-living space of over 60 people with poor ventilation. I'm wondering if that means I should worry about getting covid more than the average healthy 30 year old man.
Also, I wanted to more enthusiastically thank you for your feedback on my fantasy sports poker card game in July. You saved me a lot of time! I decided not to continue doing it.
Omnicron probably milder than Delta (~50%) so baseline IFR likely ~0.3% unless hospitals overload, lower for vaccinated or reinfected.
Protection against hospitalization is probably something like 80%, with likely additional protection above that against severe disease, and then even more protection against death.
From some quick googling vaccination seems to provides about 10x reduction in IFR, so we are looking at ~ 0.03% IFR for the vaccinated, or about ~ 0.14% overall (0.6 * 0.03 + 0.4 * 0.3), and in practice perhaps lower if we factor in natural i...
Zvi, what are the chances that Paxlovid ends up having way more side-effects than the trials showed? I heard David Friedberg on the all-in podcast mention that he was pretty nervous about it because the drug messed with some pretty fundamental biological machinery, and that under non-covid circumstances it would be tested for a lot longer. I don't doubt that for people that end up at the ICU the benefits will overwhelm whatever side-effects end up happening, but how would the risk evaluation go for people with mild or mild-to-severe illness?
There is a War, and the WHO, FDA and CDC, and most similar agencies abroad, and most elected officials, are not on our side of it. Instead they focus mostly on getting in the way, protecting their power and seeking to avoid blame on a two week time horizon.
Can I get an explanation of this? This is my first time reading about Covid on LessWrong (I'm new). My general impression (with no investigation or research) was that the WHO and CDC were doing a reasonable job in trying to figure out what was going on and giving reasonable advice on how to reduce the negative impacts of Covid. Am I under the wrong impression?
These are a couple posts I came up with in a quick search, so not necessarily the best examples:
Covid 9/23: There Is a War
"The FDA, having observed and accepted conclusive evidence that booster shots are highly effective, has rejected allowing people to get those booster shots unless they are over the age of 65, are immunocompromised or high risk, or are willing to lie on a form. The CDC will probably concur. I think we all know what this means. It means war! ..."
Covid 11/18: Paxlovid Remains Illegal
..."It seems to continue to be the official position that:
- Paxlovid is safe and effective.
- Paxlovid has proven this sufficiently that it isn’t ‘ethical’ to continue running a clinical trial on it.
- Paxlovid will be approved by the FDA in December.
- Until then, Paxlovid must remain illegal.
[...]
Washington Examiner points out the obvious, that the FDA is killing thousands of people by delaying Pfizer’s and Merck’s Covid treatments. It’s good to state simple things simply:"So, set Merck aside for now and consider Pfizer’s Paxlovid. In the past 30 days, more than 37,000 people died of COVID in the United States, according to the CDC . Over the next 35 days, Paxlovid could prevent tens of thous
Curated. This is another unusual curation, in that this is not a timeless post, but it does just seem pretty important for many readers.
I do encourage people to check claims for themselves and comment with counterarguments or additional research where appropriate.
This post explicitly says that its aim is not to explain what it states. Instead, the author says that people can check sources etc "elsewhere". Among the large number of claims and "principles" are, effectively, a call to "war" against US and international institutions, and a nonsensical claim about "governments most places". And when curating the post, you tell people to "check claims for themselves". We have discussed these or similar points with respect to previous covid-19 posts, so these norms on lesswrong are not surprising anymore, but they are disconcerting.
When I edited to fix an error in #9 it messed up the numbering system. Mods, please either fix or simply reimport. I continue to ask that this be fixed so we can start lists with numbers other than #1.
There might be another strain in the future. I don’t know how likely this is, but that’s the most likely way that things ‘don’t mostly end’ after this wave
I agree, and I also don't really have great mental handles to model this, but this seems like the most consequential question to predict post-Omicron life. My two biggest surprises of the pandemic have been Delta and Omicron, so sorting this out feels like a high VOI investment.
Here's a messy brain dump on this, mostly I'm just looking for a better framework for thinking about this.
Six Feet Is An Arbitrary Number. There’s still nothing better than an inverse square law, so by default I presume 12 feet is a quarter of the risk of 6 feet, and 3 feet is double the risk, there is no magic number.
Should this say that 3 feet is quadruple the risk of 6 feet, if we're assuming an inverse square law?
Vaccination with three doses is protective against infection by Omicron, but less protective than vaccines were against Delta. As a rule of thumb I am currently acting as if a booster shot is something like 60%-70% protective against infection but I don’t have confidence in that number. The main protection is still against severe disease, hospitalization and death.
Two questions about this:
"The risks of Covid-19 prevented by vaccination greatly exceed the risks of vaccination."
Is this true across all age groups? I've been getting PO'ed at radio ads in NY encouraging moms to get their 3 year olds vaccinated. But maybe this is my mistake.
Regarding long COVID: Zvi, does your model above incorporate the following findings (published after your original deep dive in Sept)? (If anyone other than Zvi has thoughts on how these affect the model laid out above, would be curious to hear your thoughts as well.)
Is there a good write up of the case against rapid tests? I see Tom Frieden’s statement that rapid tests don’t correlate with infectivity, but I can’t imagine what that’s based on
In other words, there’s got to be a good reason why so many smart people oppose using rapid tests to make isolation decisions
I am confused about why it's better to get Omicron later rather than sooner. I understand that avoiding overloaded hospitals is a good idea, but the reports from people who have Omicron (understanding that first-hand reports are created by people well enough to report and/or by bad actors) suggest that getting Omicron right now is equivalent to a nasty cold.
Even the data suggests that getting Omicron right now is much less likely to lead to hospitalization, regardless of whether you feel chipper enough to tweet about it.
So... why do you assume...
There are two points numbered "27", one above and one below "Next, testing and isolation."
53. Taking action to ‘stop the spread’ mostly no longer makes sense.
From the context, it sounds like this refers to the time after the current wave is over, but if you don't consider context, it could easily be interpreted to apply already.
I am very suspicious about statement that I cannot avoid getting omicron, unless I take extreme measures. Why ? Because I have heard the same about delta and it was false.
I have a friend in Germany, she teaches at school, where rapid antigen testing 3 times a week prevented the school transmissions. They know it, because if a child is flagged as a contact, they test them daily, so they have this feedback.
I pulled away my children (3 yo and 6 yo) from school and kindergarten and they did not get delta. The delta peak in our town did happen already. The kid...
I presume 12 feet is a quarter of the risk of 6 feet [...] there is no magic number
My intuitive oversimplified model of this has been analogous to the direct sound vs reverberant sound in acoustics (in slow motion).
I'd expect the risk from direct viruses to follow the inverse square law (at least to the extent that the risk is linear to the expected number of viruses around you, which can't be true for high risks). And maybe be even be reduced by cloth masks which stop big droplets (?).
But the reverberant viruses are supposed to be the ma...
Support Longevity Research. If you think that people dying is bad, maybe we should do something about it.
But not gain of function research?
A negative rapid test should be necessary before ending isolation. The CDC’s new guidelines don’t say this but this seems overdetermined and obvious to me. If you care about not being infectious, you should check on that before exposing others.
How common are false positives after infection?
...Recovered patients: Patients who have recovered from COVID-19 can continue to have detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in upper respiratory specimens for up to 3 months after illness onset. However, replication-competent virus has not been reliably
I've asked https://www.lesswrong.com/users/connor_flexman, a person who has previously estimated the number of expected days of life lost from covid (see for example https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GzzJZmqxcqg5KFf8r/covid-and-the-holidays), how to update his estimates for the assumption that 100% of covid is omicron. On december 27, he told me that covid means 10 expected weeks of life lost for an average 30 to 50 y.o. person. And that to update https://microcovid.org estimates, you should multiply by 3.5 because omicron is more infectious and divide by 3 ...
Note that this post mostly does not justify and explain its statements. I document my thinking, sources and analysis extensively elsewhere, little of this should be new.
This is my first encounter with your writing, could you or someone else recommend a starting point that does justify and explain these statements?
I write to commend you on one of the more thoughtful blogs on COVID-19 that I have read. I've been modeling, and writing about, SARS-CoV-2 since March of 2020, and following the literature closely. Your assessment and practical advice seem spot on. Thank you.
I think my only criticism is your one sentence polemic about the FDA, the CDC, and WHO. While I don't know anyone at the WHO, I have many colleagues at both the FDA and the CDC. The FDA and the CDC respect science, respect data, and respect regulations. They were villified under the previous administra...
You are forgetting declining immunity. Next winter may very well have a similar wave again. In fact this is imho the central scenario (60%ish probability). Quite possibly with multiple strains.
I agree with most of your post, but this looks like wishful thinking to me.
Also, individual prevention should be way easier than you make it out to be. Wear a well fitting N95 or better mask when meeting people and you are mostly done if you live alone or with compliant housemates. Just look at Covid stations in hospitals. Staff there is wearing mostly N95, often poo...
A year and a half ago, I wrote a post called Covid-19: My Current Model. Since then things have often changed, and we have learned a lot. It seems like high time for a new post of this type.
Note that this post mostly does not justify and explain its statements. I document my thinking, sources and analysis extensively elsewhere, little of this should be new.
This post combines the basic principles from my original post, which mostly still stand, with my core model for Omicron. I’ll summarize and update the first post, then share my current principles for Omicron and how to deal with and think about it.
There’s a lot of different things going on, so this will likely be incomplete, but hopefully it will prove useful. The personally useful executive summary version first.
Here are the old principles that still apply, with adjustments as appropriate:
Next, how to personally think about Omicron beyond the above.
First, infection.
Next, testing and isolation.
Next, vaccination, prognosis and treatment.
Other modeling observations and general prognosis.