Why scientists are worried about the coronavirus variant from Brazil(npr.org)
npr.org
Why scientists are worried about the coronavirus variant from Brazil
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/01/27/961108577/why-scientists-are-very-worried-about-the-variant-from-brazil
21 comments
Nop. I'm from Brazil, and I can say that situation right now in Manaus is way worse.
To give you a notion, in 21 days, Manaus has more burials by Covid-19 than the whole of 2020
To give you a notion, in 21 days, Manaus has more burials by Covid-19 than the whole of 2020
Do you have a better source for the numbers here?
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/2021/01/22/em-21-dias-...
People are dying without oxygen in Manaus.
People are dying without oxygen in Manaus.
[deleted]
Not sure if the data here is any better, but worth a look?
https://coronavirus.app/tracking/brazil
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
This is a CNN article, not a source for numbers on cases in the region. It's extremely hard to draw any conclusions from this.
> The number of burials carried out by victims of Covid-19 in Manaus, in January this year, exceeded the data for 2020 for the city. Last year, 1,285 burials from the disease were counted, against 1,333 in the first 21 days of 2021 alone.
The "first wave" happened starting in ~May 2020 (and testing increased across the year) so this kind of un-normalized comparison across time periods isn't useful.
> The total made in January for all statements (all types of death, including coronavirus), was 2,964 - the highest number of burials carried out in a single month since the start of the pandemic. In 2020, the month with the highest burial record in Manaus was April, with 2,433.
This is a great example of bad data reporting: it's almost impossible to interpret this without comparison to historical mortality trends for the region. It sounds like mortality is slightly higher overall, but it's really difficult to say.
> Last year, May was the month that registered the most burials due to the disease, with 348. In comparison with this year's numbers, January 2021 brings 283% more burial records.
Again, same issue as the first quote: making a non-normalized comparison to May 2020 ignores the substantial increases in testing that has happened since that time.
This is a CNN article, not a source for numbers on cases in the region. It's extremely hard to draw any conclusions from this.
> The number of burials carried out by victims of Covid-19 in Manaus, in January this year, exceeded the data for 2020 for the city. Last year, 1,285 burials from the disease were counted, against 1,333 in the first 21 days of 2021 alone.
The "first wave" happened starting in ~May 2020 (and testing increased across the year) so this kind of un-normalized comparison across time periods isn't useful.
> The total made in January for all statements (all types of death, including coronavirus), was 2,964 - the highest number of burials carried out in a single month since the start of the pandemic. In 2020, the month with the highest burial record in Manaus was April, with 2,433.
This is a great example of bad data reporting: it's almost impossible to interpret this without comparison to historical mortality trends for the region. It sounds like mortality is slightly higher overall, but it's really difficult to say.
> Last year, May was the month that registered the most burials due to the disease, with 348. In comparison with this year's numbers, January 2021 brings 283% more burial records.
Again, same issue as the first quote: making a non-normalized comparison to May 2020 ignores the substantial increases in testing that has happened since that time.
It sounds like the first peak managed to infect 75% of the population? If so, a second, similar, peak, at 1% case-fatality-rate is likely to case 20,000 deaths in the city alone.
> It sounds like the first peak managed to infect 75% of the population? If so, a second, similar, peak, at 1% case-fatality-rate is likely to case 20,000 deaths in the city alone.
1) There's no way of knowing what percentage of the population has been infected.
2) You're assuming that this strain can re-infect the same people, which is speculation.
3) You're assuming that this strain will be just as fatal as the original strain after re-infection, which is speculation.
1) There's no way of knowing what percentage of the population has been infected.
2) You're assuming that this strain can re-infect the same people, which is speculation.
3) You're assuming that this strain will be just as fatal as the original strain after re-infection, which is speculation.
Researchers who tested blood samples from blood banks in Manaus estimated 66% by the end of the first wave [1]. That rises to 76% by October [2].
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
That's useful, thanks. Though an estimate of seroprevalence based on a blood bank survey (both of these are from the same group, using the same method) has issues with bias (in particular, see the number of re-weightings performed and the huge impact of these adjustments in Figure 2A of the second link), that makes me hesitant to believe any claim starting with "75% of the population was infected, therefore..."
In other words: if we're seeing a resurgence in cases now, the parsimonious answer is that the blood-bank survey estimate was wrong, not that the virus is escaping all immunity. My prior probability of this explanation is dramatically increased when I see that the seroprevalence data was adjusted upward by a factor of 2-3 to account for "seroreversion" (which is essentially guessing).
In other words: if we're seeing a resurgence in cases now, the parsimonious answer is that the blood-bank survey estimate was wrong, not that the virus is escaping all immunity. My prior probability of this explanation is dramatically increased when I see that the seroprevalence data was adjusted upward by a factor of 2-3 to account for "seroreversion" (which is essentially guessing).
Regarding points 1 and 2, from the article:
"If you were to ask me right now, what's most concerning of all the things that I've heard so far, it's the fact that they are reporting a sudden increase in cases in Manaus, Brazil," virus expert Jeremy Luban at the University of Massachusetts told NPR two weeks ago before the variant arrived in the United States. "Manaus already had 75% of people infected [in the spring of last year]."
Regarding point 3 -- it is, of course, speculation, but for millenia the most-effective method of weather forecasting was constancy: "Tomorrow will be just like today". It could be better, it could be worse, but if we don't know anything, assuming that it will be similar seems like a good bet.
Edit: On first read, I missed "on reinfection" for point 3. Agreed. One definitely hopes that on reinfection, cases will be more mild.
"If you were to ask me right now, what's most concerning of all the things that I've heard so far, it's the fact that they are reporting a sudden increase in cases in Manaus, Brazil," virus expert Jeremy Luban at the University of Massachusetts told NPR two weeks ago before the variant arrived in the United States. "Manaus already had 75% of people infected [in the spring of last year]."
Regarding point 3 -- it is, of course, speculation, but for millenia the most-effective method of weather forecasting was constancy: "Tomorrow will be just like today". It could be better, it could be worse, but if we don't know anything, assuming that it will be similar seems like a good bet.
Edit: On first read, I missed "on reinfection" for point 3. Agreed. One definitely hopes that on reinfection, cases will be more mild.
Yep, that quote is an opinion from one person. "Virus expert" or no, it is still speculation. The fact that said expert is confidently claiming that 75% number makes me doubt his opinion. We can't confidently estimate the proportion of people infected in the US or Europe. I don't know how you'd begin to claim such a thing in Brazil, where the access to testing and data reporting is quite poor.
> for millenia the most-effective method of weather forecasting was constancy: "Tomorrow will be just like today"
I disagree that this like predicting the weather. The weather has consistent seasonal patterns that give you ~90% (brown number) of the story (ironically, this virus is also probably strongly seasonal, but I digress).
Here, we're engaged in speculation that some "new strain" might be worse than the existing strain. It's the opposite of using long-term trends to predict the future. It's a bit like claiming that every new typhoon is going to be the worst one ever, because it's different than the last typhoon in some way.
> for millenia the most-effective method of weather forecasting was constancy: "Tomorrow will be just like today"
I disagree that this like predicting the weather. The weather has consistent seasonal patterns that give you ~90% (brown number) of the story (ironically, this virus is also probably strongly seasonal, but I digress).
Here, we're engaged in speculation that some "new strain" might be worse than the existing strain. It's the opposite of using long-term trends to predict the future. It's a bit like claiming that every new typhoon is going to be the worst one ever, because it's different than the last typhoon in some way.
It would be nice to know if the Brazil variant is more dangerous or not. The ideal case is a variant that gets more easily transmissible but less harmful - everyone could pass it on and become immune to the other strains.
That is not just the ideal case, it is the case supported by both historical precedent and theory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873896
> By far, the most widely studied trade-off involves transmission and virulence (Anderson and May, 1982; Frank, 1996; Alizon et al. 2009).
> By far, the most widely studied trade-off involves transmission and virulence (Anderson and May, 1982; Frank, 1996; Alizon et al. 2009).
That paper is about parasites, not viruses.
Academically, a virus is a kind of parasite, one that cannot reproduce (or really do anything at all) independent of its host.
All “parasite” means is that the organism depends on a host, but yes outside the academy it is often used in place of “multicellular parasite”.
All “parasite” means is that the organism depends on a host, but yes outside the academy it is often used in place of “multicellular parasite”.
The key point of this article is that the new variant is sufficiently unlike the original strain that it may be able to infect those who have already had the original strain.
If that is true, 2021 will be another memorable year.
If that is true, 2021 will be another memorable year.
The blatant editorial tone here is off-putting. It's worth pointing out that the resurgence in Amazonas appears to be of about the same magnitude as the one in the winter, and is currently declining:
https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+cases+manaus&oq=covid+...
I don't know why the news media can't simply report facts anymore.