Jump to content

kill the olympics


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You are not basing this on science, or on logic. Increased activity increases risk. The main way to eliminate the virus will be via isolation. (Maybe you don't realize that the vaccine doesn't prevent everyone from getting the virus).

I am basing my statements on science and yes I do know the fundamental principles of vaccines.  Do you?

They are not force shields they are immunity primers that don't stop infection but are highly effective in reducing viral load hence stopping serious illness and transmission.  In that respect they are no different to a low level asymptomatic infection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Killing the Olympics would be the best thing ever to happen to sailing.  If it does get cancelled, it just might be such a financial disaster for the IOC and future cities just may sit out and they wo

We did not have vaccines for the 1918 pandemic which killed approximately 50 million people (about 3% of worlds population so about 230 million in  todays terms) .   Yes we are still here but thankful

Alot of people missing the point of internal transmission based on locals visiting venues and returning to regional centres.....it's this that will create the issue. Unless events take place in comple

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

He isn't a virologist he is supposedly an epidemiologist.  His math is suspect at the best of times as he has stated frequently in the media that Covid-19 is 20x more dangerous than Influenza without qualifying that statement by saying it only applies to older cohorts.

Actually, Dr Baker is both a virologist and an epidemiologist.

Dr Baker's math is public record.

The number of deaths has proven his math models correct.

I don't think your paraphrased version of what Dr Baker said is 100% accurate. Please provide the exact quote you are referring to.

Are you honestly of the view that the excess death rates have been falsified? That the SARS-CoV-2 is not a pandemic?

If the answer is to both questions is no, then please provide the calculations used which show how Dr Baker's model is false.

---

34 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A fully fit vaccinated person under the age of 50 would have next to zero risk of serious illness.

Compared to an unvaccinated person who is obese, has hypertension and diabetes because they are not fit.

Again, you miss the important points. The efficacy is 95% at best, which means a small percentage will have a risk of serious illness.

Some officials and coaches attending the Olympics are unfit, obese, have diabetes, and hypertension.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

There is no sign of the Olympics having as strict entry rules as New Zealand has for international visitors (with recent exceptions from safe countries: Oz, Cook Is etc).

Either you are hopelessly confused or deliberately attempting to misinform. Which is it?

Japan has had comparatively open borders all through the pandemic when you compare to NZ and Australia.  Now who is being ignorant or misinforming?  Not I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Again, being vaccinated reduces risk, it does not eliminate it. The Olympics is an additional activity that's spreads risk.

No it is just a collective name for activity that people in Japan have been doing all through the pandemic eating, sleeping, walking, running, playing sport.  Difference is the Olympic subset of 80,000 people out of 126 million are largely vaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very many people took up the offer of 14 days in a hotel room subsisting on room service. That Naria has kept busy is unsurprising given the number of repatriating Japanese and the fact that it handles much more cargo than Haneda. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

We are a talking about a viral infection. Being fit does not prevent someone from becoming infected, becoming ill, or dying.

Correct but their RISK of becoming ill, dying or infecting someone else is negligible.  Unless we accept risk we may as live in a hermetically sealed house forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Dr Baker's math is public record.

The number of deaths has proven his math models correct.

What models?  You haven't read much of his research have you.  Quote which models he has published.

24 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I don't think your paraphrased version of what Dr Baker said is 100% accurate. Please provide the exact quote you are referring to.

That is the exact quote which he has said repeatedly and is still saying it.

When asked about Khanjani's stance that Covid-19 carried the same level of risk as the flu, Baker pointed out scientific research and population health data says otherwise.

"It's good for people to describe their experience, but it's not good if they're quite prominent or a social influencer, to say that's what everyone can expect.

"Most definitely at a population level [Covid-19] is not like the flu, it's about 15-20 times more dangerous than the season flu, and of course the risk varies by age."

He added: "Basically, at a population level, for a typical western country, who have got relatively large numbers in all age groups, around 1 per cent of the population will die from the infection and that's about a 15 to 20 times higher mortality risk than with the seasonal influenza."

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Again you show a lack of understanding of how supply chains work and at the same time ignoring evaluating what the additional risk of the 80,000 vaccinated Olympic Team will contribute to a population of 126 million that already have an endemic level of infection.  Note that is 126 million on a land mass the same size as NZ which has 5 million.   

You also ignore the fact that thousands of people are traversing the Japanese border daily and have been doing so for some time.  In 2020 130,000 international and domestic plane movements through Narita International Airport alone.  Has Michael Baker overlooked that fact?  I wouldn't be surprised if he had.

You arrogance is showing.

I have a very good idea of how the supply chain works.

Additional activity is additional risk.

Flying people in from all around the world, vaccinated or not, is additional risk.

6 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I am basing my statements on science and yes I do know the fundamental principles of vaccines.  Do you?

Yes. Ironically you are now critical of those who I am quoting.

You say you are basing your comments on science, however have been reluctant or unable to provide qualified data.

6 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

They are not force shields they are immunity primers that don't stop infection but are highly effective in reducing viral load hence stopping serious illness and transmission.  In that respect they are no different to a low level asymptomatic infection.

Sorry, do you have a point? The key is efficacy. Most vaccines are successful at stopping serious illness from most variants. I'm clearly stating the efficacy and identifying the risk. 

The risk is not zero. All illness is not stopped. All transmission is not stopped.

10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Japan has had comparatively open borders all through the pandemic when you compare to NZ and Australia.  Now who is being ignorant or misinforming?  Not I.

The irony of the above statement is not lost one. Again, the Olympics are in Japan, not NZ or Australia. Your attempts to pivot attention away from Japan is relentless. My mentioning NZ and Australia was in response to you raising it.

In my view, you are attempting to pivot attention away from Japan, in a weak straw man argument.

Yes, Japan's borders have been comparitively open. They have also had a far higher infection and death rate.

13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From what to what?  How does that compare to NZ and OZ combined?

Significant isn't a quantitative term.

You find the data. The reduction in traffic is significant. Tourist hot spots have few tourists.

No, significant is not quantitative term, though communicates what is happening appropriately. 

8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Correct but their RISK of becoming ill, dying or infecting someone else is negligible. 

In the same way that 5 million, 10 million or 15 million is insignificant as a proportion of the global population. Yet, such numbers have qualified the SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic.

The risk of transmission by using the AZ vaccine is 67%. The risk of transmission is significant. 

The risk of becoming ill, or dying is mitigated by vaccines with an efficacy of 95% AT BEST. It is quantifiable, and significant.

8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Unless we accept risk we may as live in a hermetically sealed house forever.

What science are you basing that on? The policies of the US, UK were based on such unscientific mantra. And now provide outstanding examples of what not to do.

---

You are in denial of the additional risk the Olympics present to the Japanese people.

One person who is infectious, can create a large outbreak. It is almost certain that the SARS-CoV-2 virus started with just one infection.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Are you honestly of the view that the excess death rates have been falsified? That the SARS-CoV-2 is not a pandemic?

If the answer is to both questions is no, then please provide the calculations used which show how Dr Baker's model is false.

The classic fundamentalist approach.  If someone posts a reasoned argument that opposes yours then they must be a Covid denier or an Anti-vaxxer.  Where have I not acknowledged that Covid-19 is a pandemic?

I asked for you to post a link to Baker's model(s).  I have read nearly all of his research and particularly the papers that he co-authored which promote Fortress New Zealand.  In my opinion they are flawed - you only have to look at the history of the co-authors to find out why.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The risk is not zero. All illness is not stopped. All transmission is not stopped.

I never ever said it was zero!  I said that holding the Olympics doesn't alter Japan's pandemic risk profile - i.e. it doesn't increase the risk!!!!

Your new "normal" is based on Fortress New Zealand and living like a hermit waiting presumably for years for zero illness and zero transmission.  The rest of the world is moving on just like it did after the Spanish Flu and every other natural disaster that has beset mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Yes, Japan's borders have been comparitively open. They have also had a far higher infection and death rate.

Far higher than what?  At least you are now agreeing that Japan's borders have been open.

They are 139 on the country list of cases per million and 128 on the deaths per million.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Trouble is that it is not a bubble. We see plans for officials, media, and service staff to move in and out of the so-called Olympic bubble. Further, the focus has been on track and field. I see no comprehensive plan for many other events.

Part of the accommodation strategy is to billet those attending the games with locals.

The plan is for athletes etc needing urgent medical care is to use local hospitals, which may be overburdened with treating locals at the time.

 

 

 

 

HI Bruce.  The question was , what measures would I put in place to reduce risk during an Olympics in the age of corona virus.

One suggestion I has was to create an athlete/Coach/official bubble with frequent testing.  I think it is doable due to the village being on an island/peninsula and access to the stadiums was designed with high security in mind.  The fact that you dont see that plan online does not mean its a poor plan.

I would be astonished if such plans are not being discussed.

We did that for the NBA over here where the teams all resided at Disneyland. They were tested before entering the bubble and tested frequently during the bubble. Each player could bring one guest into the bubble.  Bear in mind this was pre-vaccine, so we are talking here about a population which was 100% non-vaccinated.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_NBA_Bubble

Do you know the number of covid cases during the bubble?   ZERO.   The bubble lasted from July through October in the midst of our pandemic. 

It is an outstanding example of successfully creating a bubble for a sporting event.  If the players and officials had been vaccinated, the risk level would have been even lower.

So there is my suggestion accompanied by an example of making it work pre-vaccine.

Is the IOC and JOC up to it, in terms of logistics and testing for an event that attracts 10,000 vs 1,000? ....I dont know.  I dont know if the Japanese have the same speed of execution and adaptability as Americans

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The classic fundamentalist approach.  If someone posts a reasoned argument that opposes yours then they must be a Covid denier or an Anti-vaxxer.  Where have I not acknowledged that Covid-19 is a pandemic?

The reason I asked you the two questions is that I wanted to know if you were. 

If the above is an answer, then you have not acknowledged that Covid-19 is a pandemic.

20 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I asked for you to post a link to Baker's model(s).  I have read nearly all of his research and particularly the papers that he co-authored which promote Fortress New Zealand. 

Better than that, here are the models Dr Baker was referring to:

image.png.83921e0c3db303152ad686cb5fd96896.png

20 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

In my opinion they are flawed - you only have to look at the history of the co-authors to find out why.  

I don't care much for attacks on who the authors are, it is the data and its context that are important. 

Again, please provide your data, your model which is a better model to make the calculations.

---

Precisely, how exactly is Dr Baker's statement, provided to the mass media to counter misinformation, incorrect?

Note what he was countering: 

Quote

Naz Khanjani said on Instagram lockdowns, travel restrictions and quarantine wasn't "necessary" and that the virus is "just like any other flu".

Your source was the NZ Herald article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/covid-19-coronavirus-professor-michael-baker-criticises-naz-khanjanis-instagram-post/ESZB63Q7M6FO5ZLV2HRWQMFBUI/

32 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Pot kettle.  I'm not reluctant to provide data or science to specific points but equally you haven't provided any either!!!!

False. Look back at my earlier posts. Mostly I am quoting mass media who are in turn quoting papers. (It is unusual for me to post mainstream media articles that refer to papers without reading the papers first.)

So we are left with me providing sources, and you not - but falsely asserting that I haven't.

30 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I never ever said it was zero!  I said that holding the Olympics doesn't alter Japan's pandemic risk profile - i.e. it doesn't increase the risk!!!!

I agree you didn't, I did. Please try and keep up. To recap, you said:

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

They are not force shields they are immunity primers that don't stop infection but are highly effective in reducing viral load hence stopping serious illness and transmission.  In that respect they are no different to a low level asymptomatic infection.

To which I responded:

40 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Sorry, do you have a point? The key is efficacy. Most vaccines are successful at stopping serious illness from most variants. I'm clearly stating the efficacy and identifying the risk. 

The risk is not zero. All illness is not stopped. All transmission is not stopped.

To use your sloppy, poorly constructed and false statement, the virus is not stopped by use of a vaccine, it is stopped.

30 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Your new "normal" is based on Fortress New Zealand and living like a hermit waiting presumably for years for zero illness and zero transmission. 

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you are critical of NZ's success. The above is a false, misleading narrative. 

30 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The rest of the world is moving on just like it did after the Spanish Flu and every other natural disaster that has beset mankind.

On Friday, I got my first vaccine shot, one of the 1.7 million who are getting the shot first - before the main roll-out which starts late July. Why would that be? Why would NZ bother getting vaccinated if the intention is not to open our borders? Incidentally, my 2021 is looking much like the 2019 year. I have no restrictions. I can fly anywhere.

Many of the deaths in this disaster were preventable. 

Many lives are at risk, like in Japan.

46 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Far higher than what?  At least you are now agreeing that Japan's borders have been open.

They are 139 on the country list of cases per million and 128 on the deaths per million.

You used the word comparatively. I replied in context of that comparison.

Yes, there are 80 territories and nations which are have a lower number of recorded cases of infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus per million than Japan, and 90 territories and nations which have a lower recorded rate of death per million related to Covid-19.

Regarding Japan's borders. I stated that the number of tourists is far lower as a consequence of the pandemic. Japan has closed and reopened travel regionally, but here is the policy:

Quote

 

International Travel Restrictions

Due to the spread of new, more contagious strains of the virus, Japan is closing its borders until further notice to all new foreign arrivals except foreign residents of Japan or under special circumstances.

It is currently undecided when regular tourists will again be able to enter the country, but it is unlikely to happen in considerable numbers before autumn 2021 after the end of the Olympic and Paralympic games.

 

Source: https://www.japan-guide.com/news/alerts.html

---

You may have failed to understand what good life-saving management - or worse - you do understand it and are callously putting other things like money first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

---

Again, you miss the important points. The efficacy is 95% at best, which means a small percentage will have a risk of serious illness.

Some officials and coaches attending the Olympics are unfit, obese, have diabetes, and hypertension.

Hello Bruce,

 

Do not for a moment think that I underestimate the seriousness of covid 19 and the tragic trail it has wrought.  I was early on this forum advocating masks, strict lock downs followed by social distancing. I was very clear about forecasting the weaknesses in our (USA) federal system of state healthcare and the corresponding difficulties in a coordinated response. I had to see many covid patients in the first wave and my sister was in the front line. I got angry on these forum with people who said it was going to be akin to a severe flu season.  I started the vaccine thread on this forum and fought against pages of distrust and politically motivated anit-vax sentiments.  I was one of the first vaccinated last December and proudly shared my experience.  

I am a physician and did my fellowship at Harvard medical school (a very long time ago :) ).  I am now associated with two healthcare systems including Yale where I am a friend of one of the more thoughtful folk studying CV19.  I freely acknowledge that what I dont know about Covid 19 massively exceeds what I do know.  We all need to acknowledge that.

So what we do know about any vaccine is that a 95% efficacy is extremely good number for any vaccine.  If we could wave a wand and vaccinate the worlds population with a 95% effective vaccine, then within a matter of weeks, the disease would be eliminated.

Sadly , logistically that is not possible and nor will we have a 95% effective vaccine vs all strains.....but thus far the numbers for the leading three vaccines are phenomenally good.   

Remember that 95% effective does not mean that 5% of a population will get infected. It means that in a population the incidence of infection will be 5% of what it would otherwise have been.

Sooo, in a population of 20,000 unvaccinated athletes that freely intermingled with the Japanese population experiencing a weekly infection rate of 0.0229%, we might expect just under 5 cases per week.  Over a 3 week period that would lead us to expect 14.74 cases in an unvaccinated Olympic population.   If the population is vaccinated with a 95% effective vaccine, we would expect 1 case.  (0.737).

However, if we layered on top of vaccination , an athlete/coach/official bubble we would certainly have a lower rate. The bubble in Orlando was 100% effective.  Let us merely assume it is 70% effective.  At that level of effectiveness a vaccinated bubble of 20,000 people in Tokyo would expect 0.5 of one person in a population of 20,000 to test positive for CV19. 

I am not advocating for or against the Olympics, just noodling on how I would do it, if I was given the task.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a bubble is actually feasible. Some of the baseball is going to be in Fukushima, the surfing is in Chiba, the sailing is in Kamakura, the golf is in Saitama. The plan is that the athletes will not use public transit, but I imagine they will get impatient with being stuck in Tokyo traffic and then hop on the subway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Covid-19 is not 

8 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

To use your sloppy, poorly constructed and false statement, the virus is not stopped by use of a vaccine, it is stopped.

Now you are contradicting yourself.  The base premise of your argument is that 80,000 people of which 80%+ are vaccinated will cause undue risk to Japan because the vaccine DOESN'T stop anything!  You can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

On Friday, I got my first vaccine shot, one of the 1.7 million who are getting the shot first - before the main roll-out which starts late July. Why would that be? Why would NZ bother getting vaccinated if the intention is not to open our borders? Incidentally, my 2021 is looking much like the 2019 year. I have no restrictions. I can fly anywhere.

But you won't fly anywhere will you because unless you are a hypocrite.  As you say you can still transmit the virus and put others at risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spankoka said:

I don't think a bubble is actually feasible. Some of the baseball is going to be in Fukushima, the surfing is in Chiba, the sailing is in Kamakura, the golf is in Saitama. The plan is that the athletes will not use public transit, but I imagine they will get impatient with being stuck in Tokyo traffic and then hop on the subway. 

It certainly makes it harder. You know more about it than I do? Does it make it impossible?

If certain sports could not be included in a bubble, and /or if the athletes cannot be vaccinated , then axe those sports. One of my suggestions that I did not post, was that another way of reducing risk would be to reduce the size of the games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You may have failed to understand what good life-saving management - or worse - you do understand it and are callously putting other things like money first.

No I'm assessing risk and in my opinion holding the Olympics in Japan does not increase the risk beyond what it already is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

HI Bruce.  The question was , what measures would I put in place to reduce risk during an Olympics in the age of corona virus.

One suggestion I has was to create an athlete/Coach bubble in the Olympic Village with frequent testing.  I think it is doable due to the village being on an island/peninsula. 

I agree that an even poorly run testing program would reduce risk for those staying in the Olympic village. 

It is clear to me there are many other risks not mitigated.

45 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The fact that you dont see that plan online does not mean its a poor plan.

You are correct, though it doesn't mean it is a good plan either! ;)

This is what I was referring to:

Quote

 

Tokyo 2020 organisers are reportedly planning to secure a hotel which would be used to isolate any athletes suspected of having contracted COVID-19 at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

According to Japanese news agency Kyodo, organisers are considering reserving a hotel close to the Olympic and Paralympic Village, located in the Harumi waterfront district of the capital city.

 

Source: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1106485/tokyo-2020-covid-19-hotel-isolation

There are many things that can go wrong with isolation facilities, as we well know in NZ. Getting it right is a process which can take weeks or months - time that the Olympics does not have. If this goes ahead, I expect there to be issues.

---

BUT - with a capital B - there's more.

 

Quote

 

Among the key details known to date is that athletes who return a positive coronavirus test "will not be able to compete".

Those who come into "close contact" with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 are set to only be cleared to compete once they themselves have registered a negative test.

They will be told to get tested immediately after being notified by a health reporting app or if called to do so by their COVID-19 liaison officer.

 

Imagine a semifinal of a track event where one athlete tests positive. All athletes must go into isolation. Will the final be postponed until the test results are available? (I realize that the results can happen within hours - but if the result of the first athlete is known just one hour before the start - what then? I fully admit that is a lot of ifs.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Better than that, here are the models Dr Baker was referring to:

image.png.83921e0c3db303152ad686cb5fd96896.png

 

 

So lets run those number shall we with a population of 20,000,  a dR of 0.029%, a t of 28, Psick of 3% , number of susceptible population 30%  (using a .7 vaccine) .....and being generous on the other assumptions and DR M says we expect close to zero cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

It certainly makes it harder. You know more about it than I do? Does it make it impossible?

If certain sports could not be included in a bubble, and /or if the athletes cannot be vaccinated , then axe those sports. One of my suggestions that I did not post, was that another way of reducing risk would be to reduce the size of the games. 

They are not going to drop baseball and golf in Japan. I was there for the Nagano Olympics and 2002 World Cup and I speak the language so I think I do know something about it. That being said, I think they are determined to go ahead so I hope you are correct about the risk not being particularly high. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

One person who is infectious, can create a large outbreak. It is almost certain that the SARS-CoV-2 virus started with just one infection.

No it is unlikely that it started with just one infection.  Case zero has yet to be found and probably never will.  The virus was circulating a long time before it reached pandemic status. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Imagine a semifinal of a track event where one athlete tests positive. All athletes must go into isolation. Will the final be postponed until the test results are available? (I realize that the results can happen within hours - but if the result of the first athlete is known just one hour before the start - what then? I fully admit that is a lot of ifs.)

Why bother testing them if they have been vaccinated?

Should they be tested for other more infectious diseases as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I agree that an even poorly run testing program would reduce risk for those staying in the Olympic village. 

It is clear to me there are many other risks not mitigated.

You are correct, though it doesn't mean it is a good plan either! ;)

This is what I was referring to:

Source: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1106485/tokyo-2020-covid-19-hotel-isolation

There are many things that can go wrong with isolation facilities, as we well know in NZ. Getting it right is a process which can take weeks or months - time that the Olympics does not have. If this goes ahead, I expect there to be issues.

---

BUT - with a capital B - there's more.

 

Imagine a semifinal of a track event where one athlete tests positive. All athletes must go into isolation. Will the final be postponed until the test results are available? (I realize that the results can happen within hours - but if the result of the first athlete is known just one hour before the start - what then? I fully admit that is a lot of ifs.)

Those plans sound appropriate to me.

The Orlando bubble had something similar....a hotel kept aside for isolation. It was never used. They hoped for the best but planned for the worst.  I see that they also plan on frequent testing. If an athlete tests positive, then yes, they cannot compete until test negative.   I think those are sensible precautions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spankoka said:

They are not going to drop baseball and golf in Japan. I was there for the Nagano Olympics and 2002 World Cup and I speak the language so I think I do know something about it. That being said, I think they are determined to go ahead so I hope you are correct about the risk not being particularly high. 

Yes I know that the Japanese are manically keen on the baseball Olympic medal.   Then it should be held. The athletes should be vaccinated, accommodated in a bubble and travel to the games on team buses, not on the subway.

I got the impression that the determination to go ahead was wavering in Japan.  My musings are only if they do go ahead, how can risk be substantially reduced.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Why bother testing them if they have been vaccinated?

 

1. Because they may have had different vaccines , some less effective than others...and hopefully we can trust their vaccine certifucates ....

2. It is an extra layer of risk mitigation that reduces the risk from 14 cases to effectively zero.

3. Because, even though a vaccinated population of Olympians has a high degree of safety, it is another transparent step to reassure the Japanese population.   Remember the Japanese are not as trusting of vaccines as some parts of the world. They do trust the tests.  So it both protects the participants and reassures the population

 

If they are going to take these steps, then their PR machine needs to get out ahead of this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

1. Because they may have had different vaccines , some less effective than others...and hopefully we can trust their vaccine certifucates ....

2. It is an extra layer of risk mitigation that reduces the risk from 14 cases to effectively zero.

3. Because, even though a vaccinated population of Olympians has a high degree of safety, it is another transparent step to reassure the Japanese population.   Remember the Japanese are not as trusting of vaccines as some parts of the world. They do trust the tests.  So it both protects the participants and reassures the population

 

If they are going to take these steps, then their PR machine needs to get out ahead of this.

What is the level of risk from a vaccinated person per vaccine of having sufficient viral load to be infectious?

You talk of "reassuring the Japanese population" as if it is a marketing exercise rather than risk mitigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The athletes should be vaccinated, accommodated in a bubble and travel to the games on team buses, not on the subway.

That comment has reminded me of a Japanese research paper that looked at transmission.  The subway was surprisingly quite safe in terms of transmission.  I must try and find it again and see if it still holds true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Now you are contradicting yourself.  The base premise of your argument is that 80,000 people of which 80%+ are vaccinated will cause undue risk to Japan because the vaccine DOESN'T stop anything!  You can't have it both ways.

A reductionist, false representation of what I said. I said that the vaccine doesn't stop the virus. 

There are many additional risks as a consequence of holding the Olympics, some of which I have identified.

2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Why bother testing them if they have been vaccinated?

Because they may have the virus. (A vaccine reduces the number of people infected, it does not eliminate it.)

16 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Should they be tested for other more infectious diseases as well?

If they are from a region with an infectious disease, then yes. 

It already happens.

For example, people attending Rio were tested for the Zika virus, which was subsequently found to be the Nile virus.

---

Quote

 

Unfortunately, comparing vaccines on the basis of currently available trial (interim) data is made even more difficult by disparate study protocols, including primary endpoints (such as what is considered a COVID-19 case, and when is this assessed), types of placebo, study populations, background risks of COVID-19 during the study, duration of exposure, and different definitions of populations for analyses both within and between studies, as well as definitions of endpoints and statistical methods for efficacy. Importantly, we are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19. This is not a trivial question because transmission intensity varies between countries, affected by factors such as public health interventions and virus variants. The only reported indication of vaccine effectiveness is the Israeli mass vaccination campaign using the Pfizer–BioNTech product. Although the design and methodology are radically different from the randomised trial, Dagan and colleagues  report an RRR of 94%, which is essentially the same as the RRR of the phase 3 trial (95%) but with an ARR of 0·46%, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial). This means in a real-life setting, 1·8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.

 

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

---

I confirm that Dr Baker was correct with his statement, his models were good, and that you have been unwilling or unable to refute them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I confirm that Dr Baker was correct with his statement, his models were good, and that you have been unwilling or unable to refute them.

What models?  Have you published them on your website?  Where is the link to the specific research you are referring to?  The Mansoor, Wilson, Boyd and Baker paper?  That model was based on an extremely flawed spreadsheet.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

So lets run those number shall we with a population of 20,000,  a dR of 0.029%, a t of 28, Psick of 3% , number of susceptible population 30%  (using a .7 vaccine) .....and being generous on the other assumptions and DR M says we expect close to zero cases.

(Why 20,000? The number is conservatively put at 80,000. The population will have an artificially low rate because they will be tested as negative, and care will be taken. The model assumes a starting number of zero immune people. The model is used to show how the virus spreads when left unchecked - and was used to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would result in 20+ times the number of fatalities than seasonal flu in New Zealand if left unchecked.

The model predicts that in NZ, between 8560 to 14,400 would die. As the US has 66 times the population, the model predicts that between 564,960 and 950,400 people would die. So far, the model has proved to be a little on the low side.)

---

The issue will not be so much the athletes and the coaches (though with a population of 80,000 I expect a dozen or so cases, most will probably be mild).

The issue is increased activity by Japanese citizens, their increased activity means that they will spread the virus to each other more than they would without the Olympics.

Last week, hospitals in the Osaka area were at stretching point, with 96% of all beds occupied. Like with most countries, the virus in Japan is spreading unequally. The Olympics will mean stretching the medical facilities further.

An additional risk is the spread by people arriving from all corners of the earth, and each person is a risk of transmission, no matter whether they are vaccinated or not. Of most concern are new variants - both existing, and future. It just takes one infected person to start an outbreak.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model is used to show how the virus spreads when left unchecked - and was used to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would result in 20+ times the number of fatalities than seasonal flu in New Zealand if left unchecked.

Reference?

If it did predict that then it is a flawed model.  Where is the data to prove it is correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

What is the level of risk from a vaccinated person per vaccine of having sufficient viral load to be infectious?

Likely Very Low......but we dont know for sure.

48 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

What is the level of risk from a vaccinated person per vaccine of having sufficient viral load to be infectious?

You talk of "reassuring the Japanese population" as if it is a marketing exercise rather than risk mitigation.

It is a marketing exercise as well as risk mitigation.   It is no good having a policy unless you market it as well.   If the JOC took steps to make the Olympics safer but failed to market it as safer , then the population will remain fearful.

 

4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You talk of "reassuring the Japanese population" as if it is a marketing exercise rather than risk mitigation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Why 20,000? The number is conservatively put at 80,000.

 

 

The number of athletes is 10,000. Eye's Bubble would allow each team a ratio of coaches and officials of 1:1 vs athletes.  

13 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The issue will not be so much the athletes and the coaches (though with a population of 80,000 I expect a dozen or so cases, most will probably be mild).

Okay, then I might relent and allow 40,000. Provided that there is frequent testing. Each athlete and the 30,000 "others" would have to be tested either the evening before a morning event or morning before an evening event with the result available before the event. This applies to officials and athletes and coaches.   Vaccines and Testing are a key part of ensuring a safer event. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That comment has reminded me of a Japanese research paper that looked at transmission.  The subway was surprisingly quite safe in terms of transmission.  I must try and find it again and see if it still holds true.

Don't bother.  Breaking the bubble to experiment with transmission on the Tokyo subway is not the right thing to do from a messaging angle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The issue is increased activity by Japanese citizens, their increased activity means that they will spread the virus to each other more than they would without the Olympics.

 

Okay Ive arrived at your central concern. It is not the athletes you are concerned about , either catching the disease from their Japanese hosts or giving it to their hosts....your concern is increased community spread among the Japanese.

If they gather at the local bar to watch the 800m final, rather than go home, multiplied 13 million times, increases the chances of an outbreak.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model predicts that in NZ, between 8560 to 14,400 would die. As the US has 66 times the population, the model predicts that between 564,960 and 950,400 people would die. So far, the model has proved to be a little on the low side.)

Both Baker and Wilson's MOH papers use very high symptomatic infection rates 67% and 72%.  Where in the world have those levels of symptomatic infections happened at any stage of the pandemic? 

Their death predictions were based on 3.5 million New Zealanders having a symptomatic infection.  The paper uses the Imperial College's CovidSIM model which has been debunked as crap by scientists globally.  I might add scientists much more esteemed than Baker or Wilson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If it did predict that then it is a flawed model.  Where is the data to prove it is correct?

All models are flawed. 

But for my amusement, how do you think the following prediction is flawed?

15 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model predicts that in NZ, between 8560 to 14,400 would die. As the US has 66 times the population, the model predicts that between 564,960 and 950,400 people would die. So far, the model has proved to be a little on the low side.)

---

In order to think it is flawed, you must have superior data.

Where is your data? 

What model, if any, do you think is correct?

---

10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Supposition without any evidence. 

Another false statement, easily fact checked which you did not bother doing. (Just because I did not provide evidence, doesn't mean to say evidence doesn't exist. That you appear unaware of the evidence, which implies you are poorly informed on the issues.)

For the record, the widely quoted Dr. Atsuo Hamada is one of many doctors and health professionals in Japan who is concerned about reallocating medical resources to the Olympics.

1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Both Baker and Wilson's MOH papers use very high symptomatic infection rates 67% and 72%.  Where in the world have those levels of symptomatic infections happened at any stage of the pandemic? 

You again prove inept in understanding what the model is about, and its parameters. The model predicts the death rate without intervention.

Your implication that because a ceiling was calculated and you disagree (though without qualification), you say it is false.

This directly reflects on your poor understanding of this topic.

That being said, what parameter would you use? What ceiling would you deem better?

1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Their death predictions were based on 3.5 million New Zealanders having a symptomatic infection.  The paper uses the Imperial College's CovidSIM model which has been debunked as crap by scientists globally.  I might add scientists much more esteemed than Baker or Wilson.

The model predicted the number of deaths, as indicated by the prediction of deaths in the US as being between approx. 564,960 and 950,400, which as stated, is on the low side. Dr Baker (and others) made the prediction, his warnings were heeded by the NZ government, and serious action was timely taken in NZ, saving lives.

Seems like your unnamed experts may have lost this one. Pick one. How is their nation's performance so far?

Again, what is your model? What is your prediction? How many did you expect to die if the virus went untreated?

You seem to be trying to discredit on the basis that that the paper "...has been debunked as crap by scientists globally". I am justifiably underwhelmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Okay Ive arrived at your central concern. It is not the athletes you are concerned about , either catching the disease from their Japanese hosts or giving it to their hosts....your concern is increased community spread among the Japanese.

If they gather at the local bar to watch the 800m final, rather than go home, multiplied 13 million times, increases the chances of an outbreak.

The concerns above are just a fraction of the concerns I have.

Increased activity means an increased supply chain, increased exposure. I doubt that all the venues will be properly managed 'bubbles'. (Compared to the NBA in Orlando, the Olympics is for a lot longer period of time, with many more people involved). Additional exposure from more people at work. When the athletes, coaches, physiotherapists, media and other support personnel go home, they may be carrying infections - the fear of the Olympics being a super spreader event is real). Japan's medical resources will be stretched further. Quarantine facilities need to be established.

Another concern is the emergence of a new variant which is not covered by the vaccines. The SARS-CoV-2 is active, and mutating, as the new variants in India and Vietnam show. 

The list is extensive, and I have just mentioned a few.

I've reached the conclusion that holding the Olympics is a bad idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model predicted the number of deaths, as indicated by the prediction of deaths in the US as being between approx. 564,960 and 950,400, which as stated, is on the low side. Dr Baker (and others) made the prediction, his warnings were heeded by the NZ government, and serious action was timely taken in NZ, saving lives.

 

 

Hello Bruce,

Did Dr Baker predict those deaths in the USA or did you (using Bakers model) ?

Cheers Eye

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Hello Bruce,

Did Dr Baker predict those deaths in the USA or did you (using Bakers model) ?

Cheers Eye

I did, and I explained how when I first mentioned it:

58 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model predicts that in NZ, between 8560 to 14,400 would die. As the US has 66 times the population, the model predicts that between 564,960 and 950,400 people would die. So far, the model has proved to be a little on the low side.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You again prove inept in understanding what the model is about, and its parameters. The model predicts the death rate without intervention.

But Baker and Wilson use a symptomatic infection rate of 70%.  At no stage has the actual figure of symptomatic infection been anywhere near 70% regardless of intervention.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You seem to be trying to discredit on the basis that that the paper "...has been debunked as crap by scientists globally". I am justifiably underwhelmed.

No I said that the CovidSim model from Imperial College on which Wilson and Baker based their paper has been debunked.

Baker, Wilson, Boyd and Mansoor are running an experiment to provide data for their Fortress New Zealand hypothesis.

Bruce unlike you I haven't hung my colours to the mast of a very small number of researchers nor do I have a political bias unlike yourself.  I certainly haven't been motivated to create a website devoted to that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I did, and I explained how when I first mentioned it:

 

 

26 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The model predicted the number of deaths, as indicated by the prediction of deaths in the US as being between approx. 564,960 and 950,400, which as stated, is on the low side.

Your extrapolation highlights you lack of understanding of modelling as you don't account for age distribution or other variable factors that are inherent to the Imperial College Model.  You are obviously as inept as Baker and Wilson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I did, and I explained how when I first mentioned it:

 

I recommend avoiding doing that. The model is complex and you are attributing a number that you came up with to Dr Michael Baker's model which is inaccurate.  You did not run Dr Bakers model with US inputs you simply multiplied the number he forecast for NZ by 66.

It would be like  saying that Dr Bakers model forecasts for Hungary and Philippines should be calculated by comparing their populations with NZ.

He would have thus forecast 195,000- 325,000 deaths for the Philippines and 16,000-26,000 for Hungary. Neither outcomes were close and its not his models fault, it is the naive way of thinking that population is his only input.

Dr Bakers models are not really relevant to discussing an Olympics with such a small sample size and the vaccinated population, so I suggest taking discussion with Kate offline.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I did, and I explained how when I first mentioned it:

 

Just to be clear Dr Baker did not forecast deaths for the USA nor did you use DR Bakers model to come up with your forecast.

There are plenty of models on US Covid expectations, many of which have been very accurate so far, which include sensitivities based on lcok down measures and progress of vaccinations.  We have some very smart public health research groups over here who have been doing good modelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

But Baker and Wilson use a symptomatic infection rate of 70%.  At no stage has the actual figure of symptomatic infection been anywhere near 70% regardless of intervention.  

Restating the exact point you fail to understand doesn't look very good for you.

Again, the model predicts the rates without intervention. It is a model.

Again, what ceiling would you predict for the SARS-CoV-2 virus? Are you afraid to make a prediction?

3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No I said that the CovidSim model from Imperial College on which Wilson and Baker based their paper has been debunked.

False. This is the first time you have mentioned Imperial College in this thread. 

Your debunking is not sourced. While we wait for you, here's what Professor Graeme Ackland said:

Quote

"With hindsight, the Imperial model has proved remarkably accurate. It turned out that the experts really are expert."

(Prof Ackland is from the Edinburgh University, the paper confirming the Imperial Study can be found here.)

 

3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Baker, Wilson, Boyd and Mansoor are running an experiment to provide data for their Fortress New Zealand hypothesis.

Wrong paper. Use the one I linked above.

3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Bruce unlike you I haven't hung my colours to the mast of a very small number of researchers

A false assumption. You don't know me, so stop pretending you do. The list of researchers I have quoted is long, diverse, and beyond this forum. I've been studying a related field for years. 

3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

nor do I have a political bias unlike yourself.

Actually, you have demonstrated a bias against the NZ approach. (Thanks for providing me a good laugh though.)

My bias is based on that the NZ approach is working.

9 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Your extrapolation highlights you lack of understanding of modelling as you don't account for age distribution or other variable factors that are inherent to the Imperial College Model.  You are obviously as inept as Baker and Wilson.

Age distribution is very similar, within about 1% for most categories. For example, in 2019, the US had 16.21% of its population over the age of 65, whereas NZ had 15.99% for the same year. Next?

Yes, my method was sloppy, however it will be in the ball-park. Your prediction is worse, because you have failed to commit to any prediction. Instead you are saying 'you're wrong', with no basis. Effective management plans can never be based on a lack of commitment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I recommend avoiding doing that. The model is complex and you are attributing a number that you came up with to Dr Michael Baker's model which is inaccurate.  You did not run Dr Bakers model with US inputs you simply multiplied the number he forecast for NZ by 66.

That's correct. 

Quote

It would be like  saying that Dr Bakers model forecasts for Hungary and Philippines should be calculated by comparing their populations with NZ.

Yes.

Quote

He would have thus forecast 195,000- 325,000 deaths for the Philippines and 16,000-26,000 for Hungary. Neither outcomes were close and its not his models fault, it is the naive way of thinking that population is his only input.

It is amusing that you took the time to say it is not the model's fault, of course it isn't! :) 

The Philippines has 20,860 deaths so far. We can say that it does not refute Dr Baker's models because of their interventions, and because the age distribution is significantly younger (among other reasons). There are significant differences between the Philippines and NZ that my rough extrapolation is inappropriate.

Hungary has 29,728 deaths so far. We can say that data shows Dr Baker's models to be on the low side. Note that Hungary would have had an even higher number, were it not for their interventions. Age distribution is very slightly older than NZ or US, with 19.69% over the age of 65 in 2019. (US was 16.21% and NZ 15.99% for the same year). Since there are many similarities between Hungary and NZ, I would use my rough extrapolation as a means of looking at the basic figures.

Crucial is that Dr Baker's model shows an estimate, without intervention. The ball park is correct, and it backs up the statements which 'Kate short for Bob' attempted to say were false.

Quote

Dr Bakers models are not really relevant to discussing an Olympics with such a small sample size and the vaccinated population, so I suggest taking discussion with Kate offline.

Good idea. I guess I have made my point, the models with hindsight have turned out to be the most accurate provided here, albeit on the low side.

The main point that Dr Baker made was that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is many times worse than seasonal influenza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 2:17 AM, IPLore said:

So if New Zealand co do this with 300 people in the days prior to vaccines being available, why cannot Japan, (a country with 26x the population of NZ) do this with 10,000 Olympic athletes.  The Olympic village is effectively an island/peninsula which would facilitate a 14 day quarantine.  Layer on top of that current 80% vaccination rate for the athletes, or even raise that to a 100% requirement.

image.jpeg.ae031d3b9775a7175329dc68313a1e57.jpeg

Do the Olympians wash their own socks? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Actually, you have demonstrated a bias against the NZ approach. (Thanks for providing me a good laugh though.)

My bias is based on that the NZ approach is working.

Yes I have concerns with the NZ approach but they are not political.  I don't share the same metrics as you when measuring success of the approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Age distribution is very similar, within about 1% for most categories. For example, in 2019, the US had 16.21% of its population over the age of 65, whereas NZ had 15.99% for the same year. Next?

 

You don't have a science background do you?  USA - 330 million vs NZ 5 million.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Yes, my method was sloppy, however it will be in the ball-park. Your prediction is worse, because you have failed to commit to any prediction. Instead you are saying 'you're wrong', with no basis. Effective management plans can never be based on a lack of commitment.

Yes but the Topic of this thread is "kill the Olympics".  You are using models that have been proven to be wrong to justify cancelling the Olympics because according to you it poses considerable risk to the people of Japan.  You are cherry picking outdated science and ignoring the characteristics of the Olympic Team sub-population to justify your position.  That isn't science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

What does "ceiling" mean in a scientific sense?

My intended meaning was the top figure, in this case 72%. 

This is consistent with the meaning in the dictionaries I use, and this is a forum, not a dissertation.

2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I subsequently did when I found the subtle link and my posts after that were based on that.  I thought you would have picked that up.  

Then you got the authors' names wrong.

2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

It isn't the first time.  The Imperial College model is also referenced as CovidSim.  

As others are.

---

You have ample opportunity to address the questions I asked you directly on this topic. You are attacking me. I am posting under my real name, you aren't. Thank you for your best efforts.

I suggest you take Eye's suggestion and take this offline if you are in further need of more information - as Eye points out, this is off topic.

I can see you have replied to me nine times since my last message about 30 minutes ago. I further suggest you desist in trolling me for further comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really a futile debate because Suga and his cabinet sees the cancel the Olympic movement as being driven by his political opponents who have the Oct. 22 election in mind. If he has to cancel the Olympics, then he will need to resign. If the Olympics turn out to be a debacle, he will need to resign. Therefore his only choice is to stay the course and hope for the best. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Yes but the Topic of this thread is "kill the Olympics".  You are using models that have been proven to be wrong to justify cancelling the Olympics because according to you it poses considerable risk to the people of Japan.  You are cherry picking outdated science and ignoring the characteristics of the Olympic Team sub-population to justify your position.  That isn't science.

There is sufficient falsehoods in this statement to warrant me blocking 'Kate short for Bob'. It is an attempt to troll me.

7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are using models that have been proven to be wrong to justify cancelling the Olympics because according to you it poses considerable risk to the people of Japan.

A false conflation which does not represent what I said in this thread. The models Dr Baker used (which I referred to as his models - you know, like your the car you use is 'your car') only became relevant because 'Kate short for Bob' put forward that Dr Baker made a false statement.

7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are cherry picking outdated science and ignoring the characteristics of the Olympic Team sub-population to justify your position.

No, false again. And generally, I've been identifying risks to the Japanese population, and explicitly talking about the risk to athletes, coaches, support staff and media.

7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  That isn't science.

What a weird thing to say. This is Sailing Anarchy! (Didn't you know?)

'Kate short for Bob' - you are trolling me - you are hereby blocked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Does Covid-19 transmit via socks?

No, but the tens of thousands of sock washers, and cleaners, and cooks and gardeners looking after these thousands of elite athletes might not care for the exposure.

They tend to have live in parents and grandparents.-_-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The models Dr Baker used (which I referred to as his models - you know, like your the car you use is 'your car') only became relevant because 'Kate short for Bob' put forward that Dr Baker made a false statement.

Which he has and continues to make namely that "Covid-19 is 20 times more dangerous than seasonal influenza".  It is an alarmist statement that isn't backed by science.  I agree Covid-19 is more dangerous than seasonal influenza.  But I don't agree that it is 20 times more dangerous.  As an influential scientist (only since Covid-19) who the media frequently use as a go to "expert" he has a responsibility to be clear and accurate in his communication.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

No, but the tens of thousands of sock washers, and cleaners, and cooks and gardeners looking after these thousands of elite athletes might not care for the exposure.

Then make it mandatory that athletes either take enough spare socks or they do their own washing in the halls of residences.  That latter does happen for most athletes.  

Bear in mind that many athletes will not be spending the full two weeks in Japan.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

Dr Bakers models are not really relevant to discussing an Olympics with such a small sample size and the vaccinated population, so I suggest taking discussion with Kate offline.

Correct.  It would appear that our opinions on the Olympics are relatively close for a change.  My view is that the risk of a small subset of the population that is largely vaccinated causing major issues in Japan is low compared to the current risk level.

If it isn't then a vaccinated and/or herd immunity future is bleak.  Thankfully the evidence so far says it isn't bleak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Which is low if 80%+ have been vaccinated.  As low as any country that has opened its borders to travellers.

And the Elite athlete's cooks, cleaners and sock washers etc that live with their elderly parents in pretty crowded apartments really don't matter do they?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Correct.  It would appear that our opinions on the Olympics are relatively close for a change.  My view is that the risk of a small subset of the population that is largely vaccinated causing major issues in Japan is low compared to the current risk level.

If it isn't then a vaccinated and/or herd immunity future is bleak.  Thankfully the evidence so far says it isn't bleak.

3 weeks ago, we had ONE asymptomatic person, who'd tested negative in quarantine, walk out and test positive 3 days later.

we now have 250 exposure sites spread across the city and 40 sick people.

We are back in lockdown.

You want 10,000 people from across the world with all it's covid variations, put into a small "village" that will be serviced by thousands of people (that tend to live in small crowded apartments) in a city of 14 million largely unvaccinated people?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

3 weeks ago, we had ONE asymptomatic person, who'd tested negative in quarantine, walk out and test positive 3 days later.

we now have 250 exposure sites spread across the city and 40 sick people.

But was that person vaccinated?  Also are you sure that with this outbreak that the person was case zero?

Lastly Japan already had the virus in circulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

But was that person vaccinated?  Also are you sure that with this outbreak that the person was case zero?

Lastly Japan already had the virus in circulation.

1, No. but vaccination doesn't stop one being infectious

2, Yes

3, Which strain does Japan have in circulation?

Have people over on the Covid subforum become so unresponsive to your trolling you have had to broaden your hunting ground? Like they did in PA?

Goodbye Mikey

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Hello Bruce,

 

Do not for a moment think that I underestimate the seriousness of covid 19 and the tragic trail it has wrought.  I was early on this forum advocating masks, strict lock downs followed by social distancing. I was very clear about forecasting the weaknesses in our (USA) federal system of state healthcare and the corresponding difficulties in a coordinated response. I had to see many covid patients in the first wave and my sister was in the front line. I got angry on these forum with people who said it was going to be akin to a severe flu season.  I started the vaccine thread on this forum and fought against pages of distrust and politically motivated anit-vax sentiments.  I was one of the first vaccinated last December and proudly shared my experience.  

I am a physician and did my fellowship at Harvard medical school (a very long time ago :) ).  I am now associated with two healthcare systems including Yale where I am a friend of one of the more thoughtful folk studying CV19.  I freely acknowledge that what I dont know about Covid 19 massively exceeds what I do know.  We all need to acknowledge that.

So what we do know about any vaccine is that a 95% efficacy is extremely good number for any vaccine.  If we could wave a wand and vaccinate the worlds population with a 95% effective vaccine, then within a matter of weeks, the disease would be eliminated.

Sadly , logistically that is not possible and nor will we have a 95% effective vaccine vs all strains.....but thus far the numbers for the leading three vaccines are phenomenally good.   

Remember that 95% effective does not mean that 5% of a population will get infected. It means that in a population the incidence of infection will be 5% of what it would otherwise have been.

Sooo, in a population of 20,000 unvaccinated athletes that freely intermingled with the Japanese population experiencing a weekly infection rate of 0.0229%, we might expect just under 5 cases per week.  Over a 3 week period that would lead us to expect 14.74 cases in an unvaccinated Olympic population.   If the population is vaccinated with a 95% effective vaccine, we would expect 1 case.  (0.737).

However, if we layered on top of vaccination , an athlete/coach/official bubble we would certainly have a lower rate. The bubble in Orlando was 100% effective.  Let us merely assume it is 70% effective.  At that level of effectiveness a vaccinated bubble of 20,000 people in Tokyo would expect 0.5 of one person in a population of 20,000 to test positive for CV19. 

I am not advocating for or against the Olympics, just noodling on how I would do it, if I was given the task.

I somehow missed this post, apologies, because you put a lot of effort into it, which I appreciate.

I agree and understand your definition of efficacy, and further add that while it is the rate of infection, severe illness and death are significantly reduced for all vaccines.

I agree with your math and your output, with the exception that I'm lumping in with the athletes coaches, support staff, officials and media. (I struggle with age distribution, but took a stab). The estimates look close to 80,000, also cited is a rate of 80%+ of vaccinated people.

My figure is 12. You'll agree that my figure and yours of 14 are very rough - but they indicate a ball park of sorts - and underscore that a risk exists.

Of course, you are well aware that is not the only risk which in my view concerning.

---

I agree that the NBA bubbles (Orlando) were successful. My hope is that similar success occurs if the Tokyo Olympics go ahead.

Because it is a far longer duration, the different location, and the situation in Japan, it is a big ask.

It is my strong view that not all risks have been mitigated, and accordingly there will be a cost - borne mostly by the good people of Japan.

---

For several years I have been increasingly interacting with medical professionals, even speaking at private forums meant to be for medical professionals (whichni am not) on my specialty, autoimmune conditions. (Additionally, I have found myself to be an advocate for a friend of mine who is seriously ill.) Further, I've had a history in tech, math, statistics and have always had a knack for understanding complex topics. It amuses me to be asked for verbal updates by doctors, including my GP. (It feels like an oral exam at times - so I go to hospital prepared - which perpetuates the cycle). I'm unusually well placed to understand many issues about the pandemic which I find many aren't. There is too much misinformation.

---

I saw you advocate masks, and I did too, though to a bigger audience than SA. We were small parts of a successful effort I think we did some good.

---

I appreciate your approach. For the most part, I have been sitting on the fence regarding cancelling the Tokyo Olympics - and this forum has helped cement my opposition to it going ahead. (It's time for me to get off the fence and start lobbying - not here in SA, but where it matters.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Have people over on the Covid subforum become so unresponsive to your trolling you have had to broaden your hunting ground? Like they did in PA?

 

You don't seem to understand the term trolling.  Regardless my opinion is that the Olympics should proceed as I believe it will not change Japan's risk profile.  Posting that opinion in response to yours is not trolling.