Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Chris Kern on January 28, 2021, 06:10:30 pm

Title: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on January 28, 2021, 06:10:30 pm
Novavax today announced (https://ir.novavax.com/node/15506/pdf) that the Phase 2b and 3 trials of its protein-based COVID-19 vaccine produced good results against coronavirus infections, significantly including both the more aggressive U.K. and South Africa variants:

Quote
Preliminary analysis indicates that the UK variant strain that was increasingly prevalent was detected in over 50% of the PCR-confirmed symptomatic cases (32 UK variant, 24 non-variant, 6 unknown). Based on PCR performed on strains from 56 of the 62 cases, efficacy by strain was calculated to be 95.6% against the original COVID-19 strain and 85.6% against the UK variant strain. . . .

In the South Africa Phase 2b clinical trial, 60% efficacy (95% CI: 19.9 – 80.1) for the prevention of mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 disease was observed in the 94% of the study population that was HIV-negative. Twenty-nine cases were observed in the placebo group and 15 in the vaccine group. One severe case occurred in the placebo group and all other cases were mild or moderate.

Also significant, from the perspective of deployment: it remains stable at modest levels of refrigeration:

Quote
NVX-CoV2373 contains a full-length, prefusion spike protein made using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology and the company’s proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M™ adjuvant. The purified protein is encoded by the genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and is produced in insect cells. It can neither cause COVID-19 nor can it replicate, is stable at 2°C to 8°C (refrigerated) and is shipped in a ready-to-use liquid formulation that permits distribution using existing vaccine supply chain channels.

As lagniappe for participants in this forum, there is even a photography industry angle to the new vaccine: it is manufactured at Fujifilm's Diosynth Biotechnologies’s facilities in Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees, England.

No regulatory approval yet.  I presume the first review will take place in the United Kingdom and that one in the United States won't be far behind.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 28, 2021, 06:15:50 pm
It's very promising. And as lagniappe for me, I've learned a completely new word!

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 28, 2021, 06:18:46 pm
As lagniappe...

Thank you for using the word lagnilappe. At the risk of showing my ignorance, I have never heard it used before and don't recall having ever seen it in print. Naturally, I looked it up:

"A lagniappe is "a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase", or more broadly, "something given or obtained gratuitously or by way of good measure."

Anyway, I probably will never use the word, but at least I will now know what it means if I run across it reading.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on January 28, 2021, 06:32:19 pm
And as lagniappe for me, I've learned a completely new word!

If aging memory serves, I first encountered it many years ago when my wife and I were served a couple more beignets than we ordered at a coffee stand in in N'Awlins (http://www.experienceneworleans.com/glossary.html).
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 28, 2021, 06:40:35 pm
...beignets...

An Obi Wan moment: "Now there's name I haven't heard in a long, long time."  I used to get beignets regularly at this place in the Latin Quarter when I was a student in Paris. I have had a few over the years over here, but they were never the same.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 28, 2021, 06:56:57 pm
The good news is that many here have a new word!

The bad news is that the effectiveness of a lagniappe in protecting you from Covid is untested.
The same, unfortunately, also applies to beignets.

 :(
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 29, 2021, 04:06:51 am
... U.K. and South Africa variants...

Apropos words... ain’t it funny how nobody blinks at calling it British or U.K. or South African virus, but God forbid someone says Chinese virus?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: William Walker on January 29, 2021, 04:20:00 am
Apropos words... ain’t it funny how nobody blinks at calling it British or U.K. or South African virus, but God forbid someone says Chinese virus?

I am pretty sure you could politicise either in two seconds... ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: athegn on January 29, 2021, 07:47:40 am
Watch it! We British are proud to have our own virus. We don't want you Johnny foreigners trying to take it away from us.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 29, 2021, 07:52:18 am
Apropos words... ain’t it funny how nobody blinks at calling it British or U.K. or South African virus, but God forbid someone says Chinese virus?

I think that may be because no national leader has accused the UK or South Africa of creating the variants in a lab and deliberately spreading them throughout the world as a form of biologic and economic warfare, and claimed a right to reparations from them for having done so. Unlike the terms UK variant and South African variant, the terms Chinese flu, kung flu, and the like are used as shorthand for J'accuse....

Of course, I am no expert, so that is only a guess.
Title: Yet Another Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on January 29, 2021, 10:53:28 am
Johnson & Johnson has also announced (https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-single-shot-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-met-primary-endpoints-in-interim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial) that a large, multinational trial of its non-replicating viral vector vaccine produced acceptable results against all major variants of the coronavirus:

Quote
Vaccine Candidate 72% Effective in the US and 66% Effective Overall at Preventing Moderate to Severe COVID-19, 28 Days after Vaccination

85% Effective Overall in Preventing Severe Disease and Demonstrated Complete Protection Against COVID-19 related Hospitalization and Death as of Day 28

Protection Against Severe Disease Across Geographies, Ages, and Multiple Virus Variants, including the SARS-CoV-2 Variant from the B.1.351 Lineage . . . Observed in South Africa


Although the clinical trials of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine did not achieve the remarkable results of the mRNA vaccines that are currently being administered in many countries, the fact that it only requires a single dose and can be stored for an extended period at normal refrigerated temperatures makes it an attractive candidate for arresting the rapid spread of severe disease and the consequent overburdening of hospital capacity and medical staff.

The information about the vaccine is from a company press release; the full clinical trial data required to support applications for regulatory approval apparently haven't been published yet.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: marvpelkey on January 29, 2021, 07:32:00 pm
Happened to watch part (paying attention to two things at the same time, so could be wrong on some of the details) of a CNN interview today in which an expert was saying the test results of the J and J vaccine is from trials in South Africa and Brazil (?) and they are now in trials in the US.

Of interest though, is the expert believed that the US trials are with two doses and opined the double dose may prove more effective (similar to a Pfizer/Moderna 1st dose is not as effective as two doses). Here's hoping.

Marv
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 07:17:53 am
Interesting...
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 30, 2021, 10:49:15 am
Interesting...
According to that chart, the U.S. has not vaccinated anybody yet. Not true! I got my first Pfizer shot yesterday, and the second is scheduled for three weeks from today.
 ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 30, 2021, 01:32:42 pm
Slobodan is being somewhat selective in the data he has chosen to show, removing a few countries with higher vaccination rates from the display. It's an interesting site, though, and (if accurate) worth playing with. It's here (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2021, 01:38:24 pm
Slobodan is being somewhat selective in the data he has chosen to show, removing a few countries with higher vaccination rates from the display. It's an interesting site, though, and (if accurate) worth playing with. It's here (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations).

No. Really?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on January 30, 2021, 02:25:20 pm
The same, unfortunately, also applies to beignets.

 :(

You say that but my intensive research on the subject is not complete.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 03:08:17 pm
Slobodan is being somewhat selective in the data he has chosen to show, removing a few countries with higher vaccination rates from the display...

I didn't do anything, except pilfering the chart from the Internet. It seemed to me the chart represents a geographical Europe.

What are "a few countries with higher vaccination rate"?

P.S. A similar info comes from this Turkish site:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/serbia-europes-2nd-fastest-covid-19-vaccine-rollout/2126629
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 03:09:11 pm
No. Really?

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying I have a habit of posting doctored information?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2021, 03:37:55 pm
What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying I have a habit of posting doctored information?

No, I do not think you doctor information. I think that you frequently present very selective information, and that is worthwhile to look beyond it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 03:44:15 pm
Nope. I don't think you doctor information. I think that you frequently present very selective information, and that is worthwhile to look beyond it.

If I do so, that is because I tend to present information from another angle, different from the mainstream (or the one prevailing here, on this forum). So, by definition, it must be selective. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2021, 04:21:34 pm
If I do so, that is because I tend to present information from another angle, different from the mainstream (or the one prevailing here, on this forum). So, by definition, it must be selective.

I disagree that posting information from another angle by definition means that it must be selective. In addition, let's look at your chart. What is "from another angle" or "different from the mainstream" about posting vaccination rates per 100 population by country? That's a pretty standard way to do it. The chart did, however, show information only from the countries you selected. So it was selective information presented in a standard way.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 04:40:18 pm
I disagree that posting informative from another angle by definition means that it must be selective. For example, what is "from another angle" or "different from the mainstream" about posting vaccination rates per 100 population by country? That's a pretty standard way to do it. It did, however, show information from only the countries you selected. So it was selective information presented in a standard way.

Once again, I did not select the countries in the chart. The chart popped up in my Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn feed, and it appears to be representing geographic European countries. I didn't take any position regarding the chart, other than find it interesting that Serbia is so high up (given how much the media here, internally, criticizes everything the government does). Also interesting is such a huge disparity between countries.

You made a general statement about how I often post "selective info." I responded in a similar, general manner. That is, nothing to do with the chart in question.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2021, 04:57:04 pm
Once again, I did not select the countries in the chart. The chart popped up in my Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn feed...

That explains a lot. If you are just posting stuff from Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, I'll just disregard it as unreliable and move on. My apologies.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2021, 05:20:26 pm
That explains a lot. If you are just posting stuff from Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, I'll just disregard it as unreliable and move on.

Oh, for fuck's sake!!!

Why does it matter if it was posted on those platforms??? Being posted there does not make something unreliable automatically. The chart clearly indicates the original source, and as Jeremy demonstrated, there is a link to it, so that you can go there and check it for yourself.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2021, 05:42:03 pm
Oh, for fuck's sake!!!

Why does it matter if it was posted on those platforms??? Being posted there does not make something unreliable automatically. The chart clearly indicates the original source, and as Jeremy demonstrated, there is a link to it, so that you can go there and check it for yourself.

You rely on the information you want to. If social media is your reality, you are welcome to it.

I thought you actually looked up the information and generated the chart from the website. I obviously gave you way more credit than you deserve. I looked at the image and noticed there was an "Add Country" button so alarm bells went off. I wondered what countries were left out and why? I went to the original source. I looked around and couldn't find that exact chart. I found another chart with vaccinations per hundred by country in x/y format, and the numbers were different, so I said selective countries, different numbers, screw it. I am not going to waste any more time on this. Then Jeremy posted his comment and I said no kidding.

Like I said, if you are just going to post stuff from your social media feeds, I'll disregard it as unreliable and move on. Slobodan=Social Media=Unreliable.

Hey, look at this. Sasquatch is alive!

[insert image of Sasquatch from social media here]

Not only that, Sasquatch is an alien!

[insert image of Sasquatch in a flying saucer from social media here]

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2021, 07:05:05 pm
Here is yet another source of data by Euronews listing vaccinations by country. These numbers show the total counts of vaccinations, not per capita, but the chart is laid out much more generously and is using some negative space between the individual countries, unlike the other two. To some, the narrow white lines may seem like a wasted space, but the experts say that whitespace is one of the most valuable parts of your composition whether it is a coffee table book or a pandemic chart.

Quote
The UK, which approved its first COVID-19 vaccine on December 2, nearly three weeks before the EU, is racing ahead with immunising its people.
Latest data shows the country has vaccinated more people (7.6 million) - more than Germany, Italy, France and Spain combined. London began earlier than other EU countries but has also approved more vaccines than the 27-member bloc.

Who has made the best progress, relatively speaking?
The UK has administered the most vaccines overall, but it also leads the table of per capita immunisations. Malta is second in the table of vaccinations per 100,000 people and is the only EU country in the top four. Iceland is third and Serbia is fourth. Then comes four EU countries, Denmark, Slovenia, Ireland and Spain.

About this data:
The data is pulled together from official government sources and media reports. There is no central collection of vaccine figures and not all countries publish figures at this early stage.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/29/covid-19-vaccinations-in-europe-which-countries-are-leading-the-way

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: BobShaw on January 30, 2021, 10:32:09 pm
Here is yet another source of data by Euronews listing vaccinations by country.
Vaccinations by country can also be described as degree of panic.
The UK is panicking because they now have 25% the deaths of USA and that is a cause for panic.
You may kill some but, you may save some.
If you are not panicking then you can sit back and watch the rest stuff up and learn the best approach.
There have been no vaccinations in Australia and many other countries for that reason.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on January 30, 2021, 10:50:54 pm
What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying I have a habit of posting doctored information?

Let's just call it selective.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 03:23:33 am
Let's just call it selective.

I am still waiting for Jeremy to tell us which countries with higher vaccination rates were not selected.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 31, 2021, 04:22:12 am
I am still waiting for Jeremy to tell us which countries with higher vaccination rates were not selected.

On a 7-day rolling average to 26th January, which is the snapshot you quoted, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. You'll see also that the USA lies next behind the UK.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 04:44:49 am
On a 7-day rolling average to 26th January, which is the snapshot you quoted, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. You'll see also that the USA lies next behind the UK.

Jeremy

Even Americans, with their dismal knowledge of geography, would recognize that the chart I posted shows only European countries. Let alone a distinguished English gentleman, like yourself :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 05:32:10 am
Anyway...

The very high UK placement in those charts... first benefit of Brexit?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on January 31, 2021, 06:13:28 am
Anyway...

The very high UK placement in those charts... first benefit of Brexit?

Nothng to do with Brexit - the deals were done last year when EU rules still applied.  Partly a result of a strong local expertise in gene stuff, partly from the large sums of money splashed around and partly due to panic having messed up every other way out of the crisis.

It is, as you say, interesting to see that Serbia has high vaccination rates - never mentioned in the news. Which vaccine is being used?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: rabanito on January 31, 2021, 06:43:50 am


It is, as you say, interesting to see that Serbia has high vaccination rates - never mentioned in the news. Which vaccine is being used?

Pfizer, Sputnik V and Sinopharm
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on January 31, 2021, 06:51:19 am
Pfizer, Sputnik V and Sinopharm

Good opportunity to compare effectiveness.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 31, 2021, 07:01:30 am
The very high UK placement in those charts... first benefit of Brexit?

The answer is possibly, if indirectly. The UK had the chance to enrol in the EU's vaccine procurement programme last year but declined, to the expressed dismay of many politicians and commentators who viewed it as a triumph of Brexit over health; few, if any, of them have yet chosen as publicly to eat their words. It's not clear whether or not that option would have been open to the UK had we not left the EU by that stage.

It is true to say that our ability of our regulator (the MHRA) to authorise use of the vaccines independently of the EU's regulator (the EMA), while perhaps made easier by Brexit, would have been an option even had we still be members of the EU, there being exemptions in emergencies.

Anyway, we're straying into politics and since three contributors are currently suspended for that very offence, I suggest we stop.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 07:34:17 am
Pfizer, Sputnik V and Sinopharm

And Moderna. With the option to choose between the four (as a preference in advance, during an online registration of interest - not sure if realistic at the time when my turn comes).
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2021, 07:39:33 am
And Moderna.
not to forget Slivovitza
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 07:49:14 am
not to forget Slivovitza

Indeed. Since I have a dual nationality, I will have a different second shot. Hope they are compatible.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2021, 08:03:07 am
... It is, as you say, interesting to see that Serbia has high vaccination rates - never mentioned in the news...

I am equally surprised when we do something well ;)

A picture of a vaccination site at a huge trade-fair hall. Seems well organized. They even bothered to arrange chairs for waiting in flag colors (red-blue-white).
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on February 01, 2021, 10:28:05 am
Interesting 'side-bar' to the ongoing vaccine discussion, (UK based).


Quote
The number of people suffering from flu has plunged by 95% to levels not seen in more than 130 years.

Influenza has been “almost completely wiped out”, said Simon de Lusignan, professor of primary care at the University of Oxford and director of the Royal College of GPs research and surveillance centre, which focuses on flu. In the second week of January, usually the peak of the season, the number of influenza-like illnesses reported to GPs was 1.1 per 100,000 people, compared to a five-year average rate of 27. Out of four million patients at 392 GP surgeries in England, 42 had influenza-like illness, or about 0.001%.

Flu has also disappeared in Wales, at 1.0 cases per 100,000 people, and vanished in Scotland, with 0.5.  In the second week of January, health analysts did a double take when they saw the flu positivity rate — a standard metric of community flu activity — was 0.0%. Not one of 1,894 samples tested positive and the number of hospital admissions in England for flu was zero.

There is a snag to the success, though. Scientists developing a vaccine for next year’s flu season are struggling because there are so few samples to work on. The drastically reduced flu numbers may also mean more of us are susceptible to it in future, having not acquired immunity this year. “It’s a nightmare to work out what comes next,” said McCauley. “If you have flu away for a year, then immunity will have waned. It could come back worse.”

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 01, 2021, 10:57:49 am
Good news that we have more vaccines in the future.

As for "rankings", it is important to consider two aspects:

1. Number of people vaccinated in a particular country: necessary to distinguish between people who already got the two doses, or only the first dose. For the vaccines that require two doses to complete immunity.

2. A number of countries is increasing the recommended interval between the two doses from 21 days (Pfizer) to up to ~80 days. This is being done in the UK, I think. In this way, they use their initial batches of vaccines to vaccinate more people with the first dose. Pfizer already stated that their trials have used 21 days interval, and there is no guarantee that a period longer than that will have similar positive results.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 01, 2021, 11:42:33 am
Good news that we have more vaccines in the future.

As for "rankings", it is important to consider two aspects:

1. Number of people vaccinated in a particular country: necessary to distinguish between people who already got the two doses, or only the first dose. For the vaccines that require two doses to complete immunity.

2. A number of countries is increasing the recommended interval between the two doses from 21 days (Pfizer) to up to ~80 days. This is being done in the UK, I think. In this way, they use their initial batches of vaccines to vaccinate more people with the first dose. Pfizer already stated that their trials have used 21 days interval, and there is no guarantee that a period longer than that will have similar positive results.

The rapid spread of cases here and the potential overwhelming of the health service made the benefit of more people being kept out of hospital in the short run bigger than more completely protecting a smaller number of people. We'll see if that was the correct decision in the long run.  Data on long term effects of the various vaccines is (obviously ) pretty sparse so it's not clear how big of a trade off it is.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 01, 2021, 12:49:50 pm
The rapid spread of cases here and the potential overwhelming of the health service made the benefit of more people being kept out of hospital in the short run bigger than more completely protecting a smaller number of people. We'll see if that was the correct decision in the long run.  Data on long term effects of the various vaccines is (obviously ) pretty sparse so it's not clear how big of a trade off it is.

Indeed, but there is a risk of reducing the effectiveness of the vaccine, when increasing the number of days between first and second doses. Also, there is a breach of trust between authorities and people who got the first dose initially; they were expecting to get the second dose after 21 days, and now that is not going to happen. How will they feel about it? The only data we know is from the trials: the effectiveness from Pfizer is >90% when two doses are separated by 21 days.

Here in Portugal, where we are now the number 1 country in deaths per 1 million people, the pressure is increasing to take a similar approach, but thus far the health authorities are resisting the government and adhering to lab recommendations.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 01, 2021, 02:00:00 pm
The only data we know is from the trials: the effectiveness from Pfizer is >90% when two doses are separated by 21 days.

That's true, but it's known from other vaccines and from understanding of immunology that it is likely that a longer interval between doses will not diminish the efficacy and may even increase it, and it's known that a single dose confers a substantial degree of immunity, albeit not as great as two doses and for a more uncertain time. We don't know how Pfizer alighted on three weeks for their trial.

The rationale is that a scarce resource should be used to greatest overall effect in the population, and those that claim to understand these things are, in the main, of the opinion that the greatest overall level of immunity will be achieved by giving more first doses and fewer second until either there is a greater supply of vaccine or the balance swings towards giving second doses. That latter doesn't require everyone to have been given a first dose, of course.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on February 01, 2021, 03:45:28 pm
The rationale is that a scarce resource should be used to greatest overall effect in the population, and those that claim to understand these things are, in the main, of the opinion that the greatest overall level of immunity will be achieved by giving more first doses and fewer second until either there is a greater supply of vaccine or the balance swings towards giving second doses. . . .

The emerging consensus here in the States seems to be for providers using two-dose vaccines (1) not to sequester second doses—i.e., they should use all the doses at their disposal for individuals who are currently eligible for vaccination under national and local guidelines* (medical staff, the elderly, etc.); (2) when administering current inventory, to give priority to those ready for second doses under the manufacturer's clinical trial protocol.

My impression is that few experts here are overly concerned about "late" administration of second doses, believing they are likely to be as effective as second doses that are given in accordance with intervals used in the respective clinical trials.

———
*The federal government provides advisory national guidelines, but each of the states currently has independent authority to interpret them and to allocate vaccine doses in accordance with its own priorities.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 02, 2021, 04:57:42 am
... The UK had the chance to enrol in the EU's vaccine procurement programme last year but declined, to the expressed dismay of many politicians and commentators who viewed it as a triumph of Brexit over health; few, if any, of them have yet chosen as publicly to eat their words. It's not clear whether or not that option would have been open to the UK had we not left the EU by that stage...
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on February 02, 2021, 10:09:35 am
There are still concerns about how effective a single dose of vaccine will be against the South African strain. So far Pfizer and Moderna's studies have only looked at how people given two doses react to the SA variant.

Studies into how well Oxford University/AstraZeneca's jab will work against the South African strain are still ongoing. Johnson & Johnson actually trialled its jab in South Africa while the variant was circulating and confirmed that it blocked 57 per cent of coronavirus infections in South Africa, which meets the WHO’s 50 per cent efficacy threshold.

IIRC, both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were said by the companies to be no more than 50% effective in single jab mode. Pfizer has developed a booster shot to counteract the SA strain and Moderna announced that one is under development. 

Furthermore there is a growing body of research indicating that antibodies in those previously seriously infected with Covid-19 are, in many cases, proving ineffective in protecting against the SA virus.  Today, SKY News broadcast that testing at Cambridge University shows the Pfizer vaccine is proving ineffective in combatting the SA virus in the over 80's - so another note of caution here. (*)

My personal POV, is that "vaccine nationalism" be damned. The supplies should be adequate to cope with high vaccination rates throughout the European continent within the next 8-10 weeks.  In the British case, vaccines are something of a 'Hail Mary' given the tragically high death toll. So far it's going well - long may it continue.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50901741312_ba241a7503_z.jpg)

(*) In the chart, Sanofi-GSK are manufacturing the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine under licence.
(*) https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-likely-to-be-effective-against-b117-strain-of-sars-cov-2

The preliminary data, which have yet to be to peer-reviewed and relate to only a small number of patients, also suggest that a significant proportion of over-eighty olds may not be sufficiently protected against infection until they have received their second dose of the vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 02, 2021, 11:43:58 am
...which meets the WHO’s 50 per cent efficacy threshold.

"Heads you catch it, tails you don't" sounds like a pretty low bar to me, but every little bit helps. If we had had the vaccine last March, we might have saved 200,000+ of the 400,000+ deaths, so driving over to get your shot does make sense.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 03, 2021, 10:57:53 am
Couple of interesting developments - 1) Sputnik vaccine reported to have high level of efficacy, and 2) AZ vaccine reported to be having good effect on reducing transmission.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 03, 2021, 02:53:51 pm
Couple of interesting developments - 1) Sputnik vaccine reported to have high level of efficacy, and 2) AZ vaccine reported to be having good effect on reducing transmission.

And there's considerable interest and excitement about the possibly improved results of giving one as a first dose and the other as a second. Interesting times.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: rabanito on February 03, 2021, 04:42:12 pm
And there's considerable interest and excitement about the possibly improved results of giving one as a first dose and the other as a second. Interesting times.

Jeremy

More interesting still is that since the first and the second dosis are exactly the same, you can use the second as first and the first as second.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 03, 2021, 07:06:18 pm
More interesting still is that since the first and the second dosis are exactly the same, you can use the second as first and the first as second.

In other words, one should wait with the first shot until he gets the second?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: rabanito on February 04, 2021, 05:02:44 am
In other words, one should wait with the first shot until he gets the second?

It seems that the covid vaccines are time-symmetric  ;)
Alice in Wonderland II (unpublished)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 04, 2021, 09:27:20 am
Yes. I got my second shot a couple of weeks ago, and I'll get my first shot soon...    8)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: rabanito on February 04, 2021, 09:37:01 am
Yes. I got my second shot a couple of weeks ago, and I'll get my first shot soon...    8)

I've read that from one to two weeks after the second shot you are protected. I'd skip the first one then
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2021, 12:38:01 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=content&utm_content=covidtracker2021&fbclid=IwAR0Bl9v1tmpTFLv4Fs-DDUGL76k2y5AExrjhstbqYSjV3ORt0sMmbnxXCbA

"More Than 108 Million Shots Given: Covid-19 Tracker"

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on February 04, 2021, 01:05:01 pm
Does anybody have any idea at all about what's going on in Africa? It strikes me that it's possible that Africa could become a big pool of covid strains mixing with each other, then migrating to other areas, since it doesn't look like much is being done in the way of remediation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: PeterAit on February 04, 2021, 06:09:16 pm
No, I do not think you doctor information. I think that you frequently present very selective information, and that is worthwhile to look beyond it.

The main issue is that these data, even if true, mean nothing important. Or maybe nothing at all. Just putting something in a pretty chart is, in itself, meaningless.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2021, 07:08:56 am
The main issue is that these data, even if true, mean nothing important. Or maybe nothing at all. Just putting something in a pretty chart is, in itself, meaningless.

 ;D ;D ;D

Your desire to shoot the messenger is getting the better of you.

For almost a year you (collective) have been arguing the shots are going to save the world, "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes,"  blah, blah... and now it is not important at all how fast the vaccine is distributed!?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: rabanito on February 05, 2021, 10:04:18 am
;D ;D ;D

Your desire to shoot the messenger is getting the better of you.

For almost a year you (collective) have been arguing the shots are going to save the world, "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes,"  blah, blah... and now it is not important at all how fast the vaccine is distributed!?

HAHAHA
Depends on what you understand by "saving the world". You mean the Economy or the Human Species? Well, that's part of it :-)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 05, 2021, 10:21:42 am
For almost a year you (collective) have been arguing the shots are going to save the world, "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes,"  blah, blah... and now it is not important at all how fast the vaccine is distributed!?

The chart appears to show that as of the date of the undated chart, 108 million doses of vaccine had been administered in the world, and that the rate of vaccinations had been higher in the United States and Europe. That strikes me as a fun fact to know and tell, but not much more. Is there anything else that you think I should takeaway from the chart?

I don't recall anyone (except maybe Alan) arguing "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes". Perhaps you are being hyperbolic about what others have said. Most economies have been open since last April or May with some restrictions which differ from location to location and from time to time. I do recall some people saying that things won't get back to normal until most people are vaccinated, which is something quite different and not particularly controversial.

I also don't recall anyone (not even Alan) arguing "shots are going to save the world" or "it is not important at all how fast the vaccine is distributed". Perhaps you are being hyperbolic about what others have said there too. Have you been drinking a lot of coffee lately?

My experience is that, when making an argument, misstating what others have said generally does not enhance one's credibility. In each of these three instances doing so constitutes a strawman, which of course is a logical fallacy. Three strawmen in one sentence is quite an accomplishment.

I did read the article in the link which contained other interesting facts not shown in the chart. The two that struck me were that, at the current rate, it will take 11 months to vaccinate 75% of the US population, and for the world 7 years.  I do not believe those statements take into consideration, for example, increasing vaccine production, increasing vaccine administration, one dose vaccines, or the effect of virus variants. So those appear to be "for what it's worth" kind of statements, at least to me.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2021, 04:30:51 pm
I did read the article in the link which contained other interesting facts not shown in the chart. The two that struck me were that, at the current rate, it will take 11 months to vaccinate 75% of the US population, and for the world 7 years. I do not believe those statements take into consideration, for example, increasing vaccine production, increasing vaccine administration, one dose vaccines, or the effect of virus variants. So those appear to be "for what it's worth" kind of statements, at least to me.

Not to forget the millions of people who will die while waiting for the vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2021, 05:11:55 pm
... I don't recall anyone (except maybe Alan) arguing "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes"....

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2021, 05:15:12 pm
... Most economies have been open since last April or May with some restrictions which differ from location to location and from time to time....


 ;D ;D ;D

You are a funny guy. Ever tried a stand up?

In some locations, you can't even walk.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 05, 2021, 05:43:36 pm
Thanks for posting those images.

I don't think any of the three articles, the titles of which you posted here as images, were written by anyone around here.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought when you said "you (collective)", you meant "you" meaning specifically Peter to whose post you were responding, and "(collective)" meaning others participating in the discussion here.

If you intended "you (collective)" to mean that someone somewhere said "we can't reopen the economy until a vaccine comes", "shots are going to save the world", and "it is not important at all how fast the vaccine is distributed", then I would concede the point. I don't doubt someone somewhere said those things, just not around here.

I also think you may be confusing the words "recover" and "grow[th]" which are used in the article titles you posted, with the word "reopen" which you attributed to "you (collective)".

The ban on "unnecessary walking" in LA County is actually a ban on unnecessary travel by any means. Exceptions include going to church and going to protests. It also exempts what are commonly known as essential businesses. For the sports minded, it further exempts golf, tennis, and pickleball. It is part of what is generally referred to as a stay at home order, not unlike the restrictions imposed at the onset of the pandemic. Of course, a snappy title like "LA Mayor Bans Unnecessary Walking..." sells papers and catches peoples' eyes on social media. It goes without saying that you would actually have to read the article to find all that out.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2021, 07:08:18 pm

The ban on "unnecessary walking" in LA County is actually a ban on unnecessary travel by any means. Exceptions include going to church and going to protests. It also exempts what are commonly known as essential businesses. For the sports minded, it also exempts golf, tennis, and pickleball. It is part of what is generally referred to as a stay at home order, not unlike the restrictions imposed at the onset of the pandemic. Of course, a snappy title like "LA Mayor Bans Unnecessary Walking..." sells papers and catches peoples' eyes on social media. My feeling is that if you can still play pickleball, my use of the term "some restrictions" is appropriate.

In my book, going to church or to a street protest happening are the most blatant examples of non-essential activities.
On the other hand, a small shoe repair store with a handful of customers or a store with spare car items can police how many customers enter their stores and should be allowed to stay open.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 05, 2021, 07:10:01 pm
Got my second shot (Moderna Vaccine) at 9:30 CST this morning and so far, a lot of sore arm stiffness, a touch of nausea and a little fatigue. Hope this is as bad as it gets.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 06, 2021, 06:49:20 am
In my book, going to church or to a street protest happening are the most blatant examples of non-essential activities.

It's that pesky First Amendment. I don't know why God didn't give his followers the good sense not to go to church in a pandemic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 06, 2021, 10:27:35 am
Got my second shot (Moderna Vaccine) at 9:30 CST this morning and so far, a lot of sore arm stiffness, a touch of nausea and a little fatigue. Hope this is as bad as it gets.
How do you feel today, Chris?  My wife and I are due for our second shots Feb 19th. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 06, 2021, 02:56:12 pm
I'm fine today other than the sore arm but I had a sore arm for about three days after the first shot, too. It's a rather large needle and it goes in intramuscular. My wife, though, is experiencing some chills, general malaise and her arm also hurts like the dickens.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on February 06, 2021, 09:54:58 pm
My 88 year old mother received her second Moderna shot Thursday. Only symptom was extremely tired Friday and today with improving this afternoon. Appears that she had an immune response. I have read that one is not supposed to take any nsaids after the shot but Tylenol is ok. Something about them interfering with the immune response.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on February 07, 2021, 03:57:18 pm
Quote
South Africa halted use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford coronavirus vaccine on Sunday after evidence emerged that the vaccine did not protect clinical-trial participants from mild or moderate illness caused by the more contagious virus variant that was first seen there.

Source: NYT
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 08, 2021, 09:34:45 am
Source: NYT

For some more detailed information see this twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1358539975122419712

Bottom line is that the SA study was extremely small and the results have huge confidence bounds, so don't draw too many conclusions from it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 08, 2021, 09:50:43 am
In my book, going to church or to a street protest happening are the most blatant examples of non-essential activities.
On the other hand, a small shoe repair store with a handful of customers or a store with spare car items can police how many customers enter their stores and should be allowed to stay open.
The First Amendment to our Consitution protectss free speech and religious expression, not shoe repair stores.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 08, 2021, 09:53:07 am
I'm fine today other than the sore arm but I had a sore arm for about three days after the first shot, too. It's a rather large needle and it goes in intramuscular. My wife, though, is experiencing some chills, general malaise and her arm also hurts like the dickens.
Hope she feels better soon, you too.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 08, 2021, 09:54:44 am
My 88 year old mother received her second Moderna shot Thursday. Only symptom was extremely tired Friday and today with improving this afternoon. Appears that she had an immune response. I have read that one is not supposed to take any nsaids after the shot but Tylenol is ok. Something about them interfering with the immune response.
Hope your mom is doing better.  Where does she live?  We live in New Jersey and they've run out of vaccine for everyone looking to get it. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 12, 2021, 12:02:30 pm
Had my first shot today (Pfizer) No side effects so far except a strange compulsion to buy Microsoft products ... :-(
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 08:02:15 am
Had my first shot today (Pfizer) No side effects so far except a strange compulsion to buy Microsoft products ... :-(
Good luck.  we got our second Moderna Friday.  Again our arms hurt like the first shot..  But for my wife, she developed a little fever and chills but is Ok today. 

Interesting article on herd immunity.

Just what some of us have been observing here; the Swedes too.  It may turn out that those who will get the shots late, they might not need it.

The brutal COVID-19 surge that killed so many is now helping to create herd immunity
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/02/21/the-brutal-covid-19-surge-that-killed-so-many-is-now-helping-to-create-herd-immunity/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 08:10:54 am
When Could the United States Reach Herd Immunity? It’s Complicated.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/20/us/us-herd-immunity-covid.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 21, 2021, 09:41:03 am
When Could the United States Reach Herd Immunity? It’s Complicated.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/20/us/us-herd-immunity-covid.html

Not so much complicated, as false. That myth has been dispelled a long time ago.

Quote
Herd immunity, also known as “population immunity,” refers to the situation when enough members of a population, or “herd,” develop immunity to a pathogen to prevent further outbreaks. But not all infectious diseases can be controlled through herd immunity. Success depends on two factors:
- The percentage of the population that must develop immunity before the disease is controlled
- How long immunity lasts

https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/covid-19/2020/11/debunking-the-myth-of-non-vaccine-herd-immunity-in-covid-19/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 21, 2021, 10:01:50 am
Not so much complicated, as false. That myth has been dispelled a long time ago.

https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/covid-19/2020/11/debunking-the-myth-of-non-vaccine-herd-immunity-in-covid-19/

As one epidemilogist explained it:

Herd theory is simply the theory which states that if you do nothing during a pandemic, the people who don't die have immunity. For example, the Plague. Eventually, the pandemic ran it's course, and what followed was the Renaissance. Whose against the Renaissance?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 10:19:35 am
Not so much complicated, as false. That myth has been dispelled a long time ago.

https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/covid-19/2020/11/debunking-the-myth-of-non-vaccine-herd-immunity-in-covid-19/
The article you referenced addresses the issue from the standpoint of natural herd immunity.  It doesn't address adding vaccinations to hardly any degree.  At the time it was published, in Nov 2020, vaccines were not even out yet and they looked at it from a non-vaccination standpoint. 

In America, there have already been over 60 million vaccinations or roughly 18% of the general population, higher if you eliminate children in the population who don;t appear to spread the disease or get infected to a large degree.  Some have estimated we may have 33% infected already naturally, so we're at 50% when you add the vaccinations to date. 

The fact is the spread is down to about half of what it was just a couple of months ago.  We're running out of people to get infected as well.  Finally, herd immunity is a well-established medical understanding.  The writers of that article need to update their predictions.  They're wrong.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 10:22:29 am
As one epidemilogist explained it:

Herd theory is simply the theory which states that if you do nothing during a pandemic, the people who don't die have immunity. For example, the Plague. Eventually, the pandemic ran it's course, and what followed was the Renaissance. Whose against the Renaissance?
That's exactly what's happening with COvid. However, we're also vaccinating the population.  Also, medical procedures save people today and the disease is not as deadly as the plague. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 10:27:32 am
The article you referenced addresses the issue from the standpoint of natural herd immunity.  It doesn't address adding vaccinations to hardly any degree.  At the time it was published, in Nov 2020, vaccines were not even out yet and they looked at it from a non-vaccination standpoint. 
"
"In America, there have already been over 60 million vaccinations or roughly 18% of the general population, higher if you eliminate children in the population who don;t appear to spread the disease or get infected to a large degree.  Some have estimated we may have 33% infected already naturally, so we're at 50% when you add the vaccinations to date. 

The fact is the spread is down to about half of what it was just a couple of months ago.  We're running out of people to get infected as well.  Finally, herd immunity is a well-established medical understanding.  The writers of that article need to update their predictions.  They're wrong."
"

The last two paragraphs from their article provide positive news about vaccines and would provide herd immunity.  So actually, their beliefs are better considering we now have effective vaccines.  The article was published before the vaccines came out in Nov.

The goal of vaccines is to stimulate long-lasting immunity without the collateral damage of natural infection. We don’t yet know how long lasting the immunity from the vaccine candidates will be, but if they prove to have a good safety profile, they will represent the only viable way of achieving herd immunity, even if it means yearly vaccination.

Until a vaccine is widely available, we must suppress transmission by limiting contact with non-household members, and wearing masks and distancing when contact with others is unavoidable. These measures work and will limit unnecessary deaths and economic impact while we wait for an effective vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 10:59:08 am
Israeli data shows Pfizer vaccine nearly 99 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 death 2 weeks after 2nd dose
The early results on lab-confirmed infections are important because they show the vaccine may also prevent asymptomatic carriers from spreading the virus that causes Covid-19, something that hadn’t been clear so far. Stopping transmission in this way is a key factor as countries seek to lift contact restrictions and re-open economies.
https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-data-shows-pfizer-vaccine-185500893.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 21, 2021, 12:32:44 pm
The article you referenced addresses the issue from the standpoint of natural herd immunity.  It doesn't address adding vaccinations to hardly any degree.  At the time it was published, in Nov 2020, vaccines were not even out yet and they looked at it from a non-vaccination standpoint. 

In America, there have already been over 60 million vaccinations or roughly 18% of the general population, higher if you eliminate children in the population who don;t appear to spread the disease or get infected to a large degree.  Some have estimated we may have 33% infected already naturally, so we're at 50% when you add the vaccinations to date. 

The fact is the spread is down to about half of what it was just a couple of months ago.  We're running out of people to get infected as well.  Finally, herd immunity is a well-established medical understanding.  The writers of that article need to update their predictions.  They're wrong.

Correct, the number of infected people is estimated at 33% of the total US population and the latest infection and death numbers are about half from a couple months of ago. The steep spike in those numbers was caused primarily by the reckless and absolutely non essential Trump rallies, BLM street protests and riots, and also by the mass travels and get-togethers during Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The current covid numbers are still more than twice as high as in July. Low points in June - 21K cases, in September 35K and in February 69K.

The covid fiasco is not confined only to US. In Sweden, the herd immunity attempt failed also miserably.

https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-plays-down-immunity-hopes-151842673.html
 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 21, 2021, 12:36:46 pm
Until a vaccine is widely available, we must suppress transmission by limiting contact with non-household members, and wearing masks and distancing when contact with others is unavoidable. These measures work and will limit unnecessary deaths and economic impact while we wait for an effective vaccine.[/i]

That's the right approach. This is something Trump should have ordered a year ago instead of ridiculing mask wearing and denying the covid pandemic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 21, 2021, 12:41:17 pm
Israeli data shows Pfizer vaccine nearly 99 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 death 2 weeks after 2nd dose
The early results on lab-confirmed infections are important because they show the vaccine may also prevent asymptomatic carriers from spreading the virus that causes Covid-19, something that hadn’t been clear so far. Stopping transmission in this way is a key factor as countries seek to lift contact restrictions and re-open economies.
https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-data-shows-pfizer-vaccine-185500893.html

Could be due also to mandatory mask wearing.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 01:23:19 pm
Correct, the number of infected people is estimated at 33% of the total US population and the latest infection and death numbers are about half from a couple months of ago. The steep spike in those numbers was caused primarily by the reckless and absolutely non essential Trump rallies, BLM street protests and riots, and also by the mass travels and get-togethers during Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The current covid numbers are still more than twice as high as in July. Low points in June - 21K cases, in September 35K and in February 69K.

The covid fiasco is not confined only to US. In Sweden, the herd immunity attempt failed also miserably.

https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-plays-down-immunity-hopes-151842673.html
 
Herd immunity didn't fail.  It has to reach a certain percentage for it to work.  Once you do, then the rest of the people are safe without the vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2021, 01:41:52 pm
Could be due also to mandatory mask wearing.

I won't repeat what I think of mandatory mask wearing (I am already dangerously near to being banned)...

But I can photographically illustrate non-mandatory masked romance:
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 21, 2021, 01:54:08 pm
I won't repeat what I think of mandatory mask wearing (I am already dangerously near to being banned)...

But I can photographically illustrate non-mandatory masked romance:

Wearing a mask is a sound precaution at that stage. Once they move closer, they might need other protective device. Not-mandatory, but highly recommended.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 21, 2021, 02:16:10 pm
I won't repeat what I think of mandatory mask wearing (I am already dangerously near to being banned)...

But I can photographically illustrate non-mandatory masked romance:
How do you flirt when you wear a mask?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 21, 2021, 04:58:03 pm
You let your hands do the talking...age old technology still works
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on February 21, 2021, 05:23:46 pm
I won't repeat what I think of mandatory mask wearing (I am already dangerously near to being banned)...

But I can photographically illustrate non-mandatory masked romance:

You may have missed it, but I think the guy who would have banned you has been...banned.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 22, 2021, 06:38:54 am
That's exactly what's happening with COvid.
It's not, because:

Quote
we're also vaccinating the population.   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 22, 2021, 06:41:23 am
Herd immunity didn't fail.  It has to reach a certain percentage for it to work.  Once you do, then the rest of the people are safe without the vaccine.

But that percentage is very high. If you rely on it happening naturally you will get huge numbers of dead people.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

"Covid-19: Is Manaus the final nail in the coffin for natural herd immunity?"
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 22, 2021, 08:37:43 am
But that percentage is very high. If you rely on it happening naturally you will get huge numbers of dead people.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

"Covid-19: Is Manaus the final nail in the coffin for natural herd immunity?"
I never advocated not using vaccines.  Anything that gets us up to herd immunity faster is better.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 22, 2021, 11:49:40 am
In case anyone is interested in learning about the virus and how vaccines can help, this seems to be a good article:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n05/rupert-beale/eeek
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on February 22, 2021, 02:17:16 pm
In case anyone is interested in learning about the virus and how vaccines can help, this seems to be a good article . . .

Thanks for posting the link.  Among other things, the article contains the first clear explanation I've read for the mutant nomenclature, which previously seemed completely opaque to me.

The conclusion is both interesting and somewhat alarming since it implies that this virus is likely to be with us indefinitely absent the development of new vaccine technology and a coordinated effort to distribute both current and future vaccines worldwide:

Quote
What might the end of the pandemic look like? There are two main possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that Sars-CoV-2 becomes an endemic coronavirus that gives rise to large numbers of infections in winter. Vaccinated or previously infected people may get infected again, but because they have some measure of immunity their infections will be mild, much as with the four seasonal coronaviruses we have lived with for decades. Unvaccinated people and an unlucky few whose immunity isn’t protective may become seriously ill. . . .

The second, more desirable outcome is that we treat Sars-CoV-2 a bit like measles, and try to stamp it out as completely as we can. . . . With better vaccine technology we might be able to direct a very strong antibody response to the bits of Spike that the virus can’t do without; alternatively, there might be a vaccine that covers a wide range of different Spike variants – so wide that there is no way for the virus to evolve to escape them all.

In either case, we should push for a global effort to reduce the spread of the virus and ensure that vaccines are available and administered in resource-poor settings as well as highly developed economies. . . .
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 22, 2021, 02:25:53 pm
What I find interesting, is that neither my wife nor I have had a common cold in the last year, an unusual circumstance.  Probably due to isolation and masks.  I wonder if there have been any studies on this yet? 

Also, are there any theories yet that Cornovirus will just reduce the danger to that of the common cold or the seasonal flu?  The latter has many deaths, not nearly as bad as Covid, but still significant, probably in the order of tens of thousands per year.  IF it follows seasonal flu in danger and deaths, how best to respond to it?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on February 22, 2021, 02:29:16 pm
Thanks for posting the link.  Among other things, the article contains the first clear explanation I've read for the mutant nomenclature, which previously seemed completely opaque to me.

The conclusion is both interesting and somewhat alarming since it implies that this virus is likely to be with us indefinitely absent the development of new vaccine technology and a coordinated effort to distribute both current and future vaccines worldwide:

I hate to use a flu comparison, because of the poor uses to which such comparisons have been made in the past, but I think covid in the future may be like bad cases of the flu. You'll go in to Walgreens every September and get your covid shot, and your arm will be sore for a couple of days, and in October you'll go in for your flu shot.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Dale Villeponteaux on February 24, 2021, 11:47:26 am
Kudos to those who have posted in this topic.
It is both informative and civil.

Gratefully,
Dale
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 24, 2021, 10:56:06 pm
I hate to use a flu comparison, because of the poor uses to which such comparisons have been made in the past, but I think covid in the future may be like bad cases of the flu. You'll go in to Walgreens every September and get your covid shot, and your arm will be sore for a couple of days, and in October you'll go in for your flu shot.
I could see that happening.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 25, 2021, 12:40:19 pm
Good news.

Nursing Homes, Once Hotspots, Far Outpace U.S. in Covid Declines
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/25/us/nursing-home-covid-vaccine.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 25, 2021, 01:08:47 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvFC-NXXEAI7qmD?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 25, 2021, 03:22:58 pm
"Percentage of tests that are positive" is only somewhat informative, as it depends on several variables: size and structure of the testing populations, type of tests, accuracy of tests used (some tests are more prone to false positive - antigen tests, for instance), and last, but not least, being tested positive may not necessarily mean much, as a good portion of those may not have any symptoms. Numbers of hospitalized, and deaths are better, though not 100% accurate (e.g., died from covid vs. died with covid). Also, Florida has the oldest population of any US state, i.e., more likely to be tested, infected, hospitalized and dead.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: EricV on February 25, 2021, 04:48:46 pm
Lower "percentage of tests that are positive" most certainly does not justify "cases have fallen more sharply".   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 25, 2021, 05:38:30 pm
Recent Sloan research examined Covid-19 death rates and mobility data in more than 100 countries from June to December of 2020, to analyze the severity of the pandemic relative to the change in economic activity. The researchers used the Google stats from daily visits to retail, recreational and workplace locations and compared to death numbers.
 
Quote
Mobility data from Google, serving as a proxy for economic activity, measured the percent change in two categories: daily visits to retail and recreation locations, and to workplaces. If there were a predictable tradeoff between public health and economic activity, then mobility would be higher in countries with higher death rates, because lockdowns or other restrictions were less aggressive, allowing more activity. Mobility would be lower in places with lower death rates, where shutdowns were more stringent.

Some countries with high death rates had the biggest declines in mobility, meaning they fared the worst economically. Other countries with lower death rates had smaller declines in mobility, meaning those economies didn’t contract as much.

The United States had one of the highest death rates, but it fared worse than average economically. The average death rate for all countries was 1.13 deaths per million people per day. The U.S. rate was 2.97 deaths per million, or 163% higher. Mobility, on average, declined 18.5% among all countries. In the U.S., it declined 22.7%. There was no economic payoff for tolerating a higher death rate than elsewhere.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-big-myth-that-botched-the-us-covid-response-183546860.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 26, 2021, 10:37:18 am
Thanks to Operation Warp Speed:

Herd immunity threshold is likely months away
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 83 million people in the United States had Covid-19 by the end of 2020, putting the nation about a third of the way to herd immunity, the point at which enough people are protected against a disease so that it cannot spread through the population. If the pace of vaccinations continues at the current rate, the country could approach herd immunity through a combination of natural immunity and vaccination around June.

More than 66 million shots have been administered, according to the latest federal data, with nearly 8% of the US population fully vaccinated. Promises from manufacturers indicate that the US should have enough vaccine supply to cover everyone by June. More than a quarter of the population may already have natural immunity after previous infection -- and that number may be much higher than official counts show.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/health/herd-immunity-united-states/index.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 26, 2021, 10:58:38 am
Thanks to Operation Warp Speed:

Herd immunity threshold is likely months away
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 83 million people in the United States had Covid-19 by the end of 2020, putting the nation about a third of the way to herd immunity, the point at which enough people are protected against a disease so that it cannot spread through the population. If the pace of vaccinations continues at the current rate, the country could approach herd immunity through a combination of natural immunity and vaccination around June.

More than 66 million shots have been administered, according to the latest federal data, with nearly 8% of the US population fully vaccinated. Promises from manufacturers indicate that the US should have enough vaccine supply to cover everyone by June. More than a quarter of the population may already have natural immunity after previous infection -- and that number may be much higher than official counts show.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/health/herd-immunity-united-states/index.html

In other news, thanks to Operation It Will Magically Go Away, the current number deaths in the US due to COVID stands at 520,980.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Let us bow our heads for a moment of silence in remembrance of our fallen citizens who gave their lives so that our former President could live in denial.

"One of the more common responses to disaster is the psychological defense of denial—the problem doesn’t exist. COVID-19 demonstrates that denial is more than protean; it can provide (for some) pleasant and profitable experiences."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-rest/202005/covid-19-and-the-pleasures-denial
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on February 26, 2021, 11:09:07 am
Thanks to Operation Warp Speed:

Herd immunity threshold is likely months away
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 83 million people in the United States had Covid-19 by the end of 2020, putting the nation about a third of the way to herd immunity, the point at which enough people are protected against a disease so that it cannot spread through the population. If the pace of vaccinations continues at the current rate, the country could approach herd immunity through a combination of natural immunity and vaccination around June.

More than 66 million shots have been administered, according to the latest federal data, with nearly 8% of the US population fully vaccinated. Promises from manufacturers indicate that the US should have enough vaccine supply to cover everyone by June. More than a quarter of the population may already have natural immunity after previous infection -- and that number may be much higher than official counts show.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/health/herd-immunity-united-states/index.html

You're correct in crediting Operation Warp Speed in bringing us closer to herd immunity. It did this by allowing millions of Americans to unnecessarily become infected through attacks on the wearing of masks and social distancing, and more than a half million to die. I don't think Operation Warp Speed deliberately crippled vaccine distribution, but it might as well have, as incompetent as it was before Biden took office. But, that's the way you achieve herd immunity, by encouraging infection either deliberately or through neglect. And, if more than 500,000 people die, and more every day, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 26, 2021, 11:50:30 am
You're correct in crediting Operation Warp Speed in bringing us closer to herd immunity. It did this by allowing millions of Americans to unnecessarily become infected through attacks on the wearing of masks and social distancing, and more than a half million to die. I don't think Operation Warp Speed deliberately crippled vaccine distribution, but it might as well have, as incompetent as it was before Biden took office. But, that's the way you achieve herd immunity, by encouraging infection either deliberately or through neglect. And, if more than 500,000 people die, and more every day, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Here we go again.  The governors controlled opening venues in their states, not the federal government.  Gov Murphy controlled it all here in my state of New Jersey. Cuomo in NY.  Newsom in CA. etc.  Beyond that, blaming one man and not even the Chinese shows political bias.  Arguing that distribution was incompetent before Biden took office is a non-starter.  It was mainly set up before.  Were adjustments needed after it started?  Of course. Every program requires modifications along the way and Trump would have done those as well if he was re-elected. When you plan a photoshoot, does it go exactly as you planned it? The fact is 20 million were vaccinated by Jan 20th when Trump left office.  A month later it is 70 million.  All of this was in the pipeline pre-planned in Operation Warp Speed, including nearly all the ordering for the shots. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 26, 2021, 12:04:28 pm
Here we go again.

Here we go again indeed.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 26, 2021, 12:38:54 pm
"Percentage of tests that are positive" is only somewhat informative, as it depends on several variables: size and structure of the testing populations, type of tests, accuracy of tests used (some tests are more prone to false positive - antigen tests, for instance), and last, but not least, being tested positive may not necessarily mean much, as a good portion of those may not have any symptoms. Numbers of hospitalized, and deaths are better, though not 100% accurate (e.g., died from covid vs. died with covid). Also, Florida has the oldest population of any US state, i.e., more likely to be tested, infected, hospitalized and dead.

Including all that information in a subtitle would make for a pretty turgid piece of copy!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 05:31:35 am
... the current number deaths in the US due to COVID stands at 520,980....

In other words, we now have 120,980 deaths thanks exclusively to the Comrade-In-Chief Biden, in just five weeks! What an accomplishment! From "I'll shut down the virus" before elected, to "There is nothing I can do about it" after.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 05:44:02 am
In other words, we now have 120,980 deaths thanks exclusively to the Comrade-In-Chief Biden, in just five weeks! What an accomplishment! From "I'll shut down the virus" before elected, to "There is nothing I can do about it" after.

Actually, there has been a remarkable decrease of covid cases in USA since Biden assumed the office. That's quite an accomplishment, indeed.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 06:01:30 am
A senior from Alsace was harassed by the police on his way to the corona vaccination.

Quote
An 88-year-old man from Alsace, France drove into a speed trap at 191 kilometers per hour. As the police in the Bas-Rhin department announced, the incident occurred on Thursday around noon. When the officials stopped him near the town of Bischoffsheim, the man justified the massive speeding violation with a corona vaccination appointment, which he would otherwise be late for.

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/grand-est/bas-rhin-flashe-a-191km-heure-un-automobiliste-explique-qu-il-etait-en-retard-pour-le-vaccin-anti-covid-1972849.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 07:25:34 am
Actually, there has been a remarkable decrease of covid cases in USA since Biden assumed the office. That's quite an accomplishment, indeed

 ;D ;D ;D

Due to which measure of his?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 07:28:48 am
Actually, there has been a remarkable decrease of covid cases in USA since Biden assumed the office...

Actually, if you really look at the graph, you'd see the remarkably low level of cases under Trump, up until the election time, when Democrats ramped up the panic porn to win the election.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 10:13:12 am
Actually, if you really look at the graph, you'd see the remarkably low level of cases under Trump, up until the election time, when Democrats ramped up the panic porn to win the election.

It's purely physics and logic.
The virus didn't know and care about the election timeline, it was governed only by the transmission conditions. The dramatic increase in December and early January was due more to the Thanksgiving and Christmas travel and get-togethers, as well as to the reckless pre-election Trump's rallies and street protest crowds.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 10:17:39 am
It's purely physics and logic.
The virus didn't know and care about the election timeline, it was governed only by the transmission conditions. The dramatic increase in December and early January was due more to the Thanksgiving and Christmas travel and get-togethers, as well as to the reckless pre-election Trump's rallies and street protest crowds.

... therefore, the drop after the holidays is NOT Biden's accomplishment. Pure logic, my friend. You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 10:21:16 am
To put things into perspective...

A staggering 93% of all deaths from/with Covid are in the 55-85+ age group (in America).

A staggering 93% of all media reports concentrates on cases that otherwise are just 7% (this stat I invented, but not far from the truth).

Source: https://www.heritage.org/.../publ.../covid-19-deaths-by-age/

Spreadsheet mine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 27, 2021, 12:00:16 pm
;D ;D ;D

Due to which measure of his?

He's using the same people who counted the votes for Trump.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 12:56:10 pm
... therefore, the drop after the holidays is NOT Biden's accomplishment. Pure logic, my friend. You can't have it both ways.

Sorry, I should have said - physics, logic and incubation time. Incubation and manifestation time for the covid virus is 5-14 days.
It is true that in March 2020 the covid cases and deaths were very low. But under Trump's leadership they ramped up consistently and significantly.  The 3 peaks on the supplied chart fall on Nov 24, Dec. 17 and Jan 8 (the highest peak) - all prior to Biden's takeover. It is obvious that, even the Covid didn't like Trump. Miraculously (like Trump would say), the chart falls like a stone 5 days after the Inauguration day.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 27, 2021, 01:07:01 pm
Sorry, I should have said - physics, logic and incubation time. Incubation and manifestation time for the covid virus is 5-14 days.
It is true that in March 2020 the covid cases and deaths were very low. But under Trump's leadership they ramped up consistently and significantly.  The 3 peaks on the supplied chart fall on Nov 24, Dec. 17 and Jan 8 (the highest peak) - all prior to Biden's takeover. It is obvious that, even the Covid didn't like Trump. Miraculously (like Trump would say), the chart falls like a stone 5 days after the Inauguration day.
Who do we blame for 35000 approx annual flu deaths every year, year after year? This whole blame game for natural diseases is just political.  If a Covid variant hits us later this year, are we going to blame Biden for that?  Maybe we should stay locked down just in case?  After all, we wouldn't want him to get blamed.  At what point do we set aside risk and potential fatalities, consider harm to the economy,  and get on with our lives?   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 01:27:14 pm
Who do we blame for 35000 approx annual flu deaths every year, year after year? This whole blame game for natural diseases is just political.  If a Covid variant hits us later this year, are we going to blame Biden for that?  Maybe we should stay locked down just in case?  After all, we wouldn't want him to get blamed.  At what point do we set aside risk and potential fatalities, consider harm to the economy,  and get on with our lives?

Trump didn't cause the virus. But due to his ignorance, incompetency and procrastination he greatly contributed to the exceedingly large number of deaths in USA, and invariably even to some export of it to Canada. No wonder Trudeau can't stand him.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 27, 2021, 01:34:11 pm
Trump didn't cause the virus. But due to his ignorance, incompetency and procrastination he greatly contributed to the exceedingly large number of deaths in USA, and invariably even to some export of it to Canada. No wonder Trudeau can't stand him.
Canada has a huge Chinese population and loads of them visit Canada.  Blaming America and Trump for Covid transmission to Canada is way off.  Trudeau could have shut down travel from the US like Trump shut down Chinese travel to the US. Also, why is Canada so low in numbers of vaccinations?  Is that Trump's fault too?  This reminds me of American Democrat governors blaming Republican Trump when they are the ones making decisions about opening venues and how many people can assemble. Just exactly what is Canada, Canadians, and Trudeau responsible for, if anything?   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 02:23:13 pm
Canada has a huge Chinese population and loads of them visit Canada.  Blaming America and Trump for Covid transmission to Canada is way off.  Trudeau could have shut down travel from the US like Trump shut down Chinese travel to the US. Also, why is Canada so low in numbers of vaccinations?  Is that Trump's fault too?  This reminds me of American Democrat governors blaming Republican Trump when they are the ones making decisions about opening venues and how many people can assemble. Just exactly what is Canada, Canadians, and Trudeau responsible for, if anything?

Alan, as you may have noticed, I seldom use those silly yellow circles, since I address my posts to smart people, who can usually tell how it was meant. Just to clarify, the sentence abut Trudeau not liking Trump and covid export across the border was said as a joke. Both, Canada and US have had for some time now quite strict rules about crossing the border. Otherwise, I would be swimming in the warm ocean now instead of shoveling snow from my driveway.

Canada is indeed still quite low in numbers of vaccinations, but fortunately also much lower than USA in number of covid cases and deaths.
To answer your last sentence, Canada is partially responsible for Ted Cruz, who was born here. On the other hand, Jim Carrey who can't stand Trump nor Cruz was also born here.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 27, 2021, 02:42:05 pm
Alan, as you may have noticed, I seldom use those silly yellow circles, since I address my posts to smart people, who can usually tell how it was meant. Just to clarify, the sentence abut Trudeau not liking Trump and covid export across the border was said as a joke. Both, Canada and US have had for some time now quite strict rules about crossing the border. Otherwise, I would be swimming in the warm ocean now instead of shoveling snow from my driveway.

Canada is indeed still quite low in numbers of vaccinations, but fortunately also much lower than USA in number of covid cases and deaths.
To answer your last sentence, Canada is partially responsible for Ted Cruz, who was born here. On the other hand, Jim Carrey who can't stand Trump nor Cruz was also born here.
Little yellow faces sometimes help me.  Glad it was all in jest.  For a moment, I thought we'd be responsible for your hockey teams.  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on February 27, 2021, 03:33:21 pm
Trump didn't cause the virus. But due to his ignorance, incompetency and procrastination he greatly contributed to the exceedingly large number of deaths in USA, and invariably even to some export of it to Canada. No wonder Trudeau can't stand him.

+1
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 07:09:03 pm
Trump didn't cause the virus. But due to his ignorance, incompetency and procrastination he greatly contributed to the exceedingly large number of deaths in USA, and invariably even to some export of it to Canada. No wonder Trudeau can't stand him.

That is just pure unwillingness to accept even simple reasoning, parroting the party line instead. Is he also responsible for deaths in other counties? On a per capita basis, the US is somewhere in the middle.

It is a freaking natural event that is going to run its course no matter what we do. For that very reason the numbers are similar in the free Florida as in the fascist California. Austria and Serbia, to name a few examples.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 07:12:04 pm
Sorry, I should have said - physics, logic and incubation time. Incubation and manifestation time for the covid virus is 5-14 days.
It is true that in March 2020 the covid cases and deaths were very low. But under Trump's leadership they ramped up consistently and significantly.  The 3 peaks on the supplied chart fall on Nov 24, Dec. 17 and Jan 8 (the highest peak) - all prior to Biden's takeover. It is obvious that, even the Covid didn't like Trump. Miraculously (like Trump would say), the chart falls like a stone 5 days after the Inauguration day.

You keep bouncing between “it was the holidays” and “it is Trump’s fault.” Make up your mind and stick to it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 07:22:29 pm
That is just pure unwillingness to accept even simple reasoning, parroting the party line instead. Is he also responsible for deaths in other counties? On a per capita basis, the US is somewhere in the middle.
I'm not parroting any party line. That was a rather nicely flowing sentence I made myself up (after I toned it down somewhat).

You keep bouncing between “it was the holidays” and “it is Trump’s fault.” Make your mind and stick to it.
I didn't say holidays OR Trump's fault. I said holidays AND Trump's reckless rallies. Perfect example of rule of compounding in action.

BTW, are you posting from free Florida or from Serbia?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2021, 07:45:25 pm
... BTW, are you posting from free Florida or from Serbia?

From free Serbia.

Got my first Pfizer in Thursday. No major reaction, just a bit tired the day after.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 27, 2021, 07:49:06 pm
Why isn't anyone blaming China?  That's where it started and that's where it was deliberately hidden from the rest of the world.  Why is everyone blaming the victims?  We're trying to do the best we can under a horrendous situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on February 27, 2021, 08:19:17 pm
Why isn't anyone blaming China?

Do you mean for not closing down its "wet markets?"  Western governments and non-governmental organizations have been urging that for many years, but it's not just China: the markets where live animals cohabit exist in many Asian countries.  It's difficult to change ingrained cultural traditions and the only practical response to venues which breed interspecies propagation of pathogens in a global travel environment may be better preventative and therapeutic medical technology.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 27, 2021, 10:45:33 pm
Why isn't anyone blaming China?  That's where it started and that's where it was deliberately hidden from the rest of the world.  Why is everyone blaming the victims?  We're trying to do the best we can under a horrendous situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Most definitely, China is the culprit. But they don't want to argue.
Interestingly, they stopped reporting new cases and deaths. Did they reach herd immunity or how do you explain that?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: BobShaw on February 28, 2021, 01:37:32 am
Interestingly, they stopped reporting new cases and deaths. Did they reach herd immunity or how do you explain that?
Well they reported 6 new cases today. No idea how accurate their reports are.

I guess maybe if you tell people to stay inside and they do because a soldier is outside with a gun and you spray the street with disinfectant from drones and by soldiers walking in a straight row down the road and nobody comes in or out then after after a couple of weeks it stops.

Most countries have have very few recent cases with much less severe approaches.
We have had two deaths in Australia since October.
Then there is the US which had more deaths today than most countries have had in total.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 28, 2021, 03:06:51 am
Savage! 😂
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 28, 2021, 04:52:46 am
Czech Republic has initially controlled covid spread very effectively, but in the last 5 months the virus got out of control, and now the country has six times as many cases as USA (per capita). There are no tourists in the country and Old Town in Prague is eerily empty, ideal for photographing empty streets and squares.

Quote
Nearly a year after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the Czech Republic has the highest per capita rate of new Covid-19 cases in the EU, with 107,777 cases per million inhabitants, the Czech News Agency reported on Sunday.

Globally, it is the most affected country by coronavirus, after Andorra and Montenegro. The Czech Republic also places third in the EU and fourth in the world in terms of per capita number of Covid-19 deaths, with just under 1,800 deaths per million inhabitants.

Over 1.1 million cases of the virus have been confirmed in the country since the virus was first registered in the country on March 1, 2020. To date, 19,214 people infected with coronavirus have died in the Czech Republic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on February 28, 2021, 07:32:33 am
New study on hydroxychloroquine:

"HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00053-5/fulltext
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 28, 2021, 07:42:13 am
Savage! 😂

Mostly just looks ignorant.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 28, 2021, 07:47:07 am
Why isn't anyone blaming China?  That's where it started and that's where it was deliberately hidden from the rest of the world.  Why is everyone blaming the victims?  We're trying to do the best we can under a horrendous situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Everyone knows and agrees on China's role - what's to discuss? The victims are the 500k dead Americans, the 120K dead Britons etc etc most of whom died needlessly due to the incompetence of their leaders.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 09:49:09 am
Do you mean for not closing down its "wet markets?"  Western governments and non-governmental organizations have been urging that for many years, but it's not just China: the markets where live animals cohabit exist in many Asian countries.  It's difficult to change ingrained cultural traditions and the only practical response to venues which breed interspecies propagation of pathogens in a global travel environment may be better preventative and therapeutic medical technology.
No, that's dismissing all their deliberate malfeasance, possibly criminal.  It appears it was released from the lab coincidentally located in Wuhan, the center of the disease.  So they are responsible for negligence at a minimum.   Worse, they allowed infected Chinese to travel to the rest of the world while quarantining their own country shutting down intra-country travel from Wuhan. They knew the dangers otherwise they would not have quarantined Wuhan.  Then they lied about the whole danger of the disease for weeks when the world could have gotten a jump on it. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 09:52:26 am
Most definitely, China is the culprit. But they don't want to argue.
Interestingly, they stopped reporting new cases and deaths. Did they reach herd immunity or how do you explain that?
They're a police state. They even lock sick people in their homes and beat them up if they don't comply with rules and regulations.  Would you accept that in Canada?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 09:55:11 am
Czech Republic has initially controlled covid spread very effectively, but in the last 5 months the virus got out of control, and now the country has six times as many cases as USA (per capita). There are no tourists in the country and Old Town in Prague is eerily empty, ideal for photographing empty streets and squares.

They should invite the Chinese Army in to straighten them out and set them right.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 09:58:25 am
Everyone knows and agrees on China's role - what's to discuss? The victims are the 500k dead Americans, the 120K dead Britons etc etc most of whom died needlessly due to the incompetence of their leaders.
What did Britain do that was negligent?  I'm not familiar with the situation there. Were they listening to Trump?  In any case,  I have read their vaccination program is better than anyone else's.  So there's that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 28, 2021, 10:08:46 am
What did Britain do that was negligent?  I'm not familiar with the situation there. Were they listening to Trump?  In any case,  I have read their vaccination program is better than anyone else's.  So there's that.

So many things - too slow to lock down even when they had the example of Italy to see what would happen, didn't close borders, didn't have an effective tracing system, didn't support people to stay at home and isolate with covid, opened up too soon, allowed too much travel over Christmas. Much the same as Trump I suppose. They got it right with ordering a lot of vaccine and in giving it to the NHS to distribute instead of their cronies who got a lot of the other big contracts.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on February 28, 2021, 10:30:54 am
They're a police state. They even lock sick people in their homes and beat them up if they don't comply with rules and regulations.  Would you accept that in Canada?

Do they really beat people? Maybe it's just sexual role playing. Or did they send out a dominatrix brigade?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 10:32:11 am
So many things - too slow to lock down even when they had the example of Italy to see what would happen, didn't close borders, didn't have an effective tracing system, didn't support people to stay at home and isolate with covid, opened up too soon, allowed too much travel over Christmas. Much the same as Trump I suppose. They got it right with ordering a lot of vaccine and in giving it to the NHS to distribute instead of their cronies who got a lot of the other big contracts.
Maybe the government was doing pretty much what the people wanted.  Also, they were caught between a rock and a hard place.  Britain was already dealing with Brexit and its economic problems. The last thing you needed was Covid to make it worse.  So you try to balance maintaining economic conditions so people can feed themselves vs. risking the spreading of disease.  Also, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback the game after it's over.  We should have done this.  We should have done that.  Stop "should-ing" on yourself. At least you did some things better, such as the vaccinations.  You should be happy and proud of that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on February 28, 2021, 12:41:45 pm
...  It appears it was released from the lab coincidentally located in Wuhan, the center of the disease.  So they are responsible for negligence at a minimum.  ...

Is this a true fact or a made-up fact?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 01:11:30 pm
Is this a true fact or a made-up fact?
International incidents don't get tried in a court of law.  We all make decisions based on available information and logic.  The lab was in Wuhan working on this virus.  That's where the disease started.  The Chinese want you to believe it started in a food market. You could believe whatever you want. 

We have to make decisions as a country on how we deal with other countries.  Did Salman order the death of Khashoggi? He denies it.  The CIA says they believe he was responsible although they also have no conclusive evidence, just strong reasoned judgment.  Most international affairs decisions are not based on evidence being represented in a court of law.  We have to make reasoned judgments.  Even if it was naturally released in a market, they still lied to the world about it and continued to send infected Chinese to travel to infect the rest of the world.  The lab is just part of the issue with them.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on February 28, 2021, 01:20:23 pm
Is this a true fact or a made-up fact?

It's an Alan fact.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on February 28, 2021, 01:40:34 pm
It's an Alan fact.
What's your fact? That Trump killed half a million people?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on February 28, 2021, 01:46:22 pm
We all make decisions based on available information and logic.

Oh, how I wish that was actually a fact.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on February 28, 2021, 01:48:21 pm
You could believe whatever you want. 

Now that's a well proven fact!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: josh.reichmann on February 28, 2021, 02:06:57 pm
Steer the thread back to the topic of “promising new coronavirus vaccine” or shuttle the overtly political to the one and only political thread.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on February 28, 2021, 02:42:09 pm
A recent and fairly lengthy article on the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine with some comparison to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Full article link

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/02/comparing-the-covid-19-vaccines-developed-by-pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson (https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/02/comparing-the-covid-19-vaccines-developed-by-pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson/)

Selected excerpts below

On Feb. 27, the Food and Drug Administration announced it had issued an emergency use authorization for Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose Covid vaccine. Developed by J&J’s vaccines division, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, it was shown to be 66% protective against moderate to severe Covid infection in a multi-country study. Importantly, it was 85% effective in protecting against severe disease. And there were no hospitalizations or deaths among people in the vaccine arm of a large clinical trial.

Overall efficacy varied a bit geographically, especially in South Africa, where a new variant appears to evade to some degree the immunity induced both by infection and by Covid vaccines, which were designed to target earlier strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made using messenger RNA, or mRNA, a technology that delivers a bit of genetic code to cells — in effect, a recipe to make the surface protein (known as spike) on the SARS-2 virus. The proteins made with the mRNA instructions activate the immune system, teaching it to see the spike protein as foreign and develop antibodies and other immunity weapons with which to fight it.

The J&J vaccine uses a different approach to instruct human cells to make the SARS-2 spike protein, which then triggers an immune response. It is what’s known as a viral vectored vaccine. A harmless adenovirus — from a large family of viruses, some of which cause common colds — has been engineered to carry the genetic code for the SARS-2 spike protein. Once the adenovirus enters cells, they use that code to make spike proteins.  J&J employed this same approach to make an Ebola vaccine that has been authorized for use by the European Medicines Agency.

Because of the difference in the trials, making direct comparisons is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Additionally, Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were tested before the emergence of troubling new variants in Britain, South Africa, and Brazil. It’s not entirely clear how well they will work against these mutated viruses.

The J&J vaccine was still being tested when the variants were making the rounds. Much of the data generated in the South African arm of the J&J trial involved people who were infected with the variant first seen in South Africa, called B.1.351.

The J&J one-dose vaccine was shown to be 66% protective against moderate to severe Covid infections overall from 28 days after injection, though there was variability based on geographic locations. The vaccine was 72% protective in the United States, 66% protective in South America, and 57% protective in South Africa.

But the vaccine was shown to be 85% protective against severe disease, with no differences across the eight countries or three regions in the study, nor across age groups among trial participants. And there were no hospitalizations or deaths in the vaccine arm of the trial after the 28-day period in which immunity developed.

It’s not yet known if any of these vaccines prevent asymptomatic infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nor is it known if vaccinated people can transmit the virus if they do become infected but don’t show symptoms.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 03, 2021, 08:23:05 am
Good news if you've been vaccinated.  Of course, he doesn't explain why it's unsafe to go into society the same way.  I assume that's because vaccines aren't 100% effective. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said in a press conference Monday that if you — and all your guests — are vaccinated, a dinner gathering should be relatively safe.

“Small gatherings in the home, I think you can clearly feel the relative risk is so low you wouldn’t have to wear the mask,” Fauci said. “You could have a good social gathering in the home.”

But Fauci went on to clarify that a small get-together in one’s home is quite different from attending a large social gathering.

“The setting in a home of a small group of people having dinner together, all of whom are vaccinated, is very different when you step out the door and go into a society that has 70,000 new cases a day,” he said.
https://fox8.com/news/fauci-answers-can-you-have-a-dinner-party-if-youre-vaccinated/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 03, 2021, 08:59:50 am
Good news if you've been vaccinated.  Of course, he doesn't explain why it's unsafe to go into society the same way.  I assume that's because vaccines aren't 100% effective. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said in a press conference Monday that if you — and all your guests — are vaccinated, a dinner gathering should be relatively safe.

“Small gatherings in the home, I think you can clearly feel the relative risk is so low you wouldn’t have to wear the mask,” Fauci said. “You could have a good social gathering in the home.”

But Fauci went on to clarify that a small get-together in one’s home is quite different from attending a large social gathering.

“The setting in a home of a small group of people having dinner together, all of whom are vaccinated, is very different when you step out the door and go into a society that has 70,000 new cases a day,” he said.
https://fox8.com/news/fauci-answers-can-you-have-a-dinner-party-if-youre-vaccinated/


The Israelis have released a few studies on the vaccine and have found that the vaccine decrease morbidity by 95.8%.  Just to give you an idea of what this means, the aggregate infection fatality rate in high-income countries for the entire population is 1.15%.  By lowering this by 95.8%, the new IFR is 0.048%. 

They also have found you are 98.9% less likely to have to be hospitalized if vaccinated, and ~95% less likely to spread it if you are vaccinated, albeit that last stat is hard to determine. 

So, at this point, all of this continued fear mongering in the USA from Fauci (and others) I am writing off as some kind of continued power grab and to convince us for the need of that $1.9T "relief" package.  That or Fauci has gotten too use to his new fame and realizes as soon as this is over, he'll be forgotten like a bad joke. 

That is the only thing that makes sense right now.  There is no reason to continue this after being vaccinated, and no reason to continue this after the majority of those over 65 are. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 03, 2021, 09:53:21 am
... That or Fauci has gotten too use to his new fame and realizes as soon as this is over, he'll be forgotten like a bad joke...

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 03, 2021, 06:26:49 pm
Of course, he doesn't explain why it's unsafe to go into society the same way.


But Fauci went on to clarify that a small get-together in one’s home is quite different from attending a large social gathering.

“The setting in a home of a small group of people having dinner together, all of whom are vaccinated, is very different when you step out the door and go into a society that has 70,000 new cases a day,” he said.

He explains the difference right in the text that you quoted.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 03, 2021, 11:07:55 pm
He explains the difference right in the text that you quoted.
Fauci did not explain why someone who's been vaccinated has to worry about getting Covid in public since they have antibodies protecting them.  He only stated the venue where it would be an issue.  I assume it's because of the effectiveness of the vaccine.  So with let's say Moderna, you have a 95% protection rate.  .  Also if true, then Johnson and Johnsons is less effective.  But that's my assumption.  He never stated that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 03:14:17 am
Fauci did not explain why someone who's been vaccinated has to worry about getting Covid in public since they have antibodies protecting them.  He only stated the venue where it would be an issue.  I assume it's because of the effectiveness of the vaccine.  So with let's say Moderna, you have a 95% protection rate.  .  Also if true, then Johnson and Johnsons is less effective.  But that's my assumption.  He never stated that.

There's this bug going round, Alan - it's been in the news, an' everything.  The vaccine prevents you from getting sick or dying (mostly).  It doesn't necessarily protect you from carrying the virus and passing it on to other people. It potentially doesn't work so effectively on new variants that emerge in areas where there is a lot of infection. So if you have selfish oafs in a place like Texas where only 7% of people have been vaccinated, even if they themsleves have had their shots, they are running around giving the virus to others (but who cares about others, right?) and contributing to a big pool of infection where new variants will pop up and where tracking them down will be more difficult. In a state where city dwellers dress up as cowboys, looking stupid wearing a mask shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 04, 2021, 03:40:27 am
...but who cares about others, right?...

Right.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 07:32:05 am
There's this bug going round, Alan - it's been in the news, an' everything.  The vaccine prevents you from getting sick or dying (mostly).  It doesn't necessarily protect you from carrying the virus and passing it on to other people. It potentially doesn't work so effectively on new variants that emerge in areas where there is a lot of infection. So if you have selfish oafs in a place like Texas where only 7% of people have been vaccinated, even if they themsleves have had their shots, they are running around giving the virus to others (but who cares about others, right?) and contributing to a big pool of infection where new variants will pop up and where tracking them down will be more difficult. In a state where city dwellers dress up as cowboys, looking stupid wearing a mask shouldn't be that big of an issue.

At this point in time, after all of the good news about the vaccine, if you are of the opinion that you still need to quarantine after getting vaccinated, you are either a sheep or a chicken.  I kind of feel like if Fauci told us wearing tighty-whities on our head would help stop the spread, half the country would do so. 

What is the point in living if we are to live miserable lives as hermits. 

40% of adults (56% of young adults) are now reporting symptoms of depression, up from 10% about a year ago.  13% are reporting new substance abuse issues and 11% of all adults are considering suicide. 

The Implications of COVID-19 for Mental Health and Substance Use (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/)

There is no reason to continue this after you get vaccinated, and reports from Israel are showing there really is no reason to continue this after just the elderly get vaccinated. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 07:59:52 am
There's this bug going round, Alan - it's been in the news, an' everything.  The vaccine prevents you from getting sick or dying (mostly).  It doesn't necessarily protect you from carrying the virus and passing it on to other people. It potentially doesn't work so effectively on new variants that emerge in areas where there is a lot of infection. So if you have selfish oafs in a place like Texas where only 7% of people have been vaccinated, even if they themsleves have had their shots, they are running around giving the virus to others (but who cares about others, right?) and contributing to a big pool of infection where new variants will pop up and where tracking them down will be more difficult. In a state where city dwellers dress up as cowboys, looking stupid wearing a mask shouldn't be that big of an issue.
How did you go from me asking what Fauci meant to me killing people in Texas?  By the way, do you speak for Fauci?  Are you an expert on virology?  Don't you think he should explain himself? 

The problem with Fauci is he speaks like a politician.  He not direct.  He couches his remarks in weasel words like "..it's most likely..."  He's been in the government for so long he speaks like a politician out of both sides of his mouth.  His undecidedness confuses people.  When he's done talking, you're more confused than ever. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 08:04:15 am
40% of adults (56% of young adults) are now reporting symptoms of depression, up from 10% about a year ago.  13% are reporting new substance abuse issues and 11% of all adults are considering suicide. 

One positive thing about the social restrictions and mask wearing has been a huge decline in flu cases.

Quote
As of 20 February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recorded just 1,499 positive flu cases since September. Around the same time last year, the CDC had already logged 174,037 positive cases of influenza.

"This is the lowest flu season we've had on record," the CDC's Lynnette Brammer told the Associated Press. This was based on the 25-year surveillance the agency has done for each flu season.

In normal years, a flu season could cause 500,000 to 600,000 hospitalisations and 50,000 to 60,000 deaths, depending on the severity of the virus that year. But the United States was seeing nowhere near the infections, hospitalisations, and deaths from influenza this current season.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-flu-number-covid-cdc-b1809609.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 08:08:14 am
One positive thing about the social restrictions and mask wearing has been a huge decline in flu cases.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-flu-number-covid-cdc-b1809609.html
I predicted this months ago.  What I also noticed is that neither my wife or I have had a cold in the past year.  Same reason.  STD's must be down as well.  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 08:37:45 am
One positive thing about the social restrictions and mask wearing has been a huge decline in flu cases.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-flu-number-covid-cdc-b1809609.html

Yeah, and now "experts" are calling for us to wear mask every flu season. 

I can remember many on the right saying this would happen, and, as usual, many liberals were like, "come on, stop it with the slippery slope stuff." 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 08:44:48 am
Street photography looks like hell with masks.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 04, 2021, 08:45:19 am
Life is safe in a lockdown, but that is not what life is for.

(SB)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 09:10:22 am
Yeah, and now "experts" are calling for us to wear mask every flu season. 


You're right. Some losers wash their hands every time they use the toilet! A real man isn't afraid of a bit of dysentery.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 09:21:03 am
This is fine - letting private enterprises and individual people in Texas make up their own minds.  We don't need the government to coerce us. 

Kroger, Costco and other big and small retailers stick with required masks
Retailers aren’t ready to expose their employees and customers to added risk while the pandemic continues.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/2021/03/03/kroger-and-other-big-and-small-retailers-stick-with-required-masks/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 09:40:41 am
I predicted this months ago.  What I also noticed is that neither my wife or I have had a cold in the past year.  Same reason.  STD's must be down as well.  :)

I didn't see any stats about STD's. Does the face mask help also against those ailments?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 09:52:15 am
I didn't see any stats about STD's. Does the face mask help also against those ailments?
Yes.  Only if you leave it on while engaging.  Sort of like keeping your mask on in a restaurant.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 11:02:03 am
They figured out why America has such high Covid death rates.  We're fat! All those McDonalds, Pizzas, and Dunkin' Donuts.

Covid-19 death rates 10 times higher in countries where most adults are overweight, report finds
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/04/health/obesity-covid-death-rate-intl/index.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 11:15:33 am
You're right. Some losers wash their hands every time they use the toilet! A real man isn't afraid of a bit of dysentery.

If you are for continuing to wear a mask until the day you die, go for it.  I'm not. 

Even if you told me that I would live for 5 more years if I wore a mask, guaranteed, I would still choose not to.  I am not going to destroy my humanity by covering half my face, and the half that smiles non-the-less.  What a pathetic world it would be to never see a smile again. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 11:22:37 am
If you are for continuing to wear a mask until the day you die, go for it.  I'm not. 

Even if you told me that I would live for 5 more years if I wore a mask, guaranteed, I would still choose not to.  I am not going to destroy my humanity by covering half my face, and the half that smiles non-the-less.  What a pathetic world it would be to never see a smile again. 
You could take up bank robbing. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 11:31:59 am
You could take up bank robbing.

Actually, I prefer lemon juice!

“I Wore the Juice”- The Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://medium.com/@littlebrown/i-wore-the-juice-the-dunning-kruger-effect-f8ac3299eb1)

Not going to lie, I would love to see that polaroid. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 04, 2021, 11:36:34 am


The problem with Fauci is he speaks like a politician.  He not direct.  He couches his remarks in weasel words like "..it's most likely..."  ...

"...it's most likely" is a political weasel word?  Sometimes all we have are probabilities, not certainties, is this really so difficult to understand.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 04, 2021, 11:38:37 am
Yeah, and now "experts" are calling for us to wear mask every flu season. 


Maybe some are, but others are not. The jury is out on how the tail end of the pandemic will proceed.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 04, 2021, 11:39:51 am


...  I am not going to destroy my humanity by covering half my face ...

That might be a little over the top.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 11:43:48 am
Actually, I prefer lemon juice!

“I Wore the Juice”- The Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://medium.com/@littlebrown/i-wore-the-juice-the-dunning-kruger-effect-f8ac3299eb1)

Not going to lie, I would love to see that polaroid. 
He probably forgot to pull the polaroid tab. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 04, 2021, 11:46:49 am
Merck Will Help Manufacture Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine

https://www.npr.org/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/02/merck-will-help-manufacture-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/02/972873395/merck-will-help-manufacture-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine)

Pharmaceutical giant Merck will help manufacture Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced Tuesday, calling it "an unprecedented historic step," considering that the two companies are normally competitors.

Merck will produce the drug substance at the heart of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine as well as work on filling vaccine vials and getting them ready for distribution.

"The U.S. government will facilitate this partnership in several key ways, including invoking the Defense Production Act to equip two Merck facilities to the standards necessary to safety manufacture the vaccine and asking the Department of Defense to provide daily logistical support to strengthen Johnson & Johnson's efforts," Psaki said during Tuesday afternoon's press briefing.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized Johnson & Johnson's vaccine for emergency use on Saturday, making it the third authorized vaccine against COVID-19 in the U.S. Unlike the other two authorized vaccines, this one requires only one dose and does not need to be kept in ultra-cold freezers, which should make distribution easier.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 11:53:28 am
"...it's most likely" is a political weasel word?  Sometimes all we have are probabilities, not certainties, is this really so difficult to understand.
I understand that.  The problem is he never says anything emphatically.  If he doesn't know for sure, he should say I don't know rather than leaving it up in the air. So after you've listened to him, you're not much wiser. It's left to you to draw a conclusion. So some people who are less cautious figure heck it's OK to get rid of their masks. "Most likely" they'll be OK.   Others, more cautious, keep wearing them out of fear. "Most likely" they'll get it and die. Then the debating starts.  Interpretations multiply.  Pretty soon no one remembers what he said.  It happens all the time here in our forum regarding photography. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 11:54:39 am
That might be a little over the top.

A few years back I saw a documentary on people who are born with the rare condition of not being able to control any of their facial muscles, essentially having a blank stare on their face permanently.  They lack the ability to show others what mood they are in and often are not treated as well as others, especially when young.  (On the bright side, they never develop facial wrinkles.) 

The show focused on a small girl (grade school age) with this disorder who went though surgery to give her the ability to smile.  Of all of the different types of expressions to pick, the ability to smile is what helps you the most in connecting to someone else, especially initially. 

The surgery changed her life and how she socialized at school. 

It is not an over the top statement.  Nearly all other animals show their expressions through their eyes and tails.  We smile; it's part of our humanity. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 04, 2021, 12:07:08 pm
Novavax expects FDA clearance for Covid vaccine as early as May, CEO says

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/covid-vaccine-novavax-expects-fda-clearance-for-covid-vaccine-as-early-as-may (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/covid-vaccine-novavax-expects-fda-clearance-for-covid-vaccine-as-early-as-may.html)

The Food and Drug Administration could authorize Novavax’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use as early as May, the company’s CEO, Stanley Erck, told CNBC on Monday.

Novavax’s phase three trial in the U.S. is still ongoing, with 30,000 participants, Erck said. The company hopes the FDA will allow it to use data from its clinical trial conducted in the U.K. when it files its emergency use application later this year, he added.

In late January, Novavax released results from its phase three trial data in the U.K., showing the vaccine was 89.3% effective overall, though slightly less effective against B.1.1.7, the strain first discovered in the U.K., and B.1.351, the strain first discovered in South Africa.

The company said the vaccine was well tolerated, adding that “severe, serious, and medically attended adverse events occurred at low levels and were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups.”

U.K. health regulators will likely review the vaccine in April, followed by the FDA “probably a month after that,” he told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” in an interview.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 04, 2021, 12:32:25 pm
It is not an over the top statement.  Nearly all other animals show their expressions through their eyes and tails.  We smile; it's part of our humanity.

Smiling may be one aspect of humanity, but it's not the only one. Protecting other people from disease and/or making them feel comfortable when they are around you are aspects of humanity as well. Maybe wearing a mask during a pandemic is more a sign of your humanity than smiling at people. At least it is something to think about.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 12:58:36 pm
We smile; it's part of our humanity.

What an old softy-pants. Whatever happened to Low-Empathy Libertard Joe ?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 04, 2021, 01:11:17 pm
I must be posting in the wrong thread. I thought I was in the Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine thread. Apparently, this is the dental health thread.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 01:26:25 pm
Merck Will Help Manufacture Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine

https://www.npr.org/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/02/merck-will-help-manufacture-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/02/972873395/merck-will-help-manufacture-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine)

Pharmaceutical giant Merck will help manufacture Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced Tuesday, calling it "an unprecedented historic step," considering that the two companies are normally competitors.

Merck will produce the drug substance at the heart of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine as well as work on filling vaccine vials and getting them ready for distribution.

"The U.S. government will facilitate this partnership in several key ways, including invoking the Defense Production Act to equip two Merck facilities to the standards necessary to safety manufacture the vaccine and asking the Department of Defense to provide daily logistical support to strengthen Johnson & Johnson's efforts," Psaki said during Tuesday afternoon's press briefing.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized Johnson & Johnson's vaccine for emergency use on Saturday, making it the third authorized vaccine against COVID-19 in the U.S. Unlike the other two authorized vaccines, this one requires only one dose and does not need to be kept in ultra-cold freezers, which should make distribution easier.
Merck had received an order for millions of dollars to furnish vaccines by June from Trump under Operation Warp Speed.  But their research into vaccines failed.  It's good that they're trying to stay involved.  They're a big and good pharmaceutical company. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 01:28:54 pm
A few years back I saw a documentary on people who are born with the rare condition of not being able to control any of their facial muscles, essentially having a blank stare on their face permanently.  They lack the ability to show others what mood they are in and often are not treated as well as others, especially when young.  (On the bright side, they never develop facial wrinkles.) 

The show focused on a small girl (grade school age) with this disorder who went though surgery to give her the ability to smile.  Of all of the different types of expressions to pick, the ability to smile is what helps you the most in connecting to someone else, especially initially. 

The surgery changed her life and how she socialized at school. 

It is not an over the top statement.  Nearly all other animals show their expressions through their eyes and tails.  We smile; it's part of our humanity. 
Sounds like Botox Nancy.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 01:31:04 pm
Smiling may be one aspect of humanity, but it's not the only one. Protecting other people from disease and/or making them feel comfortable when they are around you are aspects of humanity as well. Maybe wearing a mask during a pandemic is more a sign of your humanity than smiling at people. At least it is something to think about.
It's hard to flirt with a mask on. Cuomo's getting desperate.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 04, 2021, 01:47:24 pm
Steer the thread back to the topic of “promising new coronavirus vaccine” or shuttle the overtly political to the one and only political thread.
Thanks.

Have you ever noticed that this forum is provided free of charge by someone else that's paying the cost of providing it to you?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 01:56:41 pm
Have you ever noticed that this forum is provided free of charge by someone else that's paying the cost of providing it to you?
No one would stay here if there wasn't a little levity.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 02:20:37 pm
Have you ever noticed that this forum is provided free of charge by someone else that's paying the cost of providing it to you?

You know what they say - if you're not the client, you're the product.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 02:35:50 pm
What an old softy-pants. Whatever happened to Low-Empathy Libertard Joe ?

I never said I was without empathy, just without when policy decisions are being made. 

Engaging in empathy while making policies decisions often puts you in a situation where you will make concessions at the expense of others whom are not willing to do so, or even asked.  Sometimes, you make concessions at the expense of those you are trying to help, but your empathy does not allow you to see it. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 02:48:22 pm
You know what they say - if you're not the client, you're the product.
We're the product I'd say and the advertisers who pay the website owner are the clients.  If it weren't for our posts, there would be no forum.  Of course, every website is different.  Cable channels collect from the viewer and the advertisers although, in the old days of broadcast TV before cable, the programs were free.   The stations made all their money from the advertisers.   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 02:52:34 pm
Smiling may be one aspect of humanity, but it's not the only one. Protecting other people from disease and/or making them feel comfortable when they are around you are aspects of humanity as well. Maybe wearing a mask during a pandemic is more a sign of your humanity than smiling at people. At least it is something to think about.

There is a very big difference between making someone feel comfortable over legitimate concerns vs. non-legitimate, something that I must admit appears that the entirety of the left no longer understands. 

As an example, if I am in a senior living center, which I often am nowadays, wearing a mask to make the residents feel comfortable would be legitimate since they are the ones most as risk of dying from Covid.  I may not agree that the mask does anything, but in this situation, I can have sympathy (which is not empathy) for this concern.  If I am dining in a restaurant where all of the staff and patrons are under 50, as was the case last night when we dined out, wearing a mask is not a legitimate concern since no one there is of a high enough risk of dying from C-19 for it to be one, and I am not one to give into lunacy just because everyone else is. 

We do not stop driving just because someone on the block is concerned about dying in a car accident, even though they are 30 times more likely then to die from C-19, yet we are suppose to change the entire way we live over something that is a lot less dangerous then driving. 

This idea that we must sooth anyone over any concern while not only not taking the time to see if the concern is warranted, but insisting that if you even consider this notion then there is something morally wrong with you, is ridiculous.  It is what leads some to make such stupid comments like intent does not matter or insist that micro-aggressions are ruining society even if the person does not realize he/she is engaging in them. 

This is nothing more then overly empathetic persons giving too much into their feelings just so they can say that they are morally good while throwing their logic out the window.   In the end though, no matter how morally supreme you think you are, not following logic and reason will end hurting the people you are trying to help more then to be empathetically defunct yet logically sound. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 03:12:50 pm
As an example, if I am in a senior living center, which I often am nowadays, wearing a mask to make the residents feel comfortable would be legitimate since they are the ones most as risk of dying from Covid.  I may not agree that the mask does anything, but in this situation, I can have sympathy (which is not empathy) for this concern.  If I am dining in a restaurant where all of the staff and patrons are under 50, as was the case last night when we dined out, wearing a mask is not a legitimate concern since no one there is of a high enough risk of dying from C-19 for it to be one, and I am not one to give into lunacy just because everyone else is. 

The situation is not as rosy as it seems at the first glance. 20% of the covid deaths in USA have been among people younger than 65 years. That's over 106,000 people who died before reaching their retirement age. In addition, long term effects of covid have been observed in 10% of the people who survived covid. That's another 900,000 people who will have to live with compromised health for the rest of their lives.

EDIT: Today it was reported that there were 28.7M cases (instead of 9M). If 10% of those survivors experience long term lasting covid effects, that would translate to 2.98M people (instead of 900,000) as reported earlier.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 03:28:24 pm
The situation is not as rosy as it seems at the first glance. 20% of the covid deaths in USA have been among people younger than 65 years. That's over 106,000 people who died before reaching their retirement age. In addition, long term effects of covid have been observed in 10% of the people who survived covid. That's another 900,000 people who will have to live with compromised health for the rest of their lives.
People who go out to restaurants know the chances they are taking.  I wouldn't go.  But there are others who would.  At some point, people are getting out.  More and more states are opening up as they are in other countries.  The rates for infection and death have gone down probably where they're again matching the common flu.  We don't shut down for it.  Also, if people who have had their shots go to restaurants, it has little risk.  Unless the food is bad. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 03:34:20 pm
About 40k people die per year in car accidents in the US. Maybe if car crashes were infectious the comparison to covid would be closer.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 03:36:01 pm
People who go out to restaurants know the chances they are taking.  I wouldn't go.  But there are others who would.  At some point, people are getting out.  More and more states are opening up as they are in other countries.  The rates for infection and death have gone down probably where they're again matching the common flu.  We don't shut down for it.  Also, if people who have had their shots go to restaurants, it has little risk.  Unless the food is bad.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 03:39:07 pm
About 40k people die per year in car accidents in the US. Maybe if car crashes were infectious the comparison to covid would be closer.
Who's post were you referring to? Although there are 40K deaths, no one stops driving because of it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 03:39:33 pm
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
What's wrong, wrong, wrong?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 04, 2021, 04:04:12 pm
Who's post were you referring to? Although there are 40K deaths, no one stops driving because of it.

Of course they do - even though the driving test in the US is very easy.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 04, 2021, 04:26:00 pm
Engaging in empathy while making policies decisions often puts you in a situation where you will make concessions at the expense of others whom are not willing to do so, or even asked.  Sometimes, you make concessions at the expense of those you are trying to help, but your empathy does not allow you to see it.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes a lot of things, sometimes not so much. Empathy is just a tool in the toolbox.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 04, 2021, 04:28:16 pm
Who's post were you referring to? Although there are 40K deaths, no one stops driving because of it.

I was out driving today and noticed that it might be better for all of us if some people weren't driving. I am not sure if they were actually driving. The car was moving in a straight direction, more or less, but they appeared to be texting or reading emails or something.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 04, 2021, 04:38:11 pm
The situation is not as rosy as it seems at the first glance. 20% of the covid deaths in USA have been among people younger than 65 years....

Ah, lies, damn lieas, and statistics! While technically correct (the 20% claim), it not as rosy as it seems. Only 7% of the fatalities are younger than 55. The difference between your (65) and my number (55), is just 10 years, yet it accounts for 12% of fatalities.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 05:07:25 pm
I was out driving today and noticed that it might be better for all of us if some people weren't driving. I am not sure if they were actually driving. The car was moving in a straight direction, more or less, but they appeared to be texting or reading emails or something.

Was it a Tesla car? The capabilities of their Autopilot or FSD modes are incredible and apparently very safe. Driving on Autopilot may be in some situations safer than driving manually by some folks. Last week an aquaintance of mine fell asleep while driving at night on a city street, and his car jumped on the traffic island in the middle of the street. He took down a couple of the metal posts with traffic signs, and ruined his left front bumper wheel housing, but fortunately that woke him up so he didn't get onto the oncoming lanes on the other side of the street.   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 05:32:12 pm
Ah, lies, damn lieas, and statistics! While technically correct (the 20% claim), it not as rosy as it seems. Only 7% of the fatalities are younger than 55. The difference between your (65) and my number (55), is just 10 years, yet it accounts for 12% of fatalities.

Yes, and only 5% are younger than 50. On the other hand, about ten times more deaths were recorded for all patients under the age of 75 years. I read somewhere that these days 75 years is the new 50. So, including all real and new 50's the death stats would approach 50% of the total toll.

Hard to imagine those numbers. You wouldn't believe but only a year ago some people thought that the total count of covid deaths would never exceed 50,000. Today, the actual toll is 10X of that estimate and by end of 2021 it may approach 15X or even 20X.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 04, 2021, 06:00:27 pm
Statistics may count people, however, people are not statistics. They are people with family and friends that worry or mourn when they become included in some statistics.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 04, 2021, 06:13:48 pm
Ah, lies, damn lieas, and statistics! While technically correct (the 20% claim), it not as rosy as it seems. Only 7% of the fatalities are younger than 55. The difference between your (65) and my number (55), is just 10 years, yet it accounts for 12% of fatalities.

7% of 500,000 is 35,000, not like it's negligible.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 04, 2021, 07:07:19 pm
7% of 500,000 is 35,000, not like it's negligible.

7% is 7%.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 04, 2021, 07:11:22 pm
7% is 7%.

You must have been reading up on your Wittgenstein.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 07:11:52 pm
Yes, and only 5% are younger than 50. On the other hand, about ten times more deaths were recorded for all patients under the age of 75 years.

What's the rate for those under 140?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 04, 2021, 07:22:08 pm
7% of 500,000 is 35,000, not like it's negligible.

Now, saying that 7% of fatalities from C19 are younger than 55, doesn’t mean that 7% of those younger than 55 will die from C19.

To calculate that chance, we need the population of those younger than 55, and that is approximately 220 million. So, 35,000 in 220 million is 0.016 percent. And THAT is negligible.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 04, 2021, 07:27:40 pm
What's the rate for those under 140?

Based on a 100% rate for under 100 years, we could interpolate the rate for 140 years as 140%.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 04, 2021, 07:44:07 pm
Based on a 100% rate for under 100 years, we could interpolate the rate for 140 years as 140%.

You think way too linear. 

Be logistic. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 04, 2021, 07:54:14 pm
That’ll put the gimme cap on it  ::)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 04, 2021, 07:56:10 pm
So, 35,000 in 220 million is 0.016 percent. And THAT is negligible.

"He's got 'em on the list,
"He's got 'em on the list;
"And they'll none of 'em be missed,
"They'll none of them be missed."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 04, 2021, 09:17:03 pm
I was out driving today and noticed that it might be better for all of us if some people weren't driving. I am not sure if they were actually driving. The car was moving in a straight direction, more or less, but they appeared to be texting or reading emails or something.
Probably was adjusting his mask.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 04, 2021, 09:55:45 pm
Now, saying that 7% of fatalities from C19 are younger than 55, doesn’t mean that 7% of those younger than 55 will die from C19.

To calculate that chance, we need the population of those younger than 55, and that is approximately 220 million. So, 35,000 in 220 million is 0.016 percent. And THAT is negligible.

Wouldn't you need to know the population of those under 55 who were infected to figure out how dangerous it is for them? Back in March and April, I was reading comments from people about how almost no own up to that point had died of Covid, so what was the point of worrying about it?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 05:29:54 am
Wouldn't you need to know the population of those under 55 who were infected to figure out how dangerous it is for them?...

Not really, but good to know. Because the danger is twofold: to get infected and to die from it. Those two risks combined give 0.016%.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 06:02:45 am
Whether you consider 35000 deaths - 10 x 9/11 - negligible or not, remember that that is the toll WITH lockdowns, masks, social distancing and full hospitals.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 06:18:45 am
... remember that that is the toll WITH lockdowns, masks, social distancing and full hospitals.

Not really. Places with or without those fared more or less the same.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 06:56:46 am
Not really. Places with or without those fared more or less the same.

Clearly false.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 07:20:15 am
Clearly false.

Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 

1.  New Jersey: 263 per 100,000 people
2.  New York: 244
3.  Rhode Island: 239
4.  Massachusetts: 236
5.  Mississippi: 227
6.  Arizona: 221
7.  Connecticut: 215
8.  South Dakota: 214
9.  Louisiana: 208
10.  Alabama: 205
11.  North Dakota: 194
12.  Pennsylvania: 189
13.  Indiana: 188
14.  Illinois: 180
15.  New Mexico: 179
16.  Iowa: 174
17.  Arkansas: 174
18.  South Carolina: 167
19.  Tennessee: 166
20.  Michigan: 166
21.  Kansas: 165
22.  Nevada: 162
23.  Georgia: 161
24.  Texas: 154
25.  Delaware: 148
26.  Florida: 146
27.  District of Columbia: 145
28.  Ohio: 143
29.  Missouri: 140
30.  California: 134
31.  Maryland: 131
32.  West Virginia: 129
33.  Montana: 129
34.  Wisconsin: 121
35.  Wyoming: 118
36.  Minnesota: 117
37.  Oklahoma: 115
38.  Nebraska: 114
39.  Virginia: 109
40.  Kentucky: 109
41.  North Carolina: 109
42.  Colorado: 105
43.  Idaho: 105
44.  New Hampshire: 86
45.  Washington: 67
46.  Utah: 61
47.  Oregon: 54
48.  Maine: 52
49.  Alaska: 40
50.  Vermont: 33
51.  Hawaii: 31
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 05, 2021, 07:40:43 am
Not really, but good to know. Because the danger is twofold: to get infected and to die from it. Those two risks combined give 0.016%.

My point was that the number 0.016 does not mean much. The only number we sort of "know" is approx 7% of 500,000 or 35,000 deaths of under 55s. The ratio of 35,000 to 220 million means nothing. You need to know the total number of under 55s that have been infected, and that's not 220 million. Your number is not a meaningful snapshot in time. (For example, the day after patient zero showed up, the overall infection rate was 1 in 350 million, another low but meaningless number.)

According to Worldometer, the US has had 29.5 million cases in total as of this morning. I'm not confident that number is very accurate since it probably doesn't count all the folks who had it with no symptoms at all and so were never tested. As a ballpark though it's nowhere near 220 million yet.

As a reminder, 35,000 is not far off the average annual number of total flu deaths in all categories. Hence, my statement that it is not a negligible number.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 07:53:40 am
Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 



That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen. Have you compensated for all the other differences between the states?  Err no, you haven't.

A better idea is to look at the cases/hospitalisations/deaths in a country and compare the peaks and troughs with the timing of lockdowns and other measures. It's a slam dunk - no further discussion needed.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 08:41:15 am
Well, lets look at the numbers. 

Below is a list of all 50 states, plus DC, listed in order from most C-19 deaths per million too least.  I bolded the states with no, or almost no, restrictions.  As you can see, they range, rather randomly, throughout the list.  Not exactly a slam dunk for lockdowns IMO. 

You will notice FL, the fountain of all evil and 2nd oldest state next to Maine, is right in the middle and only three slots (not including DC) from CA, the fifth youngest state with one of the strongest lockdowns. 

1.  New Jersey: 263 per 100,000 people
2.  New York: 244
3.  Rhode Island: 239
4.  Massachusetts: 236
5.  Mississippi: 227
6.  Arizona: 221
7.  Connecticut: 215
8.  South Dakota: 214
9.  Louisiana: 208
10.  Alabama: 205
11.  North Dakota: 194
12.  Pennsylvania: 189
13.  Indiana: 188
14.  Illinois: 180
15.  New Mexico: 179
16.  Iowa: 174
17.  Arkansas: 174
18.  South Carolina: 167
19.  Tennessee: 166
20.  Michigan: 166
21.  Kansas: 165
22.  Nevada: 162
23.  Georgia: 161
24.  Texas: 154
25.  Delaware: 148
26.  Florida: 146
27.  District of Columbia: 145
28.  Ohio: 143
29.  Missouri: 140
30.  California: 134
31.  Maryland: 131
32.  West Virginia: 129
33.  Montana: 129
34.  Wisconsin: 121
35.  Wyoming: 118
36.  Minnesota: 117
37.  Oklahoma: 115
38.  Nebraska: 114
39.  Virginia: 109
40.  Kentucky: 109
41.  North Carolina: 109
42.  Colorado: 105
43.  Idaho: 105
44.  New Hampshire: 86
45.  Washington: 67
46.  Utah: 61
47.  Oregon: 54
48.  Maine: 52
49.  Alaska: 40
50.  Vermont: 33
51.  Hawaii: 31
Hmmm.  New Jersey is #1.  I live in New Jersey.   :(
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 08:48:20 am
I don't understand why we're arguing about statistics.  According to Biden, everyone will have their shots by the end of May or June so we'll all be in herd immunity or whatever.  At what point do you open up?  When the very very last person gets their second shot?  Or can we start opening up a little before?  And if so, where is that line?  How many deaths and cases become acceptable?  After all, we accept the flu every year when 30-40,000 people die and millions get sick.  Yet, nothing is shut down.  We all walk around coughing on each other with no masks.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 05, 2021, 08:57:16 am
I don't understand why we're arguing about statistics.  According to Biden, everyone will have their shots by the end of May or June so we'll all be in herd immunity or whatever.  At what point do you open up?  When the very very last person gets their second shot?  Or can we start opening up a little before?  And if so, where is that line?  How many deaths and cases become acceptable?  After all, we accept the flu every year when 30-40,000 people die and millions get sick.  Yet, nothing is shut down.  We all walk around coughing on each other with no masks.

The question is how many dummies got duped by the QAnoners who deny the covid and advise against vaccinations. Then there will be people for whom the shots won't work, so get ready for walking and coughing a little longer with a mask.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 09:15:01 am
The question is how many dummies got duped by the QAnoners who deny the covid and advise against vaccinations. Then there will be people for whom the shots won't work, so get ready for walking and coughing a little longer with a mask.
Herd immunity doesn't mean everyone is vaccinated or was exposed to the virus already.  It means you reach a point where enough of the population is immune to the disease so it dies out as there are not enough victims left to keep spreading. 

So if there are some people who don't get shots, either because they don't want to or they're in the final group that extends past the herd immunity number, it won't matter. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 09:30:44 am
That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen. Have you compensated for all the other differences between the states?  Err no, you haven't.

A better idea is to look at the cases/hospitalisations/deaths in a country and compare the peaks and troughs with the timing of lockdowns and other measures. It's a slam dunk - no further discussion needed.

I suppose you also think vaccines cause Autism, since Autism is diagnosed shortly after infants get their shots.  Makes sense, right? 

Lockdown measures typically are put in place after the spread has already started and is partially on it's way to burn out.  Regardless of lockdowns or not, the second wave this past winter in the USA came in and went out regardless of lockdown status with many similarities between states with and without measures. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 09:44:40 am
... The ratio of 35,000 to 220 million means nothing...

To you. Fair enough. I can't argue against what you find meaningful.

For me, however, it means that if you are one of those 220 million (that is, ⅔ of the US population), your chances of dying from and with Covid are 0.016%. Quite negligible. I think falling in the bathtub is higher than that.

Quote
... Your number is not a meaningful snapshot in time. (For example, the day after patient zero showed up, the overall infection rate was 1 in 350 million, another low but meaningless number.)

Sure. But we are talking about something 12-14 months from patient zero.

Quote
... As a reminder, 35,000 is not far off the average annual number of total flu deaths in all categories. Hence, my statement that it is not a negligible number.

That is exactly the proof that it was negligible enough not to kill the economy and end life as we know it because of it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 09:47:36 am
That's the feeblest excuse for an analysis I've seen....

 ;D ;D ;D

You don't like facts, do you?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 09:47:57 am
I suppose you also think vaccines cause Autism, since Autism is diagnosed shortly after infants get their shots.  Makes sense, right? 

Nope, makes no sense at all, but I don't see that stopping you.

Quote

Lockdown measures typically are put in place after the spread has already started and is partially on it's way to burn out.  Regardless of lockdowns or not, the second wave this past winter in the USA came in and went out regardless of lockdown status with many similarities between states with and without measures.

Absolute rubbish - what mechanism can you imagine for the infection "burning out"?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 09:49:20 am
;D ;D ;D

You don't like facts, do you?

Sure I do. And what I like better is an honest analysis of the data and not just cherry picked BS
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 09:53:10 am
... just cherry picked BS

 ;D ;D ;D

As a side note, Florida has the oldest demographics in the US. That itself should put it on top of the list, but it didn't. Remember those discussions here on the forum how FL is going to implode, "just wait two weeks," a year ago?

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 09:57:02 am
;D ;D ;D

As a side note, Florida has the oldest demographics in the US. That itself should put it on top of the list, but it didn't. Remember those discussions here on the forum how FL is going to implode, "just wait two weeks," a year ago?


A lot of my retired friends, "snowbirds", went to Florida again this winter for the sun. It seems they were able to get vaccinated quicker there as non-residents than here in New Jersey as residents. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 10:02:16 am
Nope, makes no sense at all, but I don't see that stopping you.

Absolute rubbish - what mechanism can you imagine for the infection "burning out"?

Well great, we are in agreement that just because something happens around the same time an action is taken, like Autism being detected after an infant gets his shots, the two are not necessarily connected.  Very similar to the notion that just because lockdowns went into effect around the same time C-19 started to decrease that the two are not necessarily connected. 

As to what mechanism other then lockdowns could have caused this, increase in the number of people immune from infection (burning out) or vaccination, better weather conditions, people spending more time outside where it does not spread, etc. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 10:03:51 am

As a side note, Florida has the oldest demographics in the US. That itself should put it on top of the list, but it didn't.

It should if every other characteristic of Florida was the same as every other state, and there was no travel between states.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 10:08:02 am
As to what mechanism other then lockdowns could have caused this, increase in the number of people immune from infection (burning out) or vaccination, better weather conditions, people spending more time outside where it does not spread, etc.

The numbers of people immune have never approached herd immunity levels, even in places with really high levels of infection. Vaccination had not started last summer or last winter. Reductions in cases following lockdown occurred in summer and in winter.

Want to try again?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 10:19:27 am
To you. Fair enough. I can't argue against what you find meaningful.

For me, however, it means that if you are one of those 220 million (that is, ⅔ of the US population), your chances of dying from and with Covid are 0.016%. Quite negligible. I think falling in the bathtub is higher than that.

Just to add to this, that is a 1 in 6250 odds of dying from C-19 if you under 55, being beat out by such things as:

Being a Pedestrian, 1/610
Being in a Car or other vehicle, 1/242
Off-roading, 1/4993
Falling out of bed, chair, or some other piece of furniture, 1/5508
Firearms, 1/4613
Chocking to death on food, 1/4812

There are plenty of more. 

https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 10:22:37 am
Just to add to this, that is a 1 in 6250 odds of dying from C-19 if you under 55, being beat out by such things as:

Being a Pedestrian, 1/610
Being in a Car or other vehicle, 1/242
Off-roading, 1/4993
Falling out of bed, chair, or some other piece of furniture, 1/5508
Firearms, 1/4613
Chocking to death on food, 1/4812

There are plenty of more. 

https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

You are quoting lifetime odds, comparing with one year of risk from Covid.

Joe - your previous posts on other subjects gave me the impression that you are smarter than this, which makes me think that you are simply being dishonest.  Disappointing.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 10:25:25 am
The numbers of people immune have never approached herd immunity levels, even in places with really high levels of infection. Vaccination had not started last summer or last winter. Reductions in cases following lockdown occurred in summer and in winter.

Want to try again?

Sure.

Viruses ebb and flow over time for reasons that are not fully understood.  The Flu does this, and it does not disappear because we all suddenly wear masks and lockdown.  It is just a natural thing that happens, just like with C-19. 

FYI, in logic you only need one counter example to disprove a statement.  FL is my counter to your above statement.  They did not lockdown last summer and the same ebb and flow occurred. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 10:26:08 am
You are quoting lifetime odds, comparing with one year of risk from Covid.

Joe - your previous posts on other subjects gave me the impression that you are smarter than this, which makes me think that you are simply being dishonest.  Disappointing.

So dying from C-19 is not a once in a lifetime event? 

Insofar as being dishonest, I wholly feel that we should not have shut down society over this decease, or that we should have realized it was a mistake to do so last May.  Last May is when we knew, without a doubt, that this effected mainly the elderly and that there were ways to keep our economy operating while protecting those whom are vulnerable. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 10:31:01 am
I think trying to make judgments about cause and effect at this point is fraught with unreliability.  As I said many times, let's wait until the virus has passed, the fat lady has sung, and we can add up numbers and analyze all the statistics.  I think we're going to find some strange relationships as well as very obvious logical cause and effect.  Just yesterday, I was reading that countries with high rates of obesity raise the numbers substantially.  So maybe, we should have shut down all the MacDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts across the country. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 10:51:46 am
So dying from C-19 is not a once in a lifetime event? 

Insofar as being dishonest, I wholly feel that we should not have shut down society over this decease, or that we should have realized it was a mistake to do so last May.  Last May is when we knew, without a doubt, that this effected mainly the elderly and that there were ways to keep our economy operating while protecting those whom are vulnerable.

You are comparing the risk of a young person dying of Covid over one year with a person dying from a lifetime of driving or whatever.  It would be more honest to assume that everyone will eventually get Covid, and then compare the risk with walking. 

On top of that you are forgetting that we don't know the extent or severity of "long Covid" in young people, or that even if people don't eventually die, the sickness can be very severe with long term implications, and that while they are sick they are occupying hospital beds that are no longer avaiable for other patients with cancer or whatever 

For the rest, it's simply unworkable as well as inhumane to isolate everyone over 65. There will always be "leaks" - who is going to care for these people? Are they never to see their families again?  I realise that you are under this age, so those considerations are of no importance to you, but maybe Alan would not be happy to be sent to some latter day leper colony.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 10:58:23 am
You are quoting lifetime odds, comparing with one year of risk from Covid...

I am not sure that is correct. Such stats are usually obtained by comparing annual deaths.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 10:58:45 am
You are comparing the risk of a young person dying of Covid over one year with a person dying from a lifetime of driving or whatever.  It would be more honest to assume that everyone will eventually get Covid, and then compare the risk with walking. 

On top of that you are forgetting that we don't know the extent or severity of "long Covid" in young people, or that even if people don't eventually die, the sickness can be very severe with long term implications, and that while they are sick they are occupying hospital beds that are no longer avaiable for other patients with cancer or whatever 

For the rest, it's simply unworkable as well as inhumane to isolate everyone over 65. There will always be "leaks" - who is going to care for these people? Are they never to see their families again?  I realise that you are under this age, so those considerations are of no importance to you, but maybe Alan would not be happy to be sent to some latter day leper colony.
Is my choice of either a leper colony or staying locked up with my wife for a whole year?

Hmmm.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 05, 2021, 11:02:13 am
You are comparing the risk of a young person dying of Covid over one year with a person dying from a lifetime of driving or whatever.  It would be more honest to assume that everyone will eventually get Covid, and then compare the risk with walking. 

On top of that you are forgetting that we don't know the extent or severity of "long Covid" in young people, or that even if people don't eventually die, the sickness can be very severe with long term implications, and that while they are sick they are occupying hospital beds that are no longer avaiable for other patients with cancer or whatever 

For the rest, it's simply unworkable as well as inhumane to isolate everyone over 65. There will always be "leaks" - who is going to care for these people? Are they never to see their families again?  I realise that you are under this age, so those considerations are of no importance to you, but maybe Alan would not be happy to be sent to some latter day leper colony.

I would like to respond, but you are piling up so many stupid statements in a single post that I can't keep up  ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 11:11:30 am
You are comparing the risk of a young person dying of Covid over one year with a person dying from a lifetime of driving or whatever.  It would be more honest to assume that everyone will eventually get Covid, and then compare the risk with walking. 

On top of that you are forgetting that we don't know the extent or severity of "long Covid" in young people, or that even if people don't eventually die, the sickness can be very severe with long term implications, and that while they are sick they are occupying hospital beds that are no longer avaiable for other patients with cancer or whatever 

For the rest, it's simply unworkable as well as inhumane to isolate everyone over 65. There will always be "leaks" - who is going to care for these people? Are they never to see their families again?  I realise that you are under this age, so those considerations are of no importance to you, but maybe Alan would not be happy to be sent to some latter day leper colony.


Perhaps I was being a little deliberately loose with what I was choosing to reference.  However my point stands, C-19 is much less risky then other occurrences we rarely ever think about, such as strolling along the sidewalk.  Who would have thought being a pedestrian came with a 1/610 chance of dying.  That is a 0.16% chance of dying on the side of the road, yet we still take those strolls. 

Meanwhile, the IFR for under 45 is 0.05%.  Note, although my previous comparison may have been a little tongue in cheek, comparing these two stats is statistically sound.  So, 0.16% chance of death and we doing nothing about it, vs. 0.05% and we are suppose to shut down the world.  BTW this does not take into account the chances of catching it first, which if we did, would lower the chances of death from C-19 even more over a lifetime. 

PS
Your second point is well intentioned, but what are your solutions, just hole up for all of time. 

And your third point in contradictory in a few ways.  Just to elaborate on one of them, in essence you are arguing it is inhumane to lockdown seniors, not to mention even if we did some of those pesky bastards would slip out anyway.  So, lets just lockdown all of society instead, much more humane. 

BTW, I am not for locking down anyone, even seniors.  I am for letting people make their own risk assessment, and for those who are in the vulnerable category, provide concessions that will allow them to stay locked up if they so choose to. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 05, 2021, 11:18:49 am
If you move to Cambodia or Greenland, you'll eliminate C-19 dangers altogether. They haven't had any C-19 deaths.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 11:30:48 am

Perhaps I was being a little deliberately loose with what I was choosing to reference.  However my point stands, C-19 is much less risky then other occurrences we rarely ever think about, such as strolling along the sidewalk.  Who would have thought being a pedestrian came with a 1/610 chance of dying.  That is a 0.16% chance of dying on the side of the road, yet we still take those strolls. 

Meanwhile, the IFR for under 45 is 0.05%.  Note, although my previous comparison may have been a little tongue in cheek, comparing these two stats is statistically sound.  So, 0.16% chance of death and we doing nothing about it, vs. 0.05% and we are suppose to shut down the world.  BTW this does not take into account the chances of catching it first, which if we did, would lower the chances of death from C-19 even more over a lifetime. 

PS
Your second point is well intentioned, but what are your solutions, just hole up for all of time. 

And your third point in contradictory in a few ways.  Just to elaborate on one of them, in essence you are arguing it is inhumane to lockdown seniors, not to mention even if we did some of those pesky bastards would slip out anyway.  So, lets just lockdown all of society instead, much more humane. 

BTW, I am not for locking down anyone, even seniors.  I am for letting people make their own risk assessment, and for those who are in the vulnerable category, provide concessions that will allow them to stay locked up if they so choose to.

You are not helping your position with hyperbolic statements like:

...we are suppose to shut down the world.

...just hole up for all of time.

So, lets just lockdown all of society...

Beyond just sounding dumb, you are employing two logical fallacies: straw man and reduction to absurdity.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 12:11:05 pm
I think we all judge risk differently, even with other things beside Covid.  And those change as we age or circumstances change.

For example, now that my wife and I have both shots, and it's been two weeks, we stopped waiting a day before handling mail.  I don't wipe off packages like food anymore.  I don't wash my hands as often.  I'm feeling safer although I'm not ready to get together with anyone other than my wife right now.  (Not sure if that sounded right.)  But I'm sure, the first time I do, well, that will open the doors to feel safer to get together with others.  Sort of like jumping into a cold pool.  Once you do it the water's fine. Next week, I'm going to get a haircut and wash the cars to get a year's worth of mud off.  The cars, not my hair.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 05, 2021, 12:15:16 pm

That is exactly the proof that it was negligible enough not to kill the economy and end life as we know it because of it.

"end life as we know it"?  A bit much but ok.


35,000 is, more or less, the accepted avg number of yearly deaths in the entire US population from flu. In the past year, 35,000 under-55s died from one virus, but you continue to refuse to address that as a special case requiring special action. I know you take some kind of pride in not following the "crowd" as if that action has some kind of merit in and of itself, but that tendency may be leading you astray.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 12:34:59 pm
I don't understand why we're arguing about statistics.  According to Biden, everyone will have their shots by the end of May or June so we'll all be in herd immunity or whatever.


First, the end of May date is when we will have enough vaccine for all adults, not when all adults will be vaccinated. Some adults will tarry and dawdle getting their first shot and then won't be eligible to get their second shot for 3-4 weeks after that. Second, the under 16 crowd is not included. No telling when the vaccines will be approved for them and how long it will take them to get vaccinated. Third, the last poll I saw said 42% of Republicans and 25% of the whole population are planning not to get vaccinated, so we are going to have a tough time getting to herd immunity once we deduct the anti-vaxxers and under 16. Fourth, having herd immunity does not mean no one will contract the disease. Fifth, what will change from the day before we achieve herd immunity and the day after?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 12:38:39 pm


Beyond just sounding dumb, you are employing two logical fallacies: straw man and reduction to absurdity.

With you, perhaps, with Jeremy, I disagree. 

Jeremy has made it known that he highly disapproved of me traveling to Chicago and TX in January for work, and to Providence back in October.  He also, on more then one occasion, stated his disapproval of me photographing local projects and continuing to work, which requires me to leave my house and enter other properties. 

He is pushing the absurd notion, albeit indirectly, we should only be leaving our houses for food and necessary supplies.  That is essentially fully locking down everyone. 

Unless he would like to share a nuanced view of how he would like to see this handled, and how those whom need to leave our house to work should proceed, this is how I interpret his feelings on the subject. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 05, 2021, 12:45:04 pm
anyone for getting back to the vaccine topic ?
Surely there are some learned opinions ?  ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 05, 2021, 12:57:29 pm
I think we all judge risk differently, even with other things beside Covid.  And those change as we age or circumstances change.

Next week, I'm going to get a haircut and wash the cars to get a year's worth of mud off.  The cars, not my hair.

I always wash my hands but stopped washing my car a long time ago. The melting snow takes down both the mud and the virus.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 12:59:30 pm
With you, perhaps, with Jeremy, I disagree. 

Jeremy has made it known that he highly disapproved of me traveling to Chicago and TX in January for work, and to Providence back in October.  He also, on more then one occasion, stated his disapproval of me photographing local projects and continuing to work, which requires me to leave my house and enter other properties. 

He is pushing the absurd notion, albeit indirectly, we should only be leaving our houses for food and necessary supplies.  That is essentially fully locking down everyone. 

Unless he would like to share a nuanced view of how he would like to see this handled, and how those whom need to leave our house to work should proceed, this is how I interpret his feelings on the subject.

That's not how I read Jeremy's posts, but I'll leave it to you to sort it out with him.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 01:00:24 pm

First, the end of May date is when we will have enough vaccine for all adults, not when all adults will be vaccinated. Some adults will tarry and dawdle getting their first shot and then won't be eligible to get their second shot for 3-4 weeks after that. Second, the under 16 crowd is not included. No telling when the vaccines will be approved for them and how long it will take them to get vaccinated. Third, the last poll I saw said 42% of Republicans and 25% of the whole population are planning not to get vaccinated, so we are going to have a tough time getting to herd immunity once we deduct the anti-vaxxers and under 16. Fourth, having herd immunity does not mean no one will contract the disease. Fifth, what will change from the day before we achieve herd immunity and the day after?
By the time that rolls around, let's say June, maybe earlier, the number of people dying will be less than the common flu.  So why couldn't we just get on with life as we did before Covid?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 01:01:52 pm
I always wash my hands but stopped washing my car a long time ago. The melting snow takes down both the mud and the virus.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I garage my cars.  So the muck on them just hardens.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 01:10:20 pm
With you, perhaps, with Jeremy, I disagree. 

Jeremy has made it known that he highly disapproved of me traveling to Chicago and TX in January for work, and to Providence back in October.  He also, on more then one occasion, stated his disapproval of me photographing local projects and continuing to work, which requires me to leave my house and enter other properties. 

He is pushing the absurd notion, albeit indirectly, we should only be leaving our houses for food and necessary supplies.  That is essentially fully locking down everyone. 

Unless he would like to share a nuanced view of how he would like to see this handled, and how those whom need to leave our house to work should proceed, this is how I interpret his feelings on the subject.
 
Maybe Jeremy can send you half his paycheck?  Would you accept British Sterlings?  :)

An interesting note is that for those who make the least in society here in America, the unemployment rate is around 20%, not 6%.  These are the people living week to week, paycheck to paycheck.  These are the people most hurt by a shutdown and inability to earn a living to feed their family.  Yet so many here are so nonchalant about that, so stuck on the possibilities of death from Covid they forget people die from starvation too.  Should these people live on the street?  I've been watching the homeless videos of people in LA living in tents on the streets there.  It's pathetic.  Like a third-world nation. Maybe some foreigners here just wish us ill.  They enjoy seeing America in trouble.  So they propose policies that make it worse for us. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 01:17:04 pm
An interesting note is that for those who make the least in society here in America, the unemployment rate is around 20%, not 6%.  These are the people living week to week, paycheck to paycheck.  These are the people most hurt by a shutdown and inability to earn a living to feed their family.  Yet so many here are so nonchalant about that, so stuck on the possibilities of death from Covid they forget people die from starvation too.  Should these people live on the street?  I've been watching the homeless videos of people in LA living in tents on the streets there.  It's pathetic.  Like a third-world nation. Maybe some foreigners here just wish us ill.  They enjoy seeing America in trouble.  So they propose policies that make it worse for us.

You are opposed to Biden's COVID relief bill. How do you propose helping the people you describe without spending money?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 01:28:18 pm
By the time that rolls around, let's say June, maybe earlier, the number of people dying will be less than the common flu.  So why couldn't we just get on with life as we did before Covid?

What are you currently unable to do as a result of local, state, and federal government restrictions?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 01:42:49 pm
Maybe Jeremy can send you half his paycheck?  Would you accept British Sterlings?  :)

Naah - I'm sure Joe doesn't want that - he is opposed to outside economic interference.  The more substantive point is that this pandemic has shown up the difference between countries with strong social systems and those with Devil-take-the-hindmost philosophies. Sweden was able to keep relatively few restrictions, at least for a while, because they could rely on people staying home if they tested positive.

Quote

An interesting note is that for those who make the least in society here in America, the unemployment rate is around 20%, not 6%.  These are the people living week to week, paycheck to paycheck.  These are the people most hurt by a shutdown and inability to earn a living to feed their family.  Yet so many here are so nonchalant about that, so stuck on the possibilities of death from Covid they forget people die from starvation too.  Should these people live on the street?  I've been watching the homeless videos of people in LA living in tents on the streets there.  It's pathetic.  Like a third-world nation. Maybe some foreigners here just wish us ill.  They enjoy seeing America in trouble.  So they propose policies that make it worse for us.

Absolutely not. I am very well aware that the stupidity displayed by some Americans is not representative of the population and I have great respect for many aspects of the US, but at the end of the day it is you who have chosen to not have proper support for the poor - those policies have been chosen by you.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 01:50:50 pm
With you, perhaps, with Jeremy, I disagree. 

Jeremy has made it known that he highly disapproved of me traveling to Chicago and TX in January for work, and to Providence back in October.  He also, on more then one occasion, stated his disapproval of me photographing local projects and continuing to work, which requires me to leave my house and enter other properties. 

He is pushing the absurd notion, albeit indirectly, we should only be leaving our houses for food and necessary supplies.  That is essentially fully locking down everyone. 

Unless he would like to share a nuanced view of how he would like to see this handled, and how those whom need to leave our house to work should proceed, this is how I interpret his feelings on the subject.

To be honest when you described the precautions you took for work on one occasion (don't remember what) I thought they seemed reasonable.  What I don't find reasonable is the idea that you'll just suit yourself.  A lot of the precautions are for protecting others. If going out for ribs or whatever was just a risk for you, that's fine (assuming you don't expect a hospital bed), but it's largely a risk you're imposing on others.

I agree with you that it seems that the risk of infection while outside is largely very small, given elementary precautions, so a lot of outdoor activities I'd guess are safe. Hopefully vaccines will take the pressure off the health services so that they can concentrate on tracing and combatting new variants that will inevitably pop up.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 01:53:20 pm
By the time that rolls around, let's say June, maybe earlier, the number of people dying will be less than the common flu.  So why couldn't we just get on with life as we did before Covid?

Because as long as there are a lot of infected people there is a good risk of new variants emerging which evade the vaccines, and that health services are not equipped to handle the resulting surge in infections.  This has been explained many times, Alan.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 01:57:15 pm
If you move to Cambodia or Greenland, you'll eliminate C-19 dangers altogether. They haven't had any C-19 deaths.

Moving to Greenland has some attractions, at least for a while!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 05, 2021, 02:00:23 pm
Moving to Greenland has some attractions, at least for a while!

Much cleaner air, for sure.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 05, 2021, 02:02:00 pm
To be honest when you described the precautions you took for work on one occasion (don't remember what) I thought they seemed reasonable.  What I don't find reasonable is the idea that you'll just suit yourself.  A lot of the precautions are for protecting others. If going out for ribs or whatever was just a risk for you, that's fine (assuming you don't expect a hospital bed), but it's largely a risk you're imposing on others.

I agree with you that it seems that the risk of infection while outside is largely very small, given elementary precautions, so a lot of outdoor activities I'd guess are safe. Hopefully vaccines will take the pressure off the health services so that they can concentrate on tracing and combatting new variants that will inevitably pop up.

So just to be clear, going out to work while taking precautions you feel is reasonable, along with engaging outdoor activities.  (I can live with that.) 

Going out to eat however is not. 

I, unlike other conservatives, will admit that the data clearly shows indoor dining is a vector for transmissions.  Personally though, I feel people should have the right to choose if they want to dine out, which is something we will have to agree to disagree on. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 02:12:32 pm
So just to be clear, going out to work while taking precautions you feel is reasonable, along with engaging outdoor activities.  (I can live with that.) 

Going out to eat however is not. 

I, unlike other conservatives, will admit that the data clearly shows indoor dining is a vector for transmissions.  Personally though, I feel people should have the right to choose if they want to dine out, which is something we will have to agree to disagree on.

Let's leave it there :-)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:20:13 pm
You are opposed to Biden's COVID relief bill. How do you propose helping the people you describe without spending money?
If we gave $2000 (not the $1400 proposed in the $1.9 trillion billi) to each of the 10 million people unemployed, it would cost $20 billion.  Add $400 a week for 12 more weeks of unemployment insurance payments = $48 billion.  That's $68 billion compared to $1900 billion in the latest bill. That's  a savings of over $1.8 trillion.

By the way, there's almost one trillion left over from the last stimulus bill unspent.  All this money is doing is making richer people richer as stock market, real estate and other assets increase in value.  Meanwhile, the cost of living increases due to inflation will punish these poorer people on fixed income.  The wealth between rich and poor will increase. Wasteful economics. Hurtful social policy. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:30:12 pm
To be honest when you described the precautions you took for work on one occasion (don't remember what) I thought they seemed reasonable.  What I don't find reasonable is the idea that you'll just suit yourself.  A lot of the precautions are for protecting others. If going out for ribs or whatever was just a risk for you, that's fine (assuming you don't expect a hospital bed), but it's largely a risk you're imposing on others.

I agree with you that it seems that the risk of infection while outside is largely very small, given elementary precautions, so a lot of outdoor activities I'd guess are safe. Hopefully vaccines will take the pressure off the health services so that they can concentrate on tracing and combatting new variants that will inevitably pop up.
But everyone who goes to restaurants understands the risk.  I wouldn't go and haven't although I have stopped by a restaurant for take-out to eat at home.  Others find even my doing that as too risky.  Everyone draws the line differently.  If someone is willing to risk working to feed his family, you seem to be very hard on someone trying to take care of their kids.  "Stay home" you insist.  His family apparently isn't as important as yours.

Don't you see the conflict in your demands?  You're doing what you accuse others of doing.  Caring more for yourself and your family than you do for them and their loved ones.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 02:33:45 pm
If we gave $2000 (not the $1400 proposed in the $1.9 trillion billi) to each of the 10 million people unemployed, it would cost $20 billion.  Add $400 a week for 12 more weeks of unemployment insurance payments = $48 billion.  That's $68 billion compared to $1900 billion in the latest bill. That's  a savings of over $1.8 trillion.

So nothing for small businesses, schools and colleges, renters and landlords, vaccine development and distribution, state and local governments, etc.?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:36:28 pm
Because as long as there are a lot of infected people there is a good risk of new variants emerging which evade the vaccines, and that health services are not equipped to handle the resulting surge in infections.  This has been explained many times, Alan.
That's a weak excuse. Let's wait for the variants to hit, if they will.  Otherwise, we can predict all sorts of stuff for the future and never leave our couches.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:37:12 pm
Much cleaner air, for sure.
A girl behind every tree.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 02:37:52 pm
That's a weak excuse. Let's wait for the variants to hit, if they will.  Otherwise, we can predict all sorts of stuff for the future and never leave our couches.

Who hasn't left their couch?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 05, 2021, 02:44:01 pm
anyone for getting back to the vaccine topic ?

It appears not. If you've been to enough parties or events, it's not unusual to find individuals that are disrespectful to polite requests from the host.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:49:26 pm
So nothing for small businesses, schools and colleges, renters and landlords, vaccine development and distribution, state and local governments, etc.?
We can't afford it.  The money is just being printed.  You have to draw the line somewhere. The economy is supposed to rebound because of the vaccines.  Let it do that naturally. These other entities will have to tighten their belts and allow the economy to go through a recession if that's what's required. Many will have to go broke.  Bad companies will perish instead of being bailed out like zombie corporations.  (It's estimated 20% of corporations have debt they can never survive.  We're just spending good money after bad trying to save them.  They have to go. That's how free markets work. )   Otherwise, it will be more painful later.   Good companies will survive and grow creating jobs for the people who worked for the zombie companies.  Half the little businesses like restaurants in trouble now will die regardless.  Why give money to their owners to stick in their pockets?  That's my money.  They didn't share their profits with me when they were earning them.  Our national debt just past $28 trillion about 130% of GDP.  We're going broke. 

What's going to happen in a few months when the $1.9 trillion runs out?  How long can you print money?  The day of reckoning will be worse. People have to get back to real work not handouts from the government. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 05, 2021, 02:50:08 pm
Got Questions About Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine? We Have Answers

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/973436193/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers)

Short excerpts - More at link above

This week, health care providers began administering the first doses of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. — the third vaccine authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to help stop the coronavirus pandemic.

That's welcome news in a country that still faces high levels of circulating virus in most regions, and a demand for vaccine that still far outstrips supply.

The J&J vaccine has some significant advantages, health officials say. Unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, it can be stored for up to three months at regular refrigerator temperatures, so it's easier to distribute to more places. And you're fully vaccinated after just one dose — a welcome convenience for many recipients who dread the two-shot regimen of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines...

How does the Johnson & Johnson vaccine work?

The J&J shot is based on a different technology than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Those use mRNA, or messenger RNA, to deliver bits of genetic code to cells. This code serves as a sort of instruction sheet — telling cells how to make a harmless piece of the spike protein that sticks out of the surface of the coronavirus. The immune system then learns to recognize the spike protein and fight it.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, by contrast, is what's known as a viral vector vaccine — the same technology that's been proven safe and effective in creating an Ebola vaccine and others currently in the works. Basically, Johnson & Johnson started with an adenovirus, which causes the common cold, and modified it so it can't make anybody sick. They then used this harmless cold virus to deliver the genetic blueprint of the protein spike to cells, so the immune system will learn to recognize that spike when it runs into the coronavirus.

To be clear, the J&J vaccine "can't give you the cold virus, and it definitely cannot give you COVID," says Dr. Cassandra Pierre, an infectious disease specialist and acting hospital epidemiologist at Boston Medical Center.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 05, 2021, 02:52:51 pm
Got Questions About Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine? We Have Answers

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/973436193/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers)

Short excerpts - More at link above

This week, health care providers began administering the first doses of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. — the third vaccine authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to help stop the coronavirus pandemic.

That's welcome news in a country that still faces high levels of circulating virus in most regions, and a demand for vaccine that still far outstrips supply.

The J&J vaccine has some significant advantages, health officials say. Unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, it can be stored for up to three months at regular refrigerator temperatures, so it's easier to distribute to more places. And you're fully vaccinated after just one dose — a welcome convenience for many recipients who dread the two-shot regimen of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines...

How does the Johnson & Johnson vaccine work?

The J&J shot is based on a different technology than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Those use mRNA, or messenger RNA, to deliver bits of genetic code to cells. This code serves as a sort of instruction sheet — telling cells how to make a harmless piece of the spike protein that sticks out of the surface of the coronavirus. The immune system then learns to recognize the spike protein and fight it.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, by contrast, is what's known as a viral vector vaccine — the same technology that's been proven safe and effective in creating an Ebola vaccine and others currently in the works. Basically, Johnson & Johnson started with an adenovirus, which causes the common cold, and modified it so it can't make anybody sick. They then used this harmless cold virus to deliver the genetic blueprint of the protein spike to cells, so the immune system will learn to recognize that spike when it runs into the coronavirus.

To be clear, the J&J vaccine "can't give you the cold virus, and it definitely cannot give you COVID," says Dr. Cassandra Pierre, an infectious disease specialist and acting hospital epidemiologist at Boston Medical Center.
Isn't the J&J vaccine less effective than the other two?  I believe around 85% vs. 95%. Which would you rather take?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 05, 2021, 02:58:06 pm
An interesting note is that for those who make the least in society here in America, the unemployment rate is around 20%, not 6%.  These are the people living week to week, paycheck to paycheck.  These are the people most hurt by a shutdown and inability to earn a living to feed their family.  Yet so many here are so nonchalant about that, so stuck on the possibilities of death from Covid they forget people die from starvation too.  Should these people live on the street?  I've been watching the homeless videos of people in LA living in tents on the streets there.  It's pathetic.  Like a third-world nation. Maybe some foreigners here just wish us ill.  They enjoy seeing America in trouble.  So they propose policies that make it worse for us.

You are opposed to Biden's COVID relief bill. How do you propose helping the people you describe without spending money?

If we gave $2000 (not the $1400 proposed in the $1.9 trillion billi) to each of the 10 million people unemployed, it would cost $20 billion.  Add $400 a week for 12 more weeks of unemployment insurance payments = $48 billion.  That's $68 billion compared to $1900 billion in the latest bill. That's  a savings of over $1.8 trillion.

By the way, there's almost one trillion left over from the last stimulus bill unspent.  All this money is doing is making richer people richer as stock market, real estate and other assets increase in value.  Meanwhile, the cost of living increases due to inflation will punish these poorer people on fixed income.  The wealth between rich and poor will increase. Wasteful economics. Hurtful social policy.

So nothing for small businesses, schools and colleges, renters and landlords, vaccine development and distribution, state and local governments, etc.? Seems like the guy who just got a job last week after being unemployed for a year gets left out.

We can't afford it.  The money is just being printed.  You have to draw the line somewhere. The economy is supposed to rebound because of the vaccines.  Let it do that naturally. These other entities will have to tighten their belts and allow the economy to go through a recession if that's what's required. Many will have to go broke.  Bad companies will perish instead of being bailed out like zombie corporations.  (It's estimated 20% of corporations have debt they can never survive.  We're just spending good money after bad trying to save them.  They have to go. That's how free markets work. )   Otherwise, it will be more painful later.   Good companies will survive and grow creating jobs for the people who worked for the zombie companies.  Half the little businesses like restaurants in trouble now will die regardless.  Why give money to their owners to stick in their pockets?  That's my money.  They didn't share their profits with me when they were earning them.  Our national debt just past $28 trillion about 130% of GDP.  We're going broke. 

What's going to happen in a few months when the $1.9 trillion runs out?  How long can you print money?  The day of reckoning will be worse. People have to get back to real work not handouts from the government.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 05, 2021, 03:03:28 pm
That's a weak excuse. Let's wait for the variants to hit, if they will.  Otherwise, we can predict all sorts of stuff for the future and never leave our couches.

It's not an "excuse". There is nothing to "excuse".  I don't have any sort of dog in a fight. I'm just telling you the reasons why it's sensible to take things slowly. You can believe it ir not.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 05, 2021, 03:08:27 pm
Isn't the J&J vaccine less effective than the other two?  I believe around 85% vs. 95%. Which would you rather take?

I would follow the advice in the article and take whatever is available to me first.

Got Questions About Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine? We Have Answers

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/973436193/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers)

Short excerpt - More at link above

Will I be as well protected against getting super sick with COVID-19 if I get the J&J shot as if I get a two-dose version from Pfizer or Moderna?

"When we look at the thing we probably care about most — making sure that we don't end up in the ICU or dying — the efficacy of the three vaccines is virtually identical," says Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, chair of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

The perception that some vaccines may be better than others has to do with the topline numbers from efficacy studies. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna were both found to be about 95% effective against preventing symptomatic COVID-19 after the second dose. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, by contrast, was found to be 66% protective against moderate and severe disease overall worldwide, and 72% protective against such cases in the U.S.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, agrees that the J&J vaccine seems to be "terrific" at saving lives. He tells NPR he's advising his family members to take whichever vaccine comes their way first.

Why shouldn't I just hold out for the vaccine with the highest efficacy rate?

Get whichever vaccine you can as soon as you're eligible, Pierre, Jha and other infectious disease experts urge. The longer you go unvaccinated, the longer you're at risk of contracting a COVID-19 infection that potentially could kill you.

"I view it as a race against time," Pierre says, based on the data and her own experience with her mom. Pierre scrambled to schedule an immunization appointment for her mother as soon as the older woman became eligible. But before she could get immunized, she was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Pierre's mom recovered from that infection, but more than 500,000 other Americans have not been so fortunate.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 05, 2021, 03:32:08 pm
Health Canada approves Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine as Pfizer bumps deliveries

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-health-canada-to-reportedly-announce-approval-of-johnson-johnsons (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-health-canada-to-reportedly-announce-approval-of-johnson-johnsons/)

Excerpts - More at link above

The addition of another COVID-19 vaccine to Canada’s arsenal and accelerated deliveries for another had government officials taking an optimistic tone Friday about the path of the pandemic in Canada.

Health Canada announced the approval of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, saying regulators have evidence showing the vaccine is both safe and effective against the novel coronavirus that causes the disease.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also said Canada will get 1.5 million more doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine delivered this month, and another two million doses that were set to arrive in the summer will now come in April and May.

“We are expecting far more doses by September than there are Canadians, even given that we’re only talking about doses from four different approved companies right now,” Trudeau said Friday.

“We have reasons to be optimistic.”

Health Canada has now approved four distinct COVID-19 vaccines, with the others being from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca. The regulator includes a fifth on its list of authorized shots: Covishield, which is a separate brand name for doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine produced at the Serum Institute of India.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 05, 2021, 03:55:56 pm
A Q&A report from The BMJ (British Medical Journal) published by the British Medical Association on vaccines and variants.

Covid-19: Where are we on vaccines and variants?

BMJ (Published 02 March 2021)

https://www.bmj.com/content/Covid-19: Where are we on vaccines and variants? (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n597)

Nearly a year after WHO declared the covid-19 pandemic, Elisabeth Mahase reports on the latest developments in vaccines, variants, and diplomacy
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 06, 2021, 12:19:43 am
I would follow the advice in the article and take whatever is available to me first.

Got Questions About Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine? We Have Answers

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/973436193/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers)

Short excerpt - More at link above

Will I be as well protected against getting super sick with COVID-19 if I get the J&J shot as if I get a two-dose version from Pfizer or Moderna?

"When we look at the thing we probably care about most — making sure that we don't end up in the ICU or dying — the efficacy of the three vaccines is virtually identical," says Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, chair of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

The perception that some vaccines may be better than others has to do with the topline numbers from efficacy studies. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna were both found to be about 95% effective against preventing symptomatic COVID-19 after the second dose. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, by contrast, was found to be 66% protective against moderate and severe disease overall worldwide, and 72% protective against such cases in the U.S.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, agrees that the J&J vaccine seems to be "terrific" at saving lives. He tells NPR he's advising his family members to take whichever vaccine comes their way first.

Why shouldn't I just hold out for the vaccine with the highest efficacy rate?

Get whichever vaccine you can as soon as you're eligible, Pierre, Jha and other infectious disease experts urge. The longer you go unvaccinated, the longer you're at risk of contracting a COVID-19 infection that potentially could kill you.

"I view it as a race against time," Pierre says, based on the data and her own experience with her mom. Pierre scrambled to schedule an immunization appointment for her mother as soon as the older woman became eligible. But before she could get immunized, she was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Pierre's mom recovered from that infection, but more than 500,000 other Americans have not been so fortunate.

Double-speak from experts. They;re afraid if they ackowledged there is a difference in effectiveness, no one would take J&J's vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 06, 2021, 11:25:12 am
No double speak. Just factual details. Any of the three will go a long way in reducing the number of cases that require hospitalization. Get the first one offered. If it makes someone feel better, ask if there is an option and pick the one you want. Getting vaccinated is more important than the specific choice as the only other option is getting the virus and seeing what happens to one and how far one can help spread it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 06, 2021, 01:30:30 pm
Any of the three will go a long way in reducing the number of cases that require hospitalization. Get the first one offered. . . . Getting vaccinated is more important than the specific choice as the only other option is getting the virus and seeing what happens to one and how far one can help spread it.

I wouldn't be surprised if we wound up needing multiple vaccinations before this coronavirus is under control, or at least additional doses beyond the initial one(s) we receive, due to mutations of the virus, reductions over time in the immune response elicited by our initial vaccinations, or the introduction of new vaccines that produce sterilizing immunity or other significant improvements over the ones currently available.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: John Camp on March 06, 2021, 02:04:28 pm
My wife and I just got our second Moderna shots on Wednesday. Neither one of us hurt much after the first one -- sore arms -- but my wife really got knocked down but the second one. She couldn't get out of bed the day after, and had strong joint pain which went away with a couple of Tylenol (CDC says it's okay to take Tylenol if you have pain after the shot, but not to take it before, as a preventative.) The day after, she was in bed until six o'clock in the evening, got up for a couple hours, then slept through the night. The next day, she was almost back to normal, and on the third day, she's out riding her horse. Said it was like one day of the flu.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 07, 2021, 05:18:50 am
In Prague, they served now cakes with a vaccine. I suspect the syringe is filled with a white rum.

Prague virus and vaccine cakes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmDMINuELAA)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 07, 2021, 06:38:51 pm
Double-speak from experts. They;re [they're] afraid if they ackowledged [acknowledged] there is a difference in effectiveness, no one would take J&J's vaccine.

There is no doublespeak. None. They not only acknowledge the differences in effectiveness exhibited in clinical trials in detail, they also provide details in the differences in time and place of those trials needed to better comprehend the results. At least, they do for those with the ability to comprehend.

Those not suffering from an excess of paranoia or lacking enough ability to comprehend simple concepts like — "The longer you go unvaccinated, the longer you're at risk of contracting a COVID-19 infection that potentially could kill you." — will gladly "Get whichever vaccine you can as soon as you're eligible" as "infectious disease experts urge" because not doing so would defy the simplest logic and common sense.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 07, 2021, 07:09:36 pm
Because as long as there are a lot of infected people there is a good risk of new variants emerging

That is exactly right. It requires only the most basic understanding of how viruses replicate and mutate to understand that fact and why getting as many people vaccinated as soon as possible is so important.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-that-the-coronavirus-is-mutating (https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-that-the-coronavirus-is-mutating/)

However, the contagiousness of the newer variants is all the more reason to stay careful and follow public health measures for preventing the spread of the virus – like wearing a mask, washing your hands, limiting close contact with others and getting vaccinated when you’re able.

That's a weak excuse.

Wrong.

Let's wait for the variants to hit, if they will.

Here's a better idea. Let's not wait for variants to hit as they have tended to be more readily transmissible and spread faster than the virus from which they mutated and can accelerate and prolong the pandemic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 07, 2021, 11:00:32 pm
I would follow the advice in the article and take whatever is available to me first.

Got Questions About Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 Vaccine? We Have Answers

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/04/973436193/got-questions-about-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-we-have-answers)

Short excerpt - More at link above

Will I be as well protected against getting super sick with COVID-19 if I get the J&J shot as if I get a two-dose version from Pfizer or Moderna?

"When we look at the thing we probably care about most — making sure that we don't end up in the ICU or dying — the efficacy of the three vaccines is virtually identical," says Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, chair of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

The perception that some vaccines may be better than others has to do with the topline numbers from efficacy studies. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna were both found to be about 95% effective against preventing symptomatic COVID-19 after the second dose. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, by contrast, was found to be 66% protective against moderate and severe disease overall worldwide, and 72% protective against such cases in the U.S.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, agrees that the J&J vaccine seems to be "terrific" at saving lives. He tells NPR he's advising his family members to take whichever vaccine comes their way first.

Why shouldn't I just hold out for the vaccine with the highest efficacy rate?

Get whichever vaccine you can as soon as you're eligible, Pierre, Jha and other infectious disease experts urge. The longer you go unvaccinated, the longer you're at risk of contracting a COVID-19 infection that potentially could kill you.

"I view it as a race against time," Pierre says, based on the data and her own experience with her mom. Pierre scrambled to schedule an immunization appointment for her mother as soon as the older woman became eligible. But before she could get immunized, she was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Pierre's mom recovered from that infection, but more than 500,000 other Americans have not been so fortunate.

The Germans disagreed with you.  They seemed very concerned with efficacies. Their concern about Astra zeneca put them behind the eightball.

Germany should have led the world at handling the pandemic. But experts slam Merkel's vaccine response as a disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/europe/germany-vaccine-disaster-grm-intl/index.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 08, 2021, 03:42:37 am
The Germans disagreed with you.  They seemed very concerned with efficacies. Their concern about Astra zeneca put them behind the eightball.

Germany should have led the world at handling the pandemic. But experts slam Merkel's vaccine response as a disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/07/europe/germany-vaccine-disaster-grm-intl/index.html

You can sort of understand their point that at that moment there was limited complete trial data on over 65s so they were erring on the side of caution. That is maybe not the right call in a pandemic, but the reasoning was clear. What messed things up was that at the same time the EU were having a spat with Astra Zeneca about the contract to supply vaccines and Macron's small brain got overloaded and he described the AZ vaccine as "quasi-ineffective", which led to a lot of confusion, and there is still a lot of negativity about the AZ vaccine in many people who you'd have expected to know better.

On this occasion, it seems that the UK got it right.  Well, you can't be wrong ALL the time.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 08:56:29 am
You can sort of understand their point that at that moment there was limited complete trial data on over 65s so they were erring on the side of caution. That is maybe not the right call in a pandemic, but the reasoning was clear. What messed things up was that at the same time the EU were having a spat with Astra Zeneca about the contract to supply vaccines and Macron's small brain got overloaded and he described the AZ vaccine as "quasi-ineffective", which led to a lot of confusion, and there is still a lot of negativity about the AZ vaccine in many people who you'd have expected to know better.

On this occasion, it seems that the UK got it right.  Well, you can't be wrong ALL the time.
Maybe Brexit helped.  Having to think and operate independently worked for you Brits.  It appears from the article that the EU countries were depending  for answers from Germany and a common roadmap while you made your own decisions. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 08, 2021, 01:01:49 pm
Here are the new CDC Guidelines for fully vaccinated people.  They are really going to set Joe's hair on fire.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 08, 2021, 01:03:13 pm
Czech Republic went from best to worst in just one year.

Quote
As the virus crept into Europe in early 2020, the Czech government acted. Starting in March of last year, the country of 10.6 million people went into almost total lockdown and stayed locked down for five weeks. Shops, schools, even the borders were shut. Masks had to be worn outside.

But by March 2021, the situation was catastrophic. According to World Health Organization statistics, the Czech Republic now leads the world in new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population — 1,597 as of Saturday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/czech-republic-europe-covid-19-1.5938504
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 01:47:18 pm
The Germans disagreed with you.  They seemed very concerned with efficacies. Their concern about Astra zeneca put them behind the eightball.

I've never had a discussion with "The Germans", or anyone else, about the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine or any concern they may have, or had, about it.

I am involved in a discussion about the three currently available vaccines in the United States and the currently available data on their efficacy and effectiveness relative to each other and the differences in the way in which the various clinical trials were conducted for those vaccines.

All three are highly efficacious and effective at providing protection against serious to critical illness and death. All three are relatively scarce in availability relative to the adult population that would benefit from being vaccinated with any of them. The wise choice is to take whichever is available to you as early as possible rather than take the risk of becoming infected, and the concomitant risk of serious illness or death, while waiting for a specific vaccine to become available to you.

It's difficult to make anything other than broad comparisons between the vaccine choices from Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson / J&J) because they were tested at different times and in different places with different variants of the virus. Comparison is also difficult as the currently available data is derived from the limited clinical trials conducted prior to Emergency Use Authorization. Due to the immediate need for a means of slowing the spread of the virus, they were put into use under Emergency Use Authorization without lengthy clinical trials to produce more granular data. For instance, the J&J vaccine was tested in Brazil and South Africa at a time when variants of the virus were widespread and was shown to be protective against those variants. That data is limited at present for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Much more will be learned over time regarding the various vaccines as they are administered over a wider population. However, what is known is that all three have demonstrated highly effective protection against serious to critical illness from COVID-19 and as a result reducing deaths.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants.html)

In the case of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson / J&J) vaccine, which is the principle point of discussion in the Q&A article that I linked and the few comments that I made regarding it, the FDA conclusion was...

Efficacy against severe/critical COVID-19 (key secondary efficacy endpoint):
• Onset ≥14 days after vaccination: 76.7% (54.6, 89.1)
• Onset ≥28 days after vaccination: 85.4% (54.2, 96.9)

Reduction in COVID-19 requiring medical intervention:
• Onset ≥14 days after vaccination: 2 in vaccine group vs. 29 in placebo group
• Onset ≥28 days after vaccination: 0 in vaccine group vs. 16 in placebo group
 
Whatever conversation is happening inside your head regarding Germany and the AstraZeneca vaccine is not one I am a part of nor do I wish to be. Take that discussion to "The Germans".
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 08, 2021, 01:52:36 pm
Here are the new CDC Guidelines for fully vaccinated people.

An accompanying background article (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/fully-vaccinated-people.html#print) summarizes the rationale and evidence for the guidance:

Quote
COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States are effective against COVID-19, including severe disease.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may provide some protection against a variety of strains, including B.1.1.7 (originally identified in the United Kingdom). However, reduced antibody neutralization and efficacy have been observed for the B.1.351 strain (originally identified in South Africa).

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.

Modeling studies suggest that preventive measures such as mask use and social distancing will continue to be important during vaccine implementation. However, there are ways to take a balanced approach by allowing vaccinated people to resume some lower-risk activities.

Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated persons may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake.

The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.

While the scientific understanding of SARS-CoV-2 is evolving, so is the virus.  We're in a worldwide race between the effort to get the pandemic under control by achieving mass immunity and the spread of mutated variants that appear at least partly to evade the protective effects of the vaccines.  And, ominously,

Quote
According to a survey conducted right as the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the United States, most people expected it would take at least 6 months after vaccine rollout before they were able to resume activities such as going out to dinner, going to a gym class, or staying in a hotel.  However, a survey conducted less than 2 months into the vaccination program suggest that over half of the general U.S. adult population have already started resuming some of these activities despite the risk of COVID-19 because they “just want their life back.”  Reasons for taking fewer COVID-19 precautions than they did a month ago included COVID-19 fatigue, belief that population-based immunity has been achieved through vaccination or disease, belief about reduced disease risk for themselves as others get vaccinated, belief that they no longer pose a threat to high-risk people because high-risk groups are receiving protection through vaccination, and receipt of the vaccines themselves.  [Citations omitted.]

So in addition to the race between mass immunity and the mutations, there's a parallel contest taking place between the empirical evidence and the personal emotional reactions people are experiencing to the protracted restrictions.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 03:05:15 pm
I've never had a discussion with "The Germans", or anyone else, about the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine or any concern they may have, or had, about it.

I am involved in a discussion about the three currently available vaccines in the United States and the currently available data on their efficacy and effectiveness relative to each other and the differences in the way in which the various clinical trials were conducted for those vaccines.

All three are highly efficacious and effective at providing protection against serious to critical illness and death. All three are relatively scarce in availability relative to the adult population that would benefit from being vaccinated with any of them. The wise choice is to take whichever is available to you as early as possible rather than take the risk of becoming infected, and the concomitant risk of serious illness or death, while waiting for a specific vaccine to become available to you.

It's difficult to make anything other than broad comparisons between the vaccine choices from Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson / J&J) because they were tested at different times and in different places with different variants of the virus. Comparison is also difficult as the currently available data is derived from the limited clinical trials conducted prior to Emergency Use Authorization. Due to the immediate need for a means of slowing the spread of the virus, they were put into use under Emergency Use Authorization without lengthy clinical trials to produce more granular data. For instance, the J&J  vaccine was tested in Brazil and South Africa at a time when variants of the virus were widespread and was shown to be protective against those variants. That data is limited at present for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Much more will be learned over time regarding the various vaccines as they are administered over a wider population. However, what is known is that all three have demonstrated highly effective protection against serious to critical illness from COVID-19 and prevention of death.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants.html)

In the case of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson / J&J) vaccine, which is the principle point of discussion in the Q&A article that I linked and the few comments that I made regarding it, the FDA conclusion was...

Efficacy against severe/critical COVID-19 (key secondary efficacy endpoint):
• Onset ≥14 days after vaccination: 76.7% (54.6, 89.1)
• Onset ≥28 days after vaccination: 85.4% (54.2, 96.9)

Reduction in COVID-19 requiring medical intervention:
• Onset ≥14 days after vaccination: 2 in vaccine group vs. 29 in placebo group
• Onset ≥28 days after vaccination: 0 in vaccine group vs. 16 in placebo group
 
Whatever conversation is happening inside your head regarding Germany and the AstraZeneca vaccine is not one I am a part of nor do I wish to be. Take that discussion to "The Germans".
I didn't suggest you shouldn't take what you can get.  I'm just stating that J&J's vaccine is not as effective as the other two.   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 03:13:21 pm
New CDC recommendations for Americans who have been vaccinated.

Given the current state of research, the C.D.C. advised:

-Fully vaccinated Americans may gather indoors in private homes in small groups without masks or distancing. Vaccinated people may gather in a private residence without masks or distancing with unvaccinated people, so long as they are from a single household and are at low risk for developing severe disease should they contract the coronavirus.

-Vaccinated Americans need not quarantine or get tested if they have a known exposure to the virus, as long as they do not develop symptoms of infection. If they do develop symptoms, they must isolate themselves, get tested and speak with their doctors.

-In public, vaccinated people must continue to wear masks, maintain social distance and take other precautions, such as avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands often and following any other protocols that are in place.

-Vaccinated people should avoid gatherings with multiple households, as well as large and medium-sized gatherings. (The agency did not specify what size constitutes a medium or large gathering.)

The C.D.C. did not revise its travel recommendations, continuing to advise that all Americans stay home unless necessary. Dr. Walensky noted that virus cases have surged every time there has been an increase in travel.

“We are really trying to restrain travel,” she said. “And we’re hopeful that our next set of guidance will have more science around what vaccinated people can do, perhaps travel being among them.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/08/world/covid-19-coronavirus#covid-vaccine-cdc-guidelines
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 08, 2021, 03:23:17 pm
Down with the CDC! Down with fascist lockdowns and mask mandates! Live free or die!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 08, 2021, 03:28:30 pm
New CDC recommendations for Americans who have been vaccinated...

I guess Alan has me on ignore, since I posted a link to the new CDC guidelines an hour or so ago.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 03:32:48 pm
Down with the CDC! Down with fascist lockdowns and mask mandates! Live free or die!
Switzerland just voted against masks.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 03:33:52 pm
I guess Alan has me on ignore, since I posted a link to the new CDC guidelines an hour or so ago.
Didn't see your post for some reason.  Sorry if I stepped on your toes. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 08, 2021, 03:36:39 pm
Damn.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 08, 2021, 03:42:34 pm
Down with the CDC! Down with fascist lockdowns and mask mandates! Live free or die!

They are guidelines. You don't have to follow them.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 08, 2021, 03:49:37 pm
Switzerland just voted against masks.

Nothing to do with C-19. To clarify, the Swiss voted against wearing burkas by Muslim women in public.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56314173
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 03:51:58 pm
I'm just stating that J&J's vaccine is not as effective as the other two.

Unnecessary. The currently known data was already covered in the article which you described as doublespeak. In addition, the article indicated that based on currently limited data you can't really make head to head comparisons among them.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

How the effectiveness of each will be judged over a longer period of time and a broader population is unknown. Efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines are two different measures. At the moment, all we have is limited data on efficacy and and even less data on effectiveness as new variants emerge.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants.html)

So far, studies suggest that the vaccines currently in use can recognize the emerging variants — but they don’t provide as much protection against these new strains. The variant from South Africa, for example, reduced Pfizer-BioNTech’s antibody protection by two-thirds, according to a February study. Moderna’s neutralizing antibodies dropped six-fold with the South Africa variant.

(Experts say that it’s worth noting that Johnson & Johnson’s trials took place when the new variants had already become the dominant strains in South Africa and Brazil, while Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials took place before that happened.)

Pfizer says South African variant could significantly reduce protective antibodies

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants/pfizer-says-south-african-variant-could-significantly-reduce-protective-antibodies (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants/pfizer-says-south-african-variant-could-significantly-reduce-protective-antibodies-idUSKBN2AH2VG)

A laboratory study suggests that the South African variant of the coronavirus may reduce protective antibodies elicited by the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE vaccine by two-thirds, and it is not clear if the shot will be effective against the mutation, the companies said on Wednesday.

The study found the vaccine was still able to neutralize the virus and there is not yet evidence from trials in people that the variant reduces vaccine protection, the companies said.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy)

Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine efficacy only provides information about how well a vaccine works under the conditions of the clinical trial. Scientists usually base it on factors that they can quantify, such as numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19.

But the ideal conditions of a clinical trial do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine effectiveness tells us how well a vaccine works under real-world conditions once people outside of clinical trials receive the vaccine.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 03:54:25 pm
Down with the CDC! Down with fascist lockdowns and mask mandates! Live free or die!

Down with ignorance of science and rigid ideology!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 08, 2021, 03:55:38 pm
Down with the CDC! Down with fascist lockdowns and mask mandates! Live free or die!

Actually, it should be worded as - live free AND die!
As pointed out in my previous post, Czech Republic went from best place to worst place in C-19 spread simply by lifting the lockdown restrictions and stopping the mask wearing starting in summer 2020.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 07:08:17 pm
Nothing to do with C-19. To clarify, the Swiss voted against wearing burkas by Muslim women in public.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56314173
You're right.  Additionally, I posted in the wrong thread.  It belongs in the other thread about politics, racism, and other issues about man's inhumanity to man. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 07:17:34 pm
Unnecessary. The currently known data was already covered in the article which you described as doublespeak. In addition, the article indicated that based on currently limited data you can't really make head to head comparisons among them.

But you can't really compare those numbers head to head, says Pierre, because "these were different trials in different places at different times," and the strains of the coronavirus running around were likely somewhat different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was tested more recently, including in South Africa and Brazil, at a time when more contagious variants of the coronavirus were widely circulating in those countries. The Moderna and Pfizer clinical studies, meanwhile, were started earlier, before such variants had become widespread.

Given those differences, Bibbins-Domingo says "the number you should probably compare is 85%" — that's how effective the J & J vaccine was found to be at preventing severe disease four weeks after immunization.

How the effectiveness of each will be judged over a longer period of time and a broader population is unknown. Efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines are two different measures. At the moment, all we have is limited data on efficacy and and even less data on effectiveness as new variants emerge.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/how-the-different-covid-vaccines-will-handle-variants.html)

So far, studies suggest that the vaccines currently in use can recognize the emerging variants — but they don’t provide as much protection against these new strains. The variant from South Africa, for example, reduced Pfizer-BioNTech’s antibody protection by two-thirds, according to a February study. Moderna’s neutralizing antibodies dropped six-fold with the South Africa variant.

(Experts say that it’s worth noting that Johnson & Johnson’s trials took place when the new variants had already become the dominant strains in South Africa and Brazil, while Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials took place before that happened.)

Pfizer says South African variant could significantly reduce protective antibodies

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants/pfizer-says-south-african-variant-could-significantly-reduce-protective-antibodies (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-variants/pfizer-says-south-african-variant-could-significantly-reduce-protective-antibodies-idUSKBN2AH2VG)

A laboratory study suggests that the South African variant of the coronavirus may reduce protective antibodies elicited by the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE vaccine by two-thirds, and it is not clear if the shot will be effective against the mutation, the companies said on Wednesday.

The study found the vaccine was still able to neutralize the virus and there is not yet evidence from trials in people that the variant reduces vaccine protection, the companies said.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy)

Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine efficacy only provides information about how well a vaccine works under the conditions of the clinical trial. Scientists usually base it on factors that they can quantify, such as numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19.

But the ideal conditions of a clinical trial do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine effectiveness tells us how well a vaccine works under real-world conditions once people outside of clinical trials receive the vaccine.

The article is doublespeak.  J&J vaccine is not as effective.  The scientists are trying to convince everyone to disregard the numbers because they want people to use this vaccine along with the other more effective vaccines.  So they're downplaying that it's less effective. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 07:34:35 pm
that is how you are interpreting it. We understand that.
Their presentation is factual. they are not trying to hide anything or lead you astray.


If you had the choice, which we understand you don't have to make anymore, which choice would you make  - AZ or wait another month or more ?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 07:55:49 pm
that is how you are interpreting it. We understand that.
Their presentation is factual. they are not trying to hide anything or lead you astray.


If you had the choice, which we understand you don't have to make anymore, which choice would you make  - AZ or wait another month or more?
It's this kind of doublespeak they presented that makes people wary of experts.  They should just say, yes it's 80% or 90% as effective as Moderna and the other but it's effective enough so that you want to take it immediately if it's available.  But they're afraid people won't take it and they want people to be vaccinated even if the effectiveness is slightly less.  But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in the beginning.  Once you're caught lying, it's hard to regain trust.  So the reactions to their statements are met negatively.  People know when they're being bullshi**ed.

They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible.  But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective.  No one knows.  But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 08:14:33 pm
The article is doublespeak.

That is obviously not true for anyone with average comprehension.

J&J vaccine is not as effective.

Unfortunately, you're still unaware of what the word effective means as applied to vaccines. It will require more time and a great deal more data before any reasonable comparison of effectiveness among various vaccines can begin to be made. Comparative effectiveness of different vaccines may vary by region depending on the predominant variants and any new ones that may arise.

The scientists are trying to convince everyone to disregard the numbers because they want people to use this vaccine along with the other more effective vaccines.  So they're downplaying that it's less effective.

Ignorance combined with paranoia create a poisonous cocktail for the mind.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 08:24:37 pm
That is obviously not true for anyone with average comprehension.

Unfortunately, you're still unaware of what the word effective means as applied to vaccines. It will require more time and a great deal more data before any reasonable comparison of effectiveness among various vaccines can begin to be made. Comparative effectiveness of different vaccines may vary by region depending on the predominant variants and any new ones that may arise.

Ignorance combined with paranoia create a poisonous cocktail for the mind.
Thanks Dr. TeckTalk.  But I'll trust myself regarding my health rather than you. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 08:27:00 pm

But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in ......


The data wasn't there that even minimal masks could have a positive effect no matter how weak. I had the same opinion.   The last thing we needed was a run on N95 masks as that shortage would leave the facilities with a severe shortage and could easily  lead to a collapse of the health care system.

On a public health basis ie across the population, it was demonstrated to help. I changed my mind and started wearing a home made mask before they changed the guidance.

 “ ... People know when they're being bullshi**ed. “

I am not sure anyone can say that with an honest face.


They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible. 


For the good of all rather than the good of the individual ie you and me specifically. Efficacy of >50% still makes a big difference for the population. It just takes longer to get the spread reduced.


But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective. 


The limited amount of data does suggest that extending the time between the two shots does not hurt the efficacy too much. You are correct, that approach has not been through a large third stage trial. There are some limited studies under way.


But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it.


Not gaming - as that implies deliberate distortion - except for the politicians and some of the media parroting them. Rather they have been transparent about their thoughts and also speculated. The latter gets you in trouble when you are not a politician and are looked at as “expert”.  Bad idea when you are espousing public policy and guidance. KISS has to be followed in that arena. Many experts have a hard time doing that as their world is in shades of gray and nuanced.


Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 08:27:50 pm
It's this kind of doublespeak they presented that makes people wary of experts.

Baloney

They should just say, yes it's 80% or 90% as effective as Moderna and the other but it's effective enough so that you want to take it immediately if it's available.

They did... and more. You were unable or unwilling to comprehend it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 08:41:26 pm

But you can't deceive people.  It's like what they said about masks in ......


The data wasn't there that even minimal masks could have a positive effect no matter how weak. I had the same opinion.   The last thing we needed was a run on N95 masks as that shortage would leave the facilities with a severe shortage and could easily  lead to a collapse of the health care system.

On a public health basis ie across the population, it was demonstrated to help. I changed my mind and started wearing a home made mask before they changed the guidance.

 “the reactions to their statements are met negatively.  People know when they're being bullshi**ed. “

I am not sure anyone can say that with an honest face.


They are also trying to convince people only one Moderna shot is necessary.  They're doing this for the same reason they're pushing J&J.  They want as many people vaccinated as possible. 


For the good of all rather than the good of the individual ie you and me specifically. Efficacy of >50% still makes a big difference for the population. It just takes longer to get the spread reduced.


But the fact is Moderna has a two-shot protocol.  That's how they tested it.  Who knows what would happen if only one shot is given.  Maybe without the booster being given with the four-week period, the first shot wears off after a few weeks and becomes non-effective. 


The limited amount of data does suggest that extending the time between the two shots does not hurt the efficacy too much. You are correct, that approach has not been through a large third stage trial. There are some limited studies under way.


But so-called "experts" are trying to game the system, again losing the general public who knows doublespeak when they hear it.


Not gaming - as that implies deliberate distortion - except for the politicians and some of the media parroting them. Rather they have been transparent about their thoughts and also speculated. The latter gets you in trouble when you are not a politician and are looked at as “expert”.  Bad idea when you are espousing public policy and guidance. KISS has to be followed in that arena. Many experts have a hard time doing that as their world is in shades of gray and nuanced.



Fauci's favorite expression is, "...it seems likely..."   Now that really encourages trust in what he recommends.  How can the layman know what to do or what's best?  Then the politicians who tell you to wear a mask, open up the businesses again only to see the infections pick up, and oops, they shut them down again.  Another thing the public sees that engenders trust that our leaders don't know what they're doing.  So some experts now say we can ignore the Maderna two-shot studies because they know best.  Meanwhile, the two-shot pharmaceutical companies insist that two shots are the right and studied way to go.  So you have public experts disagreeing with the experts who made the vaccines.  But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 08:44:43 pm
Thanks Dr. TeckTalk.  But I'll trust myself regarding my health rather than you.

You might want to consider listening to people that have spent their lives studying the sciences involved; who have experience in the field of epidemic viral pathology, prevention, and containment; and who develop the vaccines upon which we rely. They know far more about it than either of us.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 08:48:35 pm
You might want to consider listening to people that have spent their lives studying the sciences involved; who have experience in the field of epidemic viral pathology, prevention, and containment; and who develop the vaccines upon which we rely. They know far more about it than either of us.
Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 08:50:50 pm
Fauci's favorite expression is, "...it seems likely..."   Now that really encourages trust in what he recommends.  How can the layman know what to do or what's best?  Then the politicians who tell you to wear a mask, open up the businesses again only to see the infections pick up, and oops, they shut them down again.  Another thing the public sees that engenders trust that our leaders don't know what they're doing.  So some experts now say we can ignore the Maderna two-shot studies because they know best.  Meanwhile, the two-shot pharmaceutical companies insist that two shots are the right and studied way to go.  So you have public experts disagreeing with the experts who made the vaccines.  But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

See you down in the corner bar Alan, mask optional, buy you a brew or two. And no, i cannot get a shot yet nor have i had it. Cheers mate .
 ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 08:54:53 pm
Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.

Why ?
It is in their  interest to sell as many doses as possible.  They are just cya ing because they would get sued if they didnt have the stage 3 trial done and have a fed eua.
Governments are under no such restriction.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 08:58:18 pm
But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

Attacking me won't change any facts regarding: the science of vaccines; how they've been tested; their known efficacy; their unknown effectiveness long term; or the science and common sense applied to recommendations for their use in a pandemic. It will remain so regardless of your awareness of those facts or approval of them—or me.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 08:59:59 pm
See you down in the corner bar Alan, mask optional, buy you a brew or two. And no, i cannot get a shot yet nor have i had it. Cheers mate .
 ;)
Well, my wife and I have had the Moderna shots and it's been two weeks since the last one.  So today, I went into the pizza store and actually ate my pizza slice without a mask on, tempting fate.  I made sure I sat ten feet from everyone else.  Then I sprayed my hands in 91% alcohol when I got back into the car which I just had washed and cleaned after one year of collecting mud.

When we got our first shots, I was concerned they would give our second ones away.  The nurse said we had nothing to worry about.  They were reserving all second shots for their patients who got the first one and we got them on time four weeks later.  Fortunately, the nurse didn't read those expert opinions and articles about skipping the second dose. So I have to admit, getting the two shots does make me feel safer although we're still wearing masks for the most part and aren't getting together with anyone else yet. 

I hope you and everyone else can get their shots as soon as possible.  It does give a lot of confidence that you can get on with your life relatively normally; hopefully not too much.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 09:05:25 pm
You know that the shot only reduces your chances down to about 1 in 20 , at best, of getting a serious case or hospitalization from something close to 1in 1 if infected, all other things being equal ?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 09:06:37 pm
Why ?
It is in their  interest to sell as many doses as possible.  They are just cya ing because they would get sued if they didnt have the stage 3 trial done and have a fed eua.
Governments are under no such restriction.
I thought of that.  Except there would still be second shots coming afterwards.  And the more first shots they would give, the more second shots would have to be ordered.  They'd increase sales.

Plus, their recommendation jives with their studies.  How could they legitimately say it's OK to skip the second shot when their whole studies were with two shots and that's what the results concluded.  It would be malpractice for them to say skip the second.  Of course, some governmental guy who knows little about the research work done can theorize whatever he wants without doing any research at all.  He won't be sued.  But why would anyone trust him?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 08, 2021, 09:09:29 pm
Attacking me won't change any facts regarding: the science of vaccines; how they've been tested; their known efficacy; their unknown effectiveness long term; or the science and common sense applied to recommendations for their use in a pandemic. It will remain so regardless of your awareness of those facts or approval of them—or me.
If you took a poll, most people would select the more effective vaccine.  Which would you choose?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 08, 2021, 09:14:13 pm
First one available
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 09:18:46 pm
Exactly.   I trust the recommendations of the pharmaceutical companies that developed the vaccines.  They say take both shots.

Who advised you not to do so? It certainly wasn't me. The article that I linked, which began your tirade against "experts" and their suspicious (to you) motives, doesn't advise you not to "take both shots" either. If that's what you want to talk about make your own post about it; you don't need to do it by pretending that your replying to me about something that I never advocated.

Of course, that's one major advantage of the J&J vaccine. It's one and done. It's twice as fast at getting a large number of people fully vaccinated. It requires half the number of syringes, half the amount of vaccine, and the same number of personnel can vaccinate twice the number of people in a given period, reducing the load and burden on them by half as well, over time.

In fairness to those who have recommended lengthening intervals between administration of both doses of other vaccines, the recommendation from vaccine makers for dosage intervals — and the decision by some countries to extend those intervals by a certain number of days in order to deliver more first round doses to affect some degree of protective immunity in a larger set of the population more rapidly — is a calculation made on a limited set of data in both instances. Until studies on the relative effectiveness of individual vaccines given at varying intervals have been made thru acquisition of more data, the optimum effective intervals and the affect on overall containment and reduction of severity will remain uncertain for some time.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html)

Interval between mRNA doses

The second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible, but not earlier than recommended (i.e., 3 weeks [Pfizer-BioNTech] or 1 month [Moderna]). However, second doses administered within a grace period of 4 days earlier than the recommended date for the second dose are still considered valid. If it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval and a delay in vaccination is unavoidable, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be administered up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose. Currently, only limited data are available on efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered beyond this window.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 08, 2021, 09:29:45 pm
Isn't the J&J vaccine less effective than the other two?  I believe around 85% vs. 95%. Which would you rather take?

If you took a poll, most people would select the more effective vaccine.  Which would you choose?

You already asked me three days ago and I responded then. We've been thru this. Why pose your question again as if it's a reply to a later post of mine which is unrelated? If you want to start a poll, start a poll. You don't need my involvement.

First one available

Of course. As I told Alan the first time he asked, "I would follow the advice in the article and take whatever is available to me first." There's no reason to wait when the known risk far exceeds any uncertain potential benefit in waiting.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 09, 2021, 01:20:34 am
But of course, Dr. TechTalk above has made his analysis, a guy who won't even give his first name and has never posted one photo he's ever taken in a photo forum he practices medicine in.  But we should trust his analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines and skip the second dose of Moderna.  Gee thanks, but no thanks.

I haven't made any "analysis as to the efficacy of the J&J vaccines". I linked to an article with the actual clinical trial data and quoted sections from its Q&A. The only thought I expressed was that the advice to take the first vaccine that became available to someone was sensible, based on simple common sense regarding risk. If that's what you regard as "analysis", it sets the bar for that word awfully low.

I have never thought or suggested that anyone should "skip the second dose of Moderna". That's your false assertion about me, which you first attributed to "They", and which frankly, I am failing to appreciate. Of course, "They" are always suspicious and up to nefarious deeds.

I gave facts about the difference between efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines, which you ignore. I also provided information regarding how variants can have an impact on efficacy in clinical trial data and on the longer term overall effectiveness of various vaccines, which you ignore. If you don't want to acknowledge basic facts and information regarding vaccines, that's your decision. You can then focus your attention on how suspicious and untrustworthy "experts" (or those you sometimes simply refer to as "they") are instead.

As for your false or misleading statements regarding anything that I have or have not advocated, I'd like to say... "Gee thanks, but no thanks."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 08:59:39 am
Things are looking up.

America could soon be swimming in COVID-19 vaccine. The shift from scarcity to surplus could bring its own problems.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/03/09/covid-19-vaccine-us-surplus-april-coronavirus/4595458001/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 09, 2021, 09:10:54 am
Things are looking up.

America could soon be swimming in COVID-19 vaccine. The shift from scarcity to surplus could bring its own problems.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/03/09/covid-19-vaccine-us-surplus-april-coronavirus/4595458001/

No worry about surplus. A third dose could be used in fall by health workers and elderly whose antibodies will have faded by then.
 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 09:16:53 am
No worry about surplus. A third dose could be used in fall by health workers and elderly whose antibodies will have faded by then.
 
It's not the only thing that fades when you get older.

We might need a booster to offset the new variants.  I hope not.  But it could happen. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 09, 2021, 09:44:20 am
Interesting data from the CDC released yesterday on US C-19 deaths, being reported in England. 

More than 73 percent of Americans who die of COVID-19 are overweight or obese, CDC data reveal (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9338761/More-73-Americans-die-COVID-obese-CDC-data-show.html)

Stay safe, stay in shape, and stay of appropriate weight.  Time to head to the gym. 

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 10:14:12 am
Interesting data from the CDC released yesterday on US C-19 deaths, being reported in England. 

More than 73 percent of Americans who die of COVID-19 are overweight or obese, CDC data reveal (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9338761/More-73-Americans-die-COVID-obese-CDC-data-show.html)

Stay safe, stay in shape, and stay of appropriate weight.  Time to head to the gym. 


But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 09, 2021, 12:22:36 pm
But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?

Those two stats are not directly related.  73% of those who have died are overweight, pointing to that being overweight is a leading precursor for death from C-19 (plus a litany of other things). 

The fact that we as a country are so overweight, as the 74% figure shows, is probably the lead reason (not Trump or any other politician) why so many Americans died in the last year.  Similarly, the C-19 death rate for undeveloped countries, which have far fewer overweight citizens, is less, another striking correlation. 

As has been pointed out long before C-19 showed up, if you want to live a more care free life free from many health issues, regardless of age, maintain an appropriate weight.  In the vast majority of cases, it is a personal decision. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 02:40:55 pm
Those two stats are not directly related.  73% of those who have died are overweight, pointing to that being overweight is a leading precursor for death from C-19 (plus a litany of other things). 

The fact that we as a country are so overweight, as the 74% figure shows, is probably the lead reason (not Trump or any other politician) why so many Americans died in the last year.  Similarly, the C-19 death rate for undeveloped countries, which have far fewer overweight citizens, is less, another striking correlation. 

As has been pointed out long before C-19 showed up, if you want to live a more care free life free from many health issues, regardless of age, maintain an appropriate weight.  In the vast majority of cases, it is a personal decision. 
I'm sorry.  I don't see the relationship. What am I missing?  If three-quarters of Americans are fat, then you'd expect three-quarters of covid deaths to be of people who happen to be fat.  Now if you said 1/4 of Americans are fat but 3/4 of covid deaths are people who are fat, then the statistic would be important. Otherwise, the dead % who are fat just reflect the general population percentage.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: EricV on March 09, 2021, 02:50:13 pm
Interesting data from the CDC released yesterday on US C-19 deaths, being reported in England. 
More than 73 percent of Americans who die of COVID-19 are overweight or obese, CDC data reveal (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9338761/More-73-Americans-die-COVID-obese-CDC-data-show.html)

I don't know where this article got its data, but both the data and the interpretation look bogus.  Here is a link to actual CDC data.  Table 3 shows that out of a sample of 160000 Covid deaths, 5600 were linked to obesity as a contributing cause.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/new-cdc-report-shows-94-of-covid-19-deaths-in-us-had-underlying-medical-conditions/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 02:59:02 pm
I don't know where this article got its data, but both the data and the interpretation look bogus.  Here is a link to actual CDC data.  Table 3 shows that out of a sample of 160000 Covid deaths, 5600 were linked to obesity as a contributing cause.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/new-cdc-report-shows-94-of-covid-19-deaths-in-us-had-underlying-medical-conditions/
When you think about many statistics, you can create any scenario to prove a point.,  For example, they say older people with comorbidities are more likely to die.  Well, most older people have some commorbities like heart issues, diabetes, etc.  But the main reason they might be dying is because they're, well, old.  Their bodies can't handle the Covid attack. So they die.  Not because of the comorbidities but because the virus takes a toll on it's own.  But it's hard to prove they would have died anyway just of old age and COvid by itself.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 09, 2021, 03:16:57 pm
But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?

Clue - the linked article is from the Daily Mail which is a piece of garbage that I wouldn’t insult my arse by using it to wipe with. If you look at the graphs, which were copied from elsewhere and not invented by the half-witted journalist, they show a correlation between BMI and rate of hospitalisation, which different from the story you get from just comparing percentages.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 09, 2021, 04:06:58 pm
When you think about many statistics, you can create any scenario to prove a point.

In my experience, that has not been true.

For example, they say older people with comorbidities are more likely to die.  Well, most older people have some commorbities like heart issues, diabetes, etc.  But the main reason they might be dying is because they're, well, old.  Their bodies can't handle the Covid attack. So they die.  Not because of the comorbidities but because the virus takes a toll on it's own.  But it's hard to prove they would have died anyway just of old age and COvid by itself.

Why would that be hard to prove? You could look at data and see if the mortality rate was the same in old patients with and without comorbidities.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 04:09:47 pm
In my experience, that has not been true.

Why would that be hard to prove? You could look at data and see if the mortality rate was the same in old patients with and without comorbidities.
Being old with comorbidities, I took their word for it and put on my mask.  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 09, 2021, 04:15:59 pm
When you think about many statistics, you can create any scenario to prove a point.

In my experience, that has not been true.

For example, they say older people with comorbidities are more likely to die.  Well, most older people have some commorbities like heart issues, diabetes, etc.  But the main reason they might be dying is because they're, well, old.  Their bodies can't handle the Covid attack. So they die.  Not because of the comorbidities but because the virus takes a toll on it's own.  But it's hard to prove they would have died anyway just of old age and COvid by itself.

Why would that be hard to prove? You could look at data and see if the mortality rate was the same in old patients with and without comorbidities.

Being old with comorbidities, I took their word for it and put on my mask.  :)

First, who is "they"? Second, what does that have to do with your assertion that:

But the main reason they might be dying is because they're, well, old.  Their bodies can't handle the Covid attack. So they die.  Not because of the comorbidities but because the virus takes a toll on it's own.  But it's hard to prove they would have died anyway just of old age and COvid by itself.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 09, 2021, 04:22:22 pm
First, who is "they"? Second, what does that have to do with your assertion that:

I'm making conversation. Trying to make people think beyond what they read.  You don't have to agree with me.  In fact, brainstorming is suppose to create different scenarios, even if some seem impossible. 

Why do you think old people die from Covid?  Do you think age on its own has most to do with it?  Forget the charts.  What does your common sense say to you?  In fact, don't Google it.  Don't read any charts.  What does your logic tell you? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 09, 2021, 04:27:25 pm
I'm making conversation. Trying to make people think beyond what they read.  You don't have to agree with me.  In fact, brainstorming is suppose to create different scenarios, even if some seem impossible. 

Why do you think old people die from Covid?  Do you think age on its own has most to do with it?  Forget the charts.  What does your common sense say to you?  In fact, don't Google it.  Don't read any charts.  What does your logic tell you?

I think facts matter, so I will continue to seek them out. I am not very impressed with wild ass guesses, particularly from people who have no education, training, or experience in what they are wild ass guessing about, and who actively ignore the facts.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 12:41:25 am
I think facts matter, so I will continue to seek them out. I am not very impressed with wild ass guesses, particularly from people who have no education, training, or experience in what they are wild ass guessing about, and who actively ignore the facts.
What did people do before Google search?  Do you ever trust your own judgment and experience in life? Or do you always check things out with others?  Maybe they're dumb and just have a good line and BSing you.  A lot of people have great credentials and not a bit of common sense. Being able to read between the lines is often more important then the words themselves. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 10, 2021, 12:58:47 am
What did people do before Google search? 

They were playing cards and ping pong.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 10, 2021, 01:58:53 am
What did people do before Google search?

An encyclopedia set at home, a good public library, and new and used book stores. I still love shopping in used book stores. There were also great magazines for a wide range of interests.

The encyclopedias that I read growing up had additional articles suggested at the bottom of each article, similar to the links to related information which web pages often contain. The public library was great; if you could also get access to a college library, all the better. At the used book stores I've shopped, you can take books in for credit toward other books; though, I've generally donated the books I need to clear out in order to make room for recent purchases.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 10, 2021, 02:09:59 am
Being able to read between the lines is often more important then the words themselves.

A good dictionary was also helpful then. There were also compact dictionaries which were more convenient to carry than the full-sized editions.

Don't you you need to read the words themselves first and then read between the lines?

* Now then... what's happening with vaccines?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 10, 2021, 07:42:18 am
What did people do before Google search?  Do you ever trust your own judgment and experience in life? Or do you always check things out with others?  Maybe they're dumb and just have a good line and BSing you.  A lot of people have great credentials and not a bit of common sense. Being able to read between the lines is often more important then the words themselves.

That is about what I would expect to hear from you, a purveyor of false facts and logical fallacies. What you suggest is simply intellectual laziness on your part. Instead of ascertaining the facts about whether the COVID mortality rate is lower for older people without comorbidities than for older people with comorbidities, you just want to make a wild ass guess, and then expect to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 08:38:54 am
That is about what I would expect to hear from you, a purveyor of false facts and logical fallacies. What you suggest is simply intellectual laziness on your part. Instead of ascertaining the facts about whether the COVID mortality rate is lower for older people without comorbidities than for older people with comorbidities, you just want to make stuff up.
I don't think people who have read my posts believe that Frank. I think they've learned a lot from what I've had to say.   Challenging assumptions like I do and thinking out of the box is intellectual curiosity, not laziness. It's the people who always believe what they read who are lazy.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 10, 2021, 08:50:20 am
I don't think people who have read my posts believe that Frank. I think they've learned a lot from what I've had to say.   

You are, of course, free to believe anything you want.

Challenging assumptions like I do and thinking out of the box is intellectual curiosity, not laziness.

Making stuff up is not challenging assumptions and thinking outside the box.

It's the people who always believe what they read who are lazy.

But not as lazy as those who don't bother reading at all.

Let's revisit how this conversation started:

For example, they say older people with comorbidities are more likely to die.  Well, most older people have some commorbities like heart issues, diabetes, etc.  But the main reason they might be dying is because they're, well, old.  Their bodies can't handle the Covid attack. So they die.  Not because of the comorbidities but because the virus takes a toll on it's own.  But it's hard to prove they would have died anyway just of old age and COvid by itself.

Why would that be hard to prove? You could look at data and see if the mortality rate was the same in old patients with and without comorbidities.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 10, 2021, 09:56:29 am
I don't think people who have read my posts believe that Frank. I think they've learned a lot from what I've had to say.   Challenging assumptions like I do and thinking out of the box is intellectual curiosity, not laziness. It's the people who always believe what they read who are lazy.

How lazy are the ones who don't read and just invent stuff?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 10, 2021, 10:22:20 am
I don't think people who have read my posts believe that Frank. I think they've learned a lot from what I've had to say.   Challenging assumptions like I do and thinking out of the box is intellectual curiosity, not laziness. It's the people who always believe what they read who are lazy.

+1
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 10:56:42 am
How lazy are the ones who don't read and just invent stuff?
But I read the Daily Mall article and it didn't make sense regarding the 73% vs 74% overweight statistic.  Even you said the article was BS.  So I questioned it as I should have.  Now you object to my doubt about it.  Make up your mind. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 10, 2021, 11:19:31 am
But I read the Daily Mall article and it didn't make sense regarding the 73% vs 74% overweight statistic.  Even you said the article was BS.  So I questioned it as I should have.  Now you object to my doubt about it.  Make up your mind.

I pointed out that the charts it showed were reliable, and made sense in the context of age and risk.  So you didn't read the article properly, and you didn't read my comment on it properly.  Other than that - great job!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 11:25:11 am
I pointed out that the charts it showed were reliable, and made sense in the context of age and risk.  So you didn't read the article properly, and you didn't read my comment on it properly.  Other than that - great job!
When the first paragraph of an article seems to make a mistake in concept, why would I waste my time reading and trusting the rest of what they have to say?  How could anyone trust anything they have to say? How can you so criticize the paper that published it as you did yet still trust what they're saying? What part of the article is true?  How do you know? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 10, 2021, 12:00:19 pm
When the first paragraph of an article seems to make a mistake in concept, why would I waste my time reading and trusting the rest of what they have to say?  How could anyone trust anything they have to say? How can you so criticize the paper that published it as you did yet still trust what they're saying? What part of the article is true?  How do you know?

Read my comment and you'll find out.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 10, 2021, 12:35:12 pm
Am I missing something?

Perhaps you're missing the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation in statistics may be an indicator of causation or it may not. Causation requires deeper investigation to determine if there are one or more additional factors that may be the causation for the correlation shown in data or to determine if the correlation is simply coincidental and unrelated to causation. Those are just a couple of examples. There are others. The point being that it is not safe to make assumptions on causation based solely on correlation without additional investigation or other supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 01:01:06 pm
Perhaps you're missing the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation in statistics may be an indicator of causation or it may not. Causation requires deeper investigation to determine if there are one or more additional factors that may be the causation for the correlation shown in data or to determine if the correlation is simply coincidental and unrelated to causation. Those are just a couple of examples. There are others. The point being that it is not safe to make assumptions on causation based solely on correlation without additional investigation or other supporting evidence.
You didn't answer my question.  So let me paste the whole original question I asked.

But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 10, 2021, 01:12:28 pm
The obesity is only a symptom of an unhealthy life style, the real cause is a wrong diet or lack of essential nutrients, contributing to a reduced immunity.

Quote
(NEXSTAR) — Obese individuals may be at a greater risk of severe COVID-19 complications, according to a new report released by The World Obesity Federation. The report links obesity with a series of health complications related to COVID-19. It found that increased bodyweight “is the second greatest predictor of hospitalization and a high risk of death for people suffering from COVID-19.” Only age ranks as a higher risk factor.

“We show that in those countries where overweight affects only a minority of the adult population, the rates of death from COVID-19 are typically less than one-tenth the levels found in countries where overweight affects the majority of adults,” the report states. It also found that “drivers” of obesity, including the consumption of high levels of processed foods, “are associated with mortality from COVID-19,” as a diet low in essential nutrients may weaken the immune system’s defenses.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/obesity-second-greatest-predictor-of-hospitalization-for-covid-19-report-says/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 10, 2021, 01:18:48 pm
CNBC uses different stats. The percentages of obese people quoted below are from 2018, so either in the last two years more people ate more junk or one of the sources uses wrong data.

Quote
About 78% of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a new study Monday.
Just over 42% of the U.S. population was considered obese in 2018, according to the agency’s most recent statistics. Overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25 or more, while obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30 or more.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 10, 2021, 01:58:38 pm
You didn't answer my question.  So let me paste the whole original question I asked.

But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?

One more time - read what I wrote !!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 10, 2021, 02:16:06 pm
You didn't answer my question.  So let me paste the whole original question I asked.

But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?

I've got an idea. Instead of spending time trying to reconcile the figures in the Daily Mail article, which several here have mentioned may not be the most reliable source for that sort of data, why don't you go over to the CDC and get the figures straight from the horse's mouth. Once you have the figures in hand, you can analyze them, and share your conclusions with the group.  This is where you can put your vaunted intellectual curiosity to the test.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 10, 2021, 03:06:54 pm
You didn't answer my question.  So let me paste the whole original question I asked.

But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death...

Can you explain what you mean by "seems like there's no relation between weight and death." How did you come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 10, 2021, 03:09:38 pm
You didn't answer my question.  So let me paste the whole original question I asked.

But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death.  In fact, it lines up exactly.  Am I missing something?

I gave you a clue. So let me paste a highly simplified version that may be easier to understand.

"Correlation in statistics may be an indicator of causation or it may not. The point being that it is not safe to make assumptions... based solely on correlation"

Am I missing something?

Looks like it. I'd rather not speculate as to what it might be.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 04:55:12 pm
CNBC uses different stats. The percentages of obese people quoted below are from 2018, so either in the last two years more people ate more junk or one of the sources uses wrong data.

Quote: About 78% of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a new study Monday.
Just over 42% of the U.S. population was considered obese in 2018, according to the agency’s most recent statistics. Overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25 or more, while obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30 or more.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html

I believe most of the people were elderly people who went to the hospital.  These people are often overweight, I believe.  Have your analysis and the article's analysis taken into account that because so many of the 78% are old, they would have died of old age anyway, not necessarily due to their overweight? Their weight was just coincidental.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 05:06:11 pm
Can you explain what you mean by "seems like there's no relation between weight and death." How did you come to that conclusion?
I said:
But the article also says that 74% of all Americans are overweight.  So if 73% who die are overweight, that seems like there's no relation between weight and death...

Let's say there are 1000 Americans.  That means 740 are fat.  100 Americans get sick from COvid and die.  73 of the 100 are fat.  Well,  that's expected because 74 of the 100 are fat.  What does fat have to do with dying?

Let me write the article a different way.  Let's say 74% of all Americans are women.  So if 73% who die are women, would you say women are more likely to die because they're women?   

Maybe I should go eat dinner.  I'm just not getting it. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 05:09:31 pm
I gave you a clue. So let me paste a highly simplified version that may be easier to understand.

"Correlation in statistics may be an indicator of causation or it may not. The point being that it is not safe to make assumptions... based solely on correlation"

Looks like it. I'd rather not speculate as to what it might be.
I didn't make the conclusion or assumption.  The article did. I'm questioning what their point was.  I don't see it as out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 10, 2021, 05:20:19 pm
... Let's say there are 1000 Americans.  That means 740 are fat.  100 Americans get sick from COvid and die.  73 of the 100 are fat.  Well,  that's expected because 74 of the 100 are fat.  What does fat have to do with dying?

Let me write the article a different way.  Let's say 74% of all Americans are women.  So if 73% who die are women, would you say women are more likely to die because they're women?...

I get it now, makes sense, thanks.

Except being obese is not healthy. It puts a lot of strain on various organs, heart in particular. Contributes to diabetes. Makes it more difficult for the immune system to fight. So it could be both at the same time: coincidental and causal.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 10, 2021, 05:41:53 pm
Maybe I should go eat dinner.  I'm just not getting it.

I am not sure eating dinner will help. But perhaps it will.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 05:55:34 pm
I get it now, makes sense, thanks.

Except being obese is not healthy. It puts a lot of strain on various organs, heart in particular. Contributes to diabetes. Makes it more difficult for the immune system to fight. So it could be both at the same time: coincidental and causal.
I agree.  You have two strikes against you.  Old and sick to begin with. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 05:56:36 pm
I am not sure eating dinner will help. But perhaps it will.
Leftover Chinese.  The worse stuff for old people who are fat like me. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: EricV on March 10, 2021, 07:36:51 pm
CNBC uses different stats. The percentages of obese people quoted below are from 2018, so either in the last two years more people ate more junk or one of the sources uses wrong data.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html

Read more carefully ... this article is also clueless and misleading.
If 42% of the population is obese, what fraction of the population is obese or overweight?

I hate to agree with Alan, but I see no evidence from these statistics that obesity increases Covid mortality.

Here is a link to actual CDC data, for anyone who wants to play with real statistics:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 10, 2021, 08:15:03 pm
Read more carefully ... this article is also clueless and misleading.
If 42% of the population is obese, what fraction of the population is obese or overweight?

I hate to agree with Alan, but I see no evidence from these statistics that obesity increases Covid mortality.

Here is a link to actual CDC data, for anyone who wants to play with real statistics:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities

What I meant was that obesity contributes to reduced immunity which among other things leads to an increase of inflammation and that creates other problems.

Quote
Obesity shares with most chronic diseases the presence of an inflammatory component, which accounts for the development of metabolic disease and other associated health alterations. This inflammatory state is reflected in increased circulating levels of pro-inflammatory proteins, and it occurs not only in adults but also in adolescents and children. The chronic inflammatory response has its origin in the links existing between the adipose tissue and the immune system. Obesity, like other states of malnutrition, is known to impair the immune function, altering leucocyte counts as well as cell-mediated immune responses.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22429824/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 10:01:08 pm
Read more carefully ... this article is also clueless and misleading.
If 42% of the population is obese, what fraction of the population is obese or overweight?

I hate to agree with Alan, but I see no evidence from these statistics that obesity increases Covid mortality.

Here is a link to actual CDC data, for anyone who wants to play with real statistics:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
Thnaks for your comments and chart. I thought I'd personally figure it out to see what the truth really is.  But after looking at the chart which is foreboding enough, I then read the Notes under the chart and decided I'm really not interested any longer.  In fact, I'd rather blow my brains out or start scanning again all night before I would tackle it. :o

NOTE: Empty data cells represent counts between 1-9 that have been suppressed in accordance with NCHS confidentiality standards. Conditions contributing to the death were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10). Deaths involving more than one condition (e.g., deaths involving both diabetes and respiratory arrest) were counted in both totals. To avoid counting the same death multiple times, the numbers for different conditions should not be summated. Some deaths involve more than one of the same condition category (e.g. deaths involving unintentional and intentional injury often include two or more injury ICD-10 codes), the number of mentions presented on the table above represents the number of instances where the condition was cited on the death certificate. Number of deaths and number of mentions reported in this table are tabulated from deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data for this table are derived from a cut of the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) database taken at a particular time, separate from other surveillance tables on this page which are tabulated on the date of update. As a result, the total number of COVID-19 deaths in this table may not match other surveillance tables on this page. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. United States death counts include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and New York City. New York state estimates exclude New York City.

[1] Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 10, 2021, 10:07:53 pm
On the plus side for those doubters of the possibility of herd immunity and who only trust the experts, Fauci has just announced that he believes America will reach herd immunity by the end of August or early Fall.  I didn't hear his usual qualification, "...it's most likely...", so that is a good sign some of us might actually see the end of the year.  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 11, 2021, 03:06:48 am
Link to charts from the article Joe quoted:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9338761/More-73-Americans-die-COVID-obese-CDC-data-show.html#i-a5c3c3ca1d755ff6
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 11, 2021, 07:59:38 am
Thnaks for your comments and chart. I thought I'd personally figure it out to see what the truth really is.  But after looking at the chart which is foreboding enough, I then read the Notes under the chart and decided I'm really not interested any longer.  In fact, I'd rather blow my brains out or start scanning again all night before I would tackle it. :o

So much for intellectual curiosity.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 11, 2021, 08:03:38 am
So much for intellectual curiosity.
I looked at the chart.  I tried.  But, they were too obtuse for me.  Maybe you can figure them out and report back. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 11, 2021, 08:46:40 am
I looked at the chart.  I tried.  But, they were too obtuse for me.  Maybe you can figure them out and report back.

It's not really my issue. Joe is responsible for introducing that link into the conversation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 11, 2021, 08:56:32 am
It's not really my issue. Joe is responsible for introducing that link into the conversation.
You'd have to be a masochist to try to figure that chart out. With what the Notes say, you'd never get to a complete conclusion in any case.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 11, 2021, 08:59:20 am
welcome to dealing with the real data behind science.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 11, 2021, 10:06:15 am
On the plus side for those doubters of the possibility of herd immunity and who only trust the experts, Fauci has just announced that he believes America will reach herd immunity by the end of August or early Fall.  I didn't hear his usual qualification, "...it's most likely...", so that is a good sign some of us might actually see the end of the year.  :)

Your comments about "doubters" or not trusting experts makes no sense. I don't recall anyone here doubting the importance of herd immunity, only that it hasn't been reached yet. And Dr. Fauci is saying exactly that, isn't he? After all, isn't what vaccines provide an "accelerated" herd immunity, i.e., you don't have to wait for it to occur naturally by infection and illness/death.

I think you're so hell-bent on being antagonistic, instead of engaging in discussion for the purpose of greater understanding, that you unthinkingly always take what you perceive to be an opposite position, but you do so to absurd lengths. You are not alone in this. In fact it's commonplace these days, and lame "two-sided" debate TV news shows have perpetuated the farce, which are not debates at all. It's a front people put on, a show. Not many people actually behave like this in real life, not without consequence anyway. But for some reason, many now think this is how public discourse should proceed.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 11, 2021, 10:28:09 am
It's just bar talk.... ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 11, 2021, 11:13:10 am
Your comments about "doubters" or not trusting experts makes no sense. I don't recall anyone here doubting the importance of herd immunity, only that it hasn't been reached yet. And Dr. Fauci is saying exactly that, isn't he? After all, isn't what vaccines provide an "accelerated" herd immunity, i.e., you don't have to wait for it to occur naturally by infection and illness/death.

I think you're so hell-bent on being antagonistic, instead of engaging in discussion for the purpose of greater understanding, that you unthinkingly always take what you perceive to be an opposite position, but you do so to absurd lengths. You are not alone in this. In fact it's commonplace these days, and lame "two-sided" debate TV news shows have perpetuated the farce, which are not debates at all. It's a front people put on, a show. Not many people actually behave like this in real life, not without consequence anyway. But for some reason, many now think this is how public discourse should proceed.
There are many here who have stated over and over that either there is no herd immunity or America would never reach it.  I would like to hear what they now think since an expert is predicting that it will happen. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 11, 2021, 11:29:27 am
There are many here who have stated over and over that either there is no herd immunity or America would never reach it.  I would like to hear what they now think since an expert is predicting that it will happen.

I have never heard anyone here state that "there is no herd immunity" or that "America will never reach it."

A few days ago I mentioned that there might be a problem reaching herd immunity by the end of summer given that polls indicate nearly half of Republicans have said that they don’t plan on getting vaccinated and that the vaccine has not yet been approved for people 16 and under. That is a lay opinion and I would defer to Dr. Fauci’s analysis. He certainly has access to better data than I do. I just know what I read in the news. Who knows, maybe approval of the vaccine for people 16 and under is imminent, and the Republicans who say they are not going to get vaccinated are lying to the pollsters.  I hope both of those things are true. The sooner we get everyone vaccinated the better.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 12, 2021, 03:17:48 pm
There are many here who have stated over and over that either there is no herd immunity or America would never reach it.

What utter nonsense. The negative comments regarding "herd immunity" were regarding suggestions to forget about restrictions and just let the virus spread in order to achieve herd immunity instead of waiting on vaccines to accomplish that goal. Achieving immunity in a portion of the herd thru infection, as opposed to waiting for the herd to be immunized thru vaccination, results in greater thinning of the herd—and in this case the herd is people.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 12, 2021, 04:22:26 pm
With all this talk about herds, I think I'm going to Bar B Q steak tonight for dinner. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 12, 2021, 04:34:25 pm
With all this talk about herds, I think I'm going to Bar B Q steak tonight for dinner.

That's one way to forget about making a ridiculous false accusation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 12, 2021, 05:25:00 pm
With all this talk about herds, I think I'm going to Bar B Q steak tonight for dinner.

Much healthier than a pizza.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 12, 2021, 06:00:23 pm
On the plus side for those doubters of the possibility of herd immunity and who only trust the experts, Fauci has just announced that he believes America will reach herd immunity by the end of August or early Fall.  I didn't hear his usual qualification, "...it's most likely...", so that is a good sign some of us might actually see the end of the year.  :)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/2021/03/10/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/03/10/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-13/)

DR. FAUCI: We anticipate — and again, it’s purely a speculation — that the herd immunity level will be about 70 to 85 percent.  And that’s the time that we believe, if you look at the planned rollout of the vaccines, that we would hopefully get to that point somewhere by the end of the summer and the early fall.

You’re absolutely correct: If a significant number of people do not get vaccinated, then that would — that would delay where we would get to that endpoint, which is the reason that I underscore what Dr. Walensky said about the importance, in every aspect of what we do, of getting more people vaccinated — just as many people as we possibly can.

I want to also mention that we don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people makes society be more and more protected.  So you don’t have to wait until you get full herd immunity to get a really profound effect on what you could do.

For example, as Dr. Walensky said, she keeps her eye on that very carefully as they reevaluate the guidelines, so you can get 20, 30, 40, 50 percent of the people vaccinated and not yet quite meet the empiric number that we’re talking about and still get a very favorable effect from vaccines.

DR. WALENSKY:  Maybe I’ll just add that the point of — incredibly important that these are local rates as well, so if you have a population rate that is 85 percent protected across the country but a community that’s only 50 percent protected, you can have outbreaks in that community.  And so really we need this level of protection pervasive across all communities across the country.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 12, 2021, 07:33:26 pm
Just to add to this, that is a 1 in 6250 odds of dying from C-19 if you under 55, being beat out by such things as:

Being a Pedestrian, 1/610
Being in a Car or other vehicle, 1/242
Off-roading, 1/4993
Falling out of bed, chair, or some other piece of furniture, 1/5508
Firearms, 1/4613
Chocking to death on food, 1/4812

There are plenty of more. 

https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

I've been waiting for Joe to come back and further educate us on which items in his list are contagious and have been shown to increase exponentially in a short period of time.

CDC Monthly Death Statistics - 2020

February 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 14,446 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 15

March 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 15,379 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 6,705

April 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 15,371 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 61,713

* Deaths for COVID-19 uses statistics where COVID-19 is the sole cause of death listed. Statistics for COVID-19 with multiple cause of death listed is slightly higher and not included above.

** The current vaccines will hopefully not only reduce the number of deaths and serious illness, but may also reduce transmission. The new J&J vaccine has important advantages in that it can be easily stored and transported at normal refrigeration temperatures and requires only one dose, making it easier to vaccinate populations that are more remote or have less access to standard medical care for other reasons.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-may-help-stop-virus-transmission-heres-what-we-know (https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-may-help-stop-virus-transmission-heres-what-we-know)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 04:25:46 am
I've been waiting for Joe to come back and further educate us on which items in his list are contagious and have been shown to increase exponentially in a short period of time.

CDC Monthly Death Statistics - 2020

February 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 14,446 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 15

March 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 15,379 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 6,705

April 2020: Deaths Caused by Accident this Month = 15,371 / Deaths Caused by COVID-19 this Month = 61,713

* Deaths for COVID-19 uses statistics where COVID-19 is the sole cause of death listed. Statistics for COVID-19 with multiple cause of death listed is slightly higher and not included above.

I think to be fair that Joe walked back from that comparison.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2021, 05:40:21 am
From the Economist magazine:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/13/our-covid-19-model-estimates-odds-of-hospitalisation-and-death

"Death rates depend mostly on age, whereas comorbidities sharply raise chances of hospitalisation in young people"
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2021, 05:47:41 am
... increase exponentially in a short period of time...

Who cares?

When you are dead, you are dead, who cares whether the car that killed you was speeding exponentially? It is the risk that matters, not the particular qualifiers of that risk.

Besides, covid is a one-time event, lasting a year or two, while accidents and other cause happen every year, year after year.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 08:45:07 am
Who cares?

When you are dead, you are dead, who cares whether the car that killed you was speeding exponentially? It is the risk that matters, not the particular qualifiers of that risk.

Besides, covid is a one-time event, lasting a year or two, while accidents and other cause happen every year, year after year.

That's a lot of points to miss in such a short post!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 13, 2021, 11:21:45 am
Who cares?

When you are dead, you are dead, who cares whether the car that killed you was speeding exponentially? It is the risk that matters, not the particular qualifiers of that risk.

Besides, covid is a one-time event, lasting a year or two, while accidents and other cause happen every year, year after year.

Unfortunately, Covid is not a one-time event. It could take years to completely eradicate it.
A car accident doesn't spread onto other roads and countries, whereas a single case of covid can keep propagating for infinite amount of time in all directions.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 11:33:32 am
Unfortunately, Covid is not a one-time event. It could take years to completely eradicate it.
A car accident doesn't spread onto other roads and countries, whereas a single case of covid can keep propagating for infinite amount of time in all directions.
Of course, China could start another one too.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 11:35:19 am
Of course, China could start another one too.

As could the US. Your point being?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 11:37:08 am
As could the US. Your point being?
But American didn;t start this one.  China did.  It's worked so well, they may do it again. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 13, 2021, 11:39:41 am
Of course, China could start another one too.

Why to start another one if the first one works so well?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 11:58:25 am
Why to start another one if the first one works so well?
I agree.  They won't need too.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 12:02:40 pm
But American didn;t start this one.  China did.  It's worked so well, they may do it again.

When you say "they", do you mean the communist bats and pangolins?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 12:04:48 pm
When you say "they", do you mean the communists bat and pangolins?
We've argued that before.  Enough already.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 12:07:59 pm
We've argued that before.  Enough already.

If you keep saying silly things, people will keep calling you out on them. Simples.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 12:18:09 pm
We've argued that before.  Enough already.

I don't believe we have ever engaged in a discussion about Chinese bats and pangolins, except you said a couple of times that the Chinese created the COVID virus in a lab and deliberately spread it throughout the world to extend their political and economic hegemony, because former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said so based on super secret investigation reports he carries around with him in his briefcase which no one is allowed to see. Maybe Tucker Carlson said it too. If Tucker Carlson said it, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Lou Dobbs probably said it too. And then everyone on the fair and balanced news staff at Fox News reported that they said it as if it were a news story.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 01:25:30 pm
I don't believe we have ever engaged in a discussion about Chinese bats and pangolins, except you said a couple of times that the Chinese created the COVID virus in a lab and deliberately spread it throughout the world to extend their political and economic hegemony, because former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said so based on super secret investigation reports he carries around with him in his briefcase which no one is allowed to see. Maybe Tucker Carlson said it too. If Tucker Carlson said it, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Lou Dobbs probably said it too. And then everyone on the fair and balanced news staff at Fox News reported that they said it as if it were a news story.
You're being naive.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 01:33:01 pm
You're being naive.

So I guess that means you got nothing.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 01:46:11 pm
So I guess that means you got nothing.
Well I know the virus was being worked on in a lab in Wuhan the city where the virus started? What do you got? Pangolins?   ::)

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 01:59:47 pm
Well I know the virus was being worked on in a lab in Wuhan the city where the virus started?

How do you know that the COVID-19 virus was being "worked on" in the Wuhan lab at the time of the outbreak?

What do you got? Pangolins?

There are many articles about the pangolins being a possible carrier of the virus.  Here is one for example.

https://www.sciencealert.com/more-evidence-suggests-pangolins-may-have-passed-coronavirus-from-bats-to-humans


Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 02:01:53 pm
Well I know the virus was being worked on in a lab in Wuhan the city where the virus started?

You don't know that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 13, 2021, 02:17:56 pm
How do you know that the COVID-19 virus was being "worked on" in the Wuhan lab at the time of the outbreak?

There are many articles about the pangolins being a possible carrier of the virus.  Here is one for example.

https://www.sciencealert.com/more-evidence-suggests-pangolins-may-have-passed-coronavirus-from-bats-to-humans



You don't know that.
SARS viruses were being studied there in the Wuhan Lab for years.  That's why the lab was there.  One of the researchers probably carried it out when he went to the nearby food market to get an eggroll for lunch.  I doubt if Pandolins like eggrolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 02:34:15 pm
Well I know the virus was being worked on in a lab in Wuhan the city where the virus started.

How do you know that the COVID-19 virus was being "worked on" in the Wuhan lab at the time of the outbreak?

SARS viruses were being studied there in the Wuhan Lab for years.  That's why the lab was there.  One of the researchers probably carried it out when he went to the nearby food market to get an eggroll for lunch.

So you don't "know" that the COVID-19 virus was being "worked on" in the Wuhan lab at the time of the outbreak. You are just making that up. And then, after you made that up, you guessed that a researcher "probably" carried the virus out of the lab to a food market when he went out to lunch. What a load of crap. You've been caught yet again trying to pass off a complete fabrication on your part as a fact.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 02:39:37 pm
SARS viruses were being studied there in the Wuhan Lab for years.  That's why the lab was there.  One of the researchers probably carried it out when he went to the nearby food market to get an eggroll for lunch.  I doubt if Pandolins like eggrolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology

SARS is not Covid-19. So you are just making stuff up.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2021, 03:52:01 pm
Unfortunately, Covid is not a one-time event. It could take years to completely eradicate it....

You are smarter than that, my friend. You certainly don't think I meant it is a one-time event. It will become seasonal, like the flu. But what is one-time event are the panic-porn numbers - 500K+ - that are not going to be repeated every year. Like the flu, it is going to take 30-50K every year and we won't even notice. Hopefully, the fascists (aka Democrats) won't stay that long in power to enforce idiotic masks and catastrophic lockdowns every year.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2021, 03:54:24 pm
Knock it off.

Everybody knows O.J. Simpson did it, just as everybody knows the Chinese did it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 04:45:17 pm
Knock it off.

Everybody knows O.J. Simpson did it, just as everybody knows the Chinese did it.

What exactly is the "it" that everybody knows the Chinese did?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2021, 05:39:02 pm
What exactly is the "it" that everybody knows the Chinese did?

Released the virus, of course. Or, as a minimum, responsible for the virus.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 13, 2021, 06:00:35 pm
Everybody knows O.J. Simpson did it, just as everybody knows the Chinese did it.

What exactly is the "it" that everybody knows the Chinese did?

Released the virus, of course. Or, as a minimum, responsible for the virus.

The fact that you have responded in the alternative indicates that you do not know that China "released the virus". The "responsible for" alternative is certainly vague enough to cover a wide range of actions or inactions and levels of accountability or culpability. It really doesn't describe the "it" which you assert that everybody knows the Chinese "did".
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 13, 2021, 06:04:40 pm
You are smarter than that, my friend. You certainly don't think I meant it is a one-time event. It will become seasonal, like the flu. But what is one-time event are the panic-porn numbers - 500K+ - that are not going to be repeated every year. Like the flu, it is going to take 30-50K every year and we won't even notice. Hopefully, the fascists (aka Democrats) won't stay that long in power to enforce idiotic masks and catastrophic lockdowns every year.

Not so long since you were asking to be woken up when 60k people died. Now it’s over half a million. Not sure I trust your powers of prediction on this subject!!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 13, 2021, 07:30:10 pm
Like the flu, it is going to take 30-50K every year and we won't even notice.

It could turn out that way, and hopefully will.  But it's too early even for people with expertise in virology or epidemiology to make predictions with any confidence.  The SARS-CoV-2 virus only recently made the jump from animals to humans; we've probably been living with influenza for close to 2500 years and the 'flu has learned to coexist with us.  "Smart" viruses don't kill their hosts because they can't propagate to a dead person.  This new coronavirus currently does.  If the most survivable mutations are smart, the dominant variants of the virus will become less lethal without becoming so much less infectious that they are eradicated by vaccines, and your scenario will become our new reality.  But I'm not aware of any empirical data which suggest that is happening yet.

Stay tuned, and until then, get vaccinated, stay masked, maintain physical distancing, and keep washing your hands.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on March 14, 2021, 09:03:25 am
Stay tuned, and until then, get vaccinated, stay masked, maintain physical distancing, and keep washing your hands.

Keep on telling them, Chris - it can't be repeated often enough.
Yesterday a good friend of mine passed away, aged 66.
It took but 10 days.

... then I think of the clowns who, in this and other threads, advocate not wearing masks in the name of their personal 'freedoms' and ' li mando nel loro paese'

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034906943_7845b2a057_c.jpg)

Corriere Della Sera (https://www.corriere.it/moda/21_marzo_13/giovanni-gastel-morto-covid-scompare-grande-fotografia-dc195a4c-8415-11eb-ae38-084646f2f8da.shtml)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 14, 2021, 11:39:24 am
The fact that you have responded in the alternative indicates that you do not know that China "released the virus". The "responsible for" alternative is certainly vague enough to cover a wide range of actions or inactions and levels of accountability or culpability. It really doesn't describe the "it" which you assert that everybody knows the Chinese "did".

Ok, Hairsplitter-In-Chief.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 14, 2021, 12:33:18 pm
Ok, Hairsplitter-In-Chief.

Just trying to work out what you actually are claiming - can you explain?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 14, 2021, 05:40:06 pm
Who cares?

People

When you are dead, you are dead,

Something most people are generally trying to avoid and which the current vaccines help in reducing — as do masks, social distancing, and avoidance of large or crowded gatherings.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 14, 2021, 06:04:18 pm
the fascists (aka Democrats)... idiotic masks and catastrophic lockdowns

Naturally, you are free to make whatever hyperbolic comments you choose, regardless of their relationship to reality or the current topic. As a courtesy to your host, who has politely requested —

Steer the thread back to the topic of “promising new coronavirus vaccine” or shuttle the overtly political to the one and only political thread.
Thanks.

— do you think that this is the best place to do so?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 14, 2021, 06:22:21 pm
How do you discuss policies without discussing politics? They go together
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 14, 2021, 06:23:10 pm
You are smarter than that, my friend. You certainly don't think I meant it is a one-time event. It will become seasonal, like the flu. But what is one-time event are the panic-porn numbers - 500K+ - that are not going to be repeated every year. Like the flu, it is going to take 30-50K every year and we won't even notice. Hopefully, the fascists (aka Democrats) won't stay that long in power to enforce idiotic masks and catastrophic lockdowns every year.

For the half a million dead, that was indeed a one-time event. Hopefully, by summer the vaccines will reduce the need for masks and lockdowns.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 14, 2021, 06:40:10 pm
How do you discuss policies without discussing politics? They go together

This thread is suppose to be about the Novavax vaccine. It is not supposed to be about policy and politics. We should go back to the other thread.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 15, 2021, 03:59:43 am
Just trying to work out what you actually are claiming - can you explain?

I am saying that China released the virus to see how quickly the West would resort to fascism. So far, they are succeeding splendidly. No amount of Chinese military aggression would have achieved it so quickly and thoroughly.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 15, 2021, 04:01:45 am
I am saying that China released the virus to see how quickly the West would resort to fascism. So far, they are succeeding splendidly. No amount of Chinese military aggression would have achieved it so quickly and thoroughly.

Ah, OK, I see - just paranoid fantasy then.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on March 15, 2021, 05:59:16 am
I am saying that China released the virus to see how quickly the West would resort to fascism. So far, they are succeeding splendidly. No amount of Chinese military aggression would have achieved it so quickly and thoroughly.

If by fascism you mean far-right wing parties/factions rising in importance in the West and Europe, they were doing so well before Covid and any paranoid theories you might have about the Chinese.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 15, 2021, 06:20:35 am
I am saying that China released the virus to see how quickly the West would resort to fascism. So far, they are succeeding splendidly. No amount of Chinese military aggression would have achieved it so quickly and thoroughly.

Fascist? I thought we were all leftie communist "libtards". Somebody better tell Alan, he's going to need new sound bite cassettes.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 15, 2021, 08:20:34 am
German health experts warned on Saturday against any further easing of coronavirus lockdown measures as the number of cases dramatically increased.

Quote
The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) for infectious diseases predicted that the number of daily reported cases could exceed 30,000 in the 14th week of the year starting April 12.
"An extrapolation of the trends shows that case numbers can be expected above the Christmas level from week 14 onwards," the RKI said in its current situation report. On Saturday, the number of COVID-19 cases rose by 12,674 and the death toll was up 239, with the number of cases per 100,000 over seven days jumping to 76.1 from 72.4.

Germany's death toll from the virus stands at 73,301, with a reported 2,558,455 infections.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/world/german-experts-warn-against-lockdown-easing-as-cases-jump-563142/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 15, 2021, 08:47:59 am
German health experts warned on Saturday against any further easing of coronavirus lockdown measures as the number of cases dramatically increased.


Why would we ease up at the start of the vaccination process?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 15, 2021, 09:37:19 am
Why would we ease up at the start of the vaccination process?

That was in Germany, but Ontario eased up on store closures as well. Unfortunately, for many stores the re-opening came too late, they had to close permanently,

Quote
Over the past few years, Canada has seen many well-known retailers experience financial troubles. Especially now more than ever, with the ongoing pandemic, these companies have had to endure store closures or even shut down business permanently in 2021. Although, some storefront closings may be due to changing business models and customer demands, others have been because of the lack of business revenue.

https://www.styledemocracy.com/the-running-list-of-retail-store-closures-and-bankruptcies-in-2021/

Dr. Fauci is also concerned about rise of C19 cases in Europe.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fauci-concerned-over-surge-european-133805663.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 15, 2021, 11:38:59 am
Fascist? I thought we were all leftie communist "libtards". ...

Same difference. China is a fascist state now. America slowly growing into.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 15, 2021, 06:14:14 pm
Same difference. China is a fascist state now. America slowly growing into.

As is usually the case, it all depends on how you define fascism, but perhaps more importantly why you define it in the manner you do.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 07:16:53 am
As is usually the case, it all depends on how you define fascism, but perhaps more importantly why you define it in the manner you do.
When a government gets so powerful and the people lose more of their freedoms, then you have a system I don't think any of us would want to live in.  Arguing about the definition of Fascism is really beside the point.  And too late.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 16, 2021, 09:59:58 am
Arguing about the definition of Fascism is really beside the point.

Not really. For example, you are using the term fascist as a vague pejorative (a political system in which the "government gets so powerful and the people lose more of their freedoms" that "I don't think any of us would want to live in"), and not as a specific descriptor (a political system which has the following characteristics: [and then list them]). It is helpful to know that so we can carry on a discussion without talking past one another. So if I say Trump is a fascist, you and I may disagree on what the term means, and it would be helpful for me to explain what I mean. You might still disagree, but you and I would at least know what we are disagreeing about.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 12:32:05 pm
Not really. For example, you are using the term fascist as a vague pejorative (a political system in which the "government gets so powerful and the people lose more of their freedoms" that "I don't think any of us would want to live in"), and not as a specific descriptor (a political system which has the following characteristics: [and then list them]). It is helpful to know that so we can carry on a discussion without talking past one another. So if I say Trump is a fascist, you and I may disagree on what the term means, and it would be helpful for me to explain what I mean. You might still disagree, but you and I would at least know what we are disagreeing about.
I deliberately avoided an exact definition.  People dispute what it actually means especially left vs. right.  But it does include an authoritative or totalitarian regime that generally controls the populace and the levers of government and industry.  I would rather discuss which methods of government lead to more or less freedom.  That avoids the confusion of defining Fascism.   

This Wiki essay reviews its various meanings.  As you'll see, it's quite diverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 16, 2021, 12:45:27 pm
This Wiki essay reviews its various meanings.  As you'll see, it's quite diverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

I asked Slobodan what he meant by fascism because of the diversity of meanings of the term. You butted in and said the definition of fascism was beside the point. Then you provided a link to different definitions of fascism.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 01:10:23 pm
I asked Slobodan what he meant by fascism because of the diversity of meanings you noted. You butted in and said definitions were beside the point. Then you provide a link to different definitions of fascism.
Well, China's government controls their state and the people suffer from a loss of many freedoms.  Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries have oppressive governments as well.  America is moving in that direction as we give up economic, political, and social decisions and control to the government.  I think that's the point Slobodan was making. Arguing whether it's Fascist or some other term is a diversion to what's actually happening.  We should stay focused on the effect, not a name.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 16, 2021, 01:22:12 pm
Well, China's government controls their state and the people suffer from a loss of many freedoms.  Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries have oppressive governments as well.  America is moving in that direction as we give up economic, political, and social decisions and control to the government.  I think that's the point Slobodan was making. Arguing whether it's Fascist or some other term is a diversion to what's actually happening.  We should stay focused on the effect, not a name.

You should take that up with Slobodan. He was using names and not effects.  Also, I think it would be better if you let Slobodan explain the point he is making rather than you explain the point you think he is making. He is perfectly capable of expressing himself when he wants to, and there might be less confusion.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 16, 2021, 03:02:02 pm
As is usually the case, it all depends on how you define fascism, but perhaps more importantly why you define it in the manner you do.

Frank,

Socialism, communism, and fascism have many things similar. While socialism and communism are generally rather well defined and have theoretical underpinnings via the works of Marx and Engels, in my view fascism is mostly defined via historical examples (Italy, Germany) and not exactly via a theory. One of the key differences between fascism vs. the other two is the relationship with private property. While socialism (and communism as its final stage) reject private property, fascism embraces it, especially in its corporate form. By that definition, China is today a fascist country: totalitarian, one-party regime with private property, corporations, and more billionaires than New York (I didn't check that).

America is moving in that direction, toward a one-party system via political correctness and cancel culture, while retaining private property and control over major corporations (again, via PC and cancel culture, not formally).

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 16, 2021, 03:25:12 pm
This thread is suppose to be about the Novavax vaccine. It is not supposed to be about policy and politics. We should go back to the other thread.

Perhaps the best approach, to the rude and childish individuals that continue to insist on diverting a discussion on promising new vaccines into a political debate, would be to either ignore their diversions or copy and paste their comments and reply to them in the other thread, where the host of this party has requested those discussions be held. If they then want to continue lying on the floor and kicking their heels in a tantrum to keep their political discussions in this thread — where it makes no sense — let them do it amongst themselves. Meanwhile, we can continue to discuss the recent developments in vaccines.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 16, 2021, 03:55:27 pm
Socialism, communism, and fascism have many things similar. While socialism and communism are generally rather well defined and have theoretical underpinnings via the works of Marx and Engels, in my view fascism is mostly defined via historical examples (Italy, Germany) and not exactly via a theory. One of the key differences between fascism vs. the other two is the relationship with private property. While socialism (and communism as its final stage) reject private property, fascism embraces it, especially in its corporate form. By that definition, China is today a fascist country: totalitarian, one-party regime with private property, corporations, and more billionaires than New York (I didn't check that).

I don't completely disagree with your position and understand how you arrived at it; however, I think by focusing on the characteristics that historical fascism has in common with the current political and economic situation in China, you may be overlooking ways in which they differ. I approach it more from a logical perspective. For example, if I say men have ten toes and women have ten toes, therefore men and women are the same, I would have erred. You can add ankles and knees and hips and fingers and wrists and elbows and all the rest that both men and women have in common, and if you say since men and women have all of these characteristics in common, men and women are the same, and again you would have erred. So I think it is important to look at not only the similarities but also at the differences. I am not going to get in a discussion with you about all the ways in which historical fascism differs from the current political and economic situation in China. I really don't have the level of interest to do so. Even so, it might be that, if we did have that discussion, you would be able to convince me in the end that the only significant difference between historical fascism and current political and economic system in China is that historical fascism was right wing and China is left wing. Isn't that enough? Frankly, I think there is so much current disagreement among academics about the essential elements of fascism that we would be better off leaving the term fascism to its historic context and coming up with something else.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 04:11:51 pm
We were discussing this recently.

Most Americans who got first COVID-19 vaccine dose also got final shot - CDC
https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-americans-got-first-covid-173334070.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 04:15:54 pm
We were discussing this recently.

Most Americans who got first COVID-19 vaccine dose also got final shot - CDC
https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-americans-got-first-covid-173334070.html
Just to clarify a point that had some heated arguments.

Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have stretched the time period between doses to months rather than weeks in order to vaccinate more people as they deal with supply shortfalls. U.S. public health officials have said they do not intend to make any changes in their recommendations.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 16, 2021, 04:37:24 pm
On Thursday, I am getting my second Pfizer shot, exactly 21 days after the first. I have to give it to Serbian authorities for an extremely well organized vaccination campaign. It puts us at 1st or 2nd place in Europe, and 3rd or 4th in the world.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 16, 2021, 08:04:14 pm
On Thursday, I am getting my second Pfizer shot, exactly 21 days after the first. I have to give it to Serbian authorities for an extremely well organized vaccination campaign. It puts us at 1st or 2nd place in Europe, and 3rd or 4th in the world.
Good luck.  That's good news. I feel a lot safer since getting my second (Moderna). I'm getting my first haircut on Thursday after a year of growth. I have more hair laying on my shoulders than on the top.   8)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 17, 2021, 03:53:16 am
On Thursday, I am getting my second Pfizer shot, exactly 21 days after the first. I have to give it to Serbian authorities for an extremely well organized vaccination campaign. It puts us at 1st or 2nd place in Europe, and 3rd or 4th in the world.

Yes that really contrasts with the total fiasco in the EU
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 17, 2021, 04:42:56 am
Well, China's government controls their state and the people suffer from a loss of many freedoms.  Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries have oppressive governments as well. 

You can now add the UK to the list, where the government is passing legislation that will make it illegal to protest in a way that "causes annoyance".  The punishment will be up to 10 year in prison.  Compare with the 5 years you get for rape.

Sorry - nothing to do with Covid.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 17, 2021, 06:22:11 am
You can now add the UK to the list, where the government is passing legislation that will make it illegal to protest in a way that "causes annoyance".  The punishment will be up to 10 year in prison.  Compare with the 5 years you get for rape...

Gee, you start sounding like me  ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 17, 2021, 07:15:25 am
You can now add the UK to the list, where the government is passing legislation that will make it illegal to protest in a way that "causes annoyance".  The punishment will be up to 10 year in prison.  Compare with the 5 years you get for rape.

Sorry - nothing to do with Covid.
The US constitution's Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly cannot be legislated away by Congress or a president or any of the 50 state governments.  When I suggested a while back here that GB had jeopardy in this area, I was told by the moderator that I was wrong.  Isn't there something in the Magna Carta or elsewhere that supersedes the ministers and the law will be found "unconstitutional"? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 17, 2021, 07:44:22 am
The US constitution's Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly cannot be legislated away by Congress or a president or any of the 50 state governments.  When I suggested a while back here that GB had jeopardy in this area, I was told by the moderator that I was wrong.  Isn't there something in the Magna Carta or elsewhere that supersedes the ministers and the law will be found "unconstitutional"?

I wish :-(
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 17, 2021, 01:47:53 pm
You can now add the UK to the list, where the government is passing legislation that will make it illegal to protest in a way that "causes annoyance".  The punishment will be up to 10 year in prison.  Compare with the 5 years you get for rape.

The maximum sentence is proposed to be 10 years in prison. The maximum sentence for rape is life in prison.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 17, 2021, 01:55:10 pm
Will this new law apply to posters who annoy you on the web?  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 17, 2021, 05:24:34 pm
Excerpts from an article and interview with Dr. Gregory Glenn, president of research and development at Novavax. There is also an audio interview in article linked below.

Gregory Glenn on next steps for Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine

March 15, 2021

Novavax has proposed FDA accept final data from U.K., South African Trials

Novavax has proposed that FDA accept final data from a U.K. Phase III study of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, supplemented by data from a Phase II study conducted in South Africa, as the basis for an emergency use authorization, the company’s president for R&D, Gregory Glenn, told BioCentury.

The lack of demographic diversity in the U.K. trial may lead FDA to wait for results from the Prevent-19 Phase III trial Novavax is conducting in the U.S. and Mexico, Glenn said. The endpoint is event-driven, so it isn’t possible to give a precise date to expect interim data. Results will be released after 72 participants are diagnosed with COVID-19, making them likely to be available by mid-April.

In the U.K. trial, “efficacy was 96.4% (95% CI: 73.8, 99.5) against the original virus strain and 86.3% (95% CI: 71.3, 93.5) against the B.1.1.7/501Y.V1 variant circulating in the U.K.,” the company said. “Five severe cases were observed in the study, and all occurred in the placebo group. Four of the five severe cases were attributed to the B.1.1.7/501Y.V1 variant.”

In a complete analysis of the Phase IIb South African study, the vaccine was 55.4% effective in HIV-negative participants in a region where the majority of strains are B.1.351 variants first identified in the country.

In both studies, the vaccine was 100% effective against severe COVID-19.

The U.K. and the South Africa data are signals “that the vaccine is working and working very well,” Glenn said. “We’ll just have to see how that goes with FDA and timing” of the EUA application.

Although three COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized in the U.S. and multiple vaccines are on the market in other regions, Novavax anticipates robust demand for its vaccine, both as a booster in countries where vaccination campaigns have reached much of the population and as an initial vaccination in parts of the world that haven’t had broad access to vaccines.

“We know immunity wanes on every vaccine, and it is likely that [COVID-19] will be no exception,” Glenn said. He added that Novavax expects that its vaccine, a protein-based product adjuvanted with the company’s proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M, could be used as a booster following immunization with vaccines manufactured using mRNA, viral vector or other technologies.

Novavax has launched animal studies of a vaccine targeted against the SARS-CoV-2 variant that is dominant in South Africa and expects FDA and EMA to accept applications based on immunological data.

Novavax could have a booster based on the new vaccine, or more likely a bivalent vaccine targeting both the original virus and a variant, in production in the fall, he said. The company expects that vaccine to be effective against a similar variant that has been identified in New York.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 17, 2021, 05:25:00 pm
The maximum sentence is proposed to be 10 years in prison. The maximum sentence for rape is life in prison.

S
My mistake. The average sentence for rape may be 8 years. I'm not sure that makes things much better.

https://fullfact.org/news/five-years-average-prison-sentence-rape/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 17, 2021, 05:27:59 pm
Sorry - nothing to do with Covid.

It's up to you whether you want to take the bait from those that want to turn every discussion thread into a platform for their political ideology.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 17, 2021, 05:53:40 pm
Another good article on the Novavax vaccine from yesterday written by William A. Haseltine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Haseltine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Haseltine)

Novavax Covid-19 Vaccine Performs Well In Clinical Trials, But Variants Remain A Threat

March 16, 2021 - Excerpt below...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/16/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-performs-well-in-clinical-trials-but-variants-remain-a-threat (https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/16/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-performs-well-in-clinical-trials-but-variants-remain-a-threat/?sh=2e5f882c4a7f)

The new candidate uses a mechanism to prompt immune responses that is different from vaccines already in circulation, but remains effective against non-variant forms of the virus. Here I discuss the results and implications of the Novavax trials and the vaccine’s performance against surging variants of SARS-CoV-2...

The Novavax vaccine works by combining a purified spike protein with an adjuvant, or a substance designed to enhance a given immune response. In 1984, I used essentially the same formula — adjuvant, envelope, and the equivalent of a spike — to create a vaccine that prevents cats from contracting leukemia. It is an old technology, but arguably the most direct line of attack we can mount against a virus. Other FDA-approved Covid-19 vaccines employ methods that are certainly innovative and still effective, but on the whole more roundabout approaches to hitting the same target. These include the messenger RNA in the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, which instruct human cells to make spike proteins, and the adenovirus vectors in the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, which carry instructions for creating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

That the clinical trials for the Novavax vaccine have yielded such promising results is a great sign, especially given the rise of new variants. Many pharmaceutical companies have already announced that they are developing second-generation vaccines tailored directly for these new variants. The only hesitations to note are which ones are they tailoring towards, and what if new ones arise in the time it takes to develop, test, and distribute? The illustration below shows some of the many variants that have branched off from the wild-type of SARS-CoV-2.

Regardless, these hesitations should not take away from the positive news regarding this story. A new vaccine will soon be available that posts high efficacy towards the wild-type and one of the most prolific variants. Here’s hoping this vaccine will help reign in case numbers as new vaccines are developed in the coming months.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 19, 2021, 11:29:01 am
My mistake. The average sentence for rape may be 8 years. I'm not sure that makes things much better.

Comparing the average sentence for one offence (by reference to an article just under 10 years old) to the proposed maximum sentence for another which is unconnected and doesn't yet exist is an odd way to advance an argument, but maybe it's the best you can manage.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 11:56:47 am
Comparing the average sentence for one offence (by reference to an article just under 10 years old) to the proposed maximum sentence for another which is unconnected and doesn't yet exist is an odd way to advance an argument, but maybe it's the best you can manage.

Nothing wrong with making a comparison of current or proposed offenses, and their current or proposed punishments. Such a comparison can reveal the norms and values of a society. You are free to include or discard such information in your analysis of an issue.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 12:48:46 pm
How does this change anything, really?

Updated CDC guidance says 3 feet of physical distancing is safe in schools
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/health/cdc-physical-distancing/index.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 19, 2021, 12:53:32 pm
How does this change anything, really?

Updated CDC guidance says 3 feet of physical distancing is safe in schools
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/health/cdc-physical-distancing/index.html

What change were you expecting? Until the infection rates dwindle down to very low levels, it's not over. Vaccinations are not a cure for the pandemic, they are an important tool, let's hope they are a decisive tool.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 12:59:31 pm
What change were you expecting? Until the infection rates dwindle down to very low levels, it's not over. Vaccinations are not a cure for the pandemic, they are an important tool, let's hope they are a decisive tool.
Don't kids sit closer than 3 feet?  I don't see how that changes anything.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 19, 2021, 01:00:57 pm
Nothing wrong with making a comparison of current or proposed offenses, and their current or proposed punishments. Such a comparison can reveal the norms and values of a society.

He compared the proposed penalty with data from ten years ago. How does that help?

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 01:01:23 pm
How does this change anything, really?

Updated CDC guidance says 3 feet of physical distancing is safe in schools
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/health/cdc-physical-distancing/index.html

Ask your wife. I understand that she was a teacher before retiring. She may suggest the possibility that if you only have to space the desks three feet apart instead of six feet apart, you can fit more desks, and therefore more students, in a classroom. It is at least a possibility.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 19, 2021, 01:06:12 pm
Don't kids sit closer than 3 feet?  I don't see how that changes anything.

What?

Do they sit closer than 3 feet?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 01:06:33 pm
He compared the proposed penalty with data from ten years ago. How does that help?

S
I think you have to have sentences relative to the crimes.  You shouldn't send a pickpocket to jail longer than a guy who commits armed robbery.  Of course, no one should go to jail because you find them "annoying".  Go home and have a beer and lighten up. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 01:08:47 pm
What?

Do they sit closer than 3 feet?
Well, maybe someone measured the normal distance and saw it was 3 feet.  Now they can open the schools yet make-believe they still have a rule. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 19, 2021, 01:09:14 pm
I think you have to have sentences relative to the crimes.  You shouldn't send a pickpocket to jail longer than a guy who commits armed robbery.  Of course, no one should go to jail because you find them "annoying".  Go home and have a beer and lighten up.

Don't condescend to me, Klein. You're obviously one of those who think rape can be trotted out to be used as a cheap comparison to any other crime. Some of us with more experience think differently.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 01:09:59 pm
He compared the proposed penalty with data from ten years ago. How does that help?

Help what?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 01:14:03 pm
Don't condescend to me, Klein. You're obviously one of those who think rape can be trotted out to be used as a cheap comparison to any other crime. Some of us with more experience think differently.

S
I'm Mr. Klein to you.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 19, 2021, 01:19:49 pm
Who the fuck is "sf" to come here anonymously and pontificate?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 19, 2021, 01:26:56 pm
just another "Q" from the other thread. ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 19, 2021, 01:31:00 pm
How does this change anything, really?

Updated CDC guidance says 3 feet of physical distancing is safe in schools
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/health/cdc-physical-distancing/index.html

6ft or 2 m distance has been recommended from the beginning of the pandemic as the gold standard.
However, in many situations even a 1m distance, especially for a short duration may be sufficient and of course, 3m or further is safer than 2m.

Quote
Physical distancing helps limit the spread of COVID-19 – this means we keep a distance of at least 1m from each other and avoid spending time in crowded places or in groups.

Quote
The number of droplets produced by various activities (coughing, sneezing, breathing, phonation, etc.) is very variable. By using a laser light scattering method, 1 minute of loud speaking was estimated to produce thousands of fluid droplets from the oral cavity per second; of these, at least 1,000 droplet nuclei contain virions, and under the conditions of the experiment, they could remain airborne for more than 8 minutes. Notably, patients infected with influenza virus exhaled aerosol particles containing infectious viral particles more frequently after coughing than after a forceful exhalation. Individuals who produce much higher quantities of infectious aerosols may be more likely to spread infection and be responsible for the “super spreader effect” in which an individual is responsible for infecting an unusually large number of susceptible individuals. Other factors to consider in the spread of respiratory viral infections are the frequency of respiratory events, viral concentration in the exhaled fluid and its volume, and the duration of exposure to an infected individual. Because breathing and speaking occur more frequently than coughs and sneezes, they could have an important role in transmission of viral infections, especially from asymptomatic infected individuals.

Larger droplets settle quickly, whereas small airborne droplet nuclei are transported over longer distances by airflow. The distance droplets traverse depends on how forcefully a person coughs or sneezes. Large respiratory droplets containing pathogens like influenza can travel approximately 6 feet when a sick person coughs or sneezes. The aerosol expelled from the mouth during a cough emerges not as individual droplets but as a jet with a leading vortex that has properties similar to those of a puff from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler and can penetrate an impressive distance into the surrounding ambient air before finally dissipating. Thus, emissions from coughs and sneezes contain droplets of various sizes suspended in a multiphase turbulent buoyant cloud. Turbulence sweeps around smaller particles, and eddies within the cloud resuspend the particles so that they settle more slowly, with some particles traveling more than 8 feet horizontally through the air. Moreover, smaller droplets could spray 13–20 feet vertically in the air, which is theoretically high enough to enter and travel through ceiling ventilation systems in some buildings.

short article for dummies
https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing

comprehensive and scientific explanation for others
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462404/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 01:39:55 pm
How does this change anything, really?

It changes the topic of a discussion thread away from its purpose. That appears to suit those that have nothing useful to contribute and need something else to discuss.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 02:12:46 pm
6ft or 2 m distance has been recommended from the beginning of the pandemic as the gold standard.
However, in many situations even a 1m distance, especially for a short duration may be sufficient and of course, 3m or further is safer than 2m.

short article for dummies
https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing

comprehensive and scientific explanation for others
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462404/
The question, in a school environment, where kids sit next to one another and cough on each other and chat with each other before and after, how does three feet change anything?  It might as well be 0". It seems like a sop, just something to satisfy politically without having any bearing on the spread of the disease.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 02:16:23 pm
It changes the topic of a discussion thread away from its purpose. That appears to suit those that have nothing useful to contribute and need something else to discuss.
This is exactly what this thread is about.  Discussing the benefits of different suggestions to help eliminate the spread.  Are we only to agree with the poobahs? Should teachers and others who are exposed to the new variance accept them without question and risk their lives because you think we should all fall in line? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 19, 2021, 02:17:45 pm
just another "Q" from the other thread. ;D

James Bond Q? Something else?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 02:22:42 pm
This is exactly what this thread is about.  Discussing the benefits of different suggestions to help eliminate the spread.

The topic of the thread is "Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine". The initial post was about the Novavax vaccine, the "Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine" in question. We have strayed far from the topic. TechTalk has listened to Josh's request and is trying to steer us back on topic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 02:57:23 pm
Yes. In addition, Chris Kern, who started this discussion topic, also brought in the J&J vaccine for discussion. That's the topic "Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine" — Novavax, J&J, perhaps others in trial or rolling out.

It's not uncommon that someone diverts a topic for their own agenda. They then wait for others to take the bait. Their stinky cheese just sits in a trap to promote whatever they would prefer to discuss. I'm not looking to be their mouse.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 19, 2021, 03:00:34 pm
Don't condescend to me, Klein. You're obviously one of those who think rape can be trotted out to be used as a cheap comparison to any other crime. Some of us with more experience think differently.

S

I suspect Alan and I are in (rare) agreement that a prison sentence of any sort for protest or demonstration is not compatible with a free society. The comparison with rape is relevant, as you are perfectly well aware, because of the discussion in the UK recently about the right to demonstrate against male violence following the murder of Sarah Everard.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 03:26:16 pm
Why Johnson & Johnson’s one-shot Covid-19 vaccine is a game changer

March 1, 2021 - The vaccine is very effective — and most importantly, it only requires one shot.

https://www.vox.com/covid-19-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-coronavirus (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22301014/covid-19-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-coronavirus)

Excerpts below...

One big reason to be excited about the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine for Covid-19, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration over the weekend for emergency use in the US: Unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines already in use, it requires only one shot for full protection.

That’s a big deal. From a practical standpoint, it means that the new vaccine could really speed up America’s vaccination campaign — certainly more than another two-dose vaccine would. It also fixes a problem that’s long bedeviled medical treatments that require multiple doses: A lot of patients tend to drop off after the first appointment.

“Especially when you’re trying to think about a massive public health program like this vaccine rollout, a single-dose vaccine would have made it much, much simpler” if it were the first to get approval, Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me.

Based on research that evaluated compliance with other multi-dose vaccines, patients are really, really bad at getting their second dose. Bad as in, as many as half of patients never do. Studies conducted in both the US and UK on the hepatitis B vaccine — which, like the Covid-19 vaccines, is supposed to have around a one-month period between the first and second doses — found that roughly 50 percent of patients failed to get their follow-up shot within a year after their first.

Maybe the numbers will look better for the Covid-19 vaccines. The stakes of a deadly pandemic are much higher, and perhaps people will react accordingly. But if a significant number of people fail to get their second shots, and the first dose of Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines proves to not be enough, that could doom the prospects of herd immunity, when enough of the population is vaccinated to stop the spread of the virus.

One of the most obvious benefits to a one-shot Covid-19 vaccine is it could dramatically speed up — literally double — the US’s vaccine rollout.

Now imagine that the US manages to get to 3 million shots a day (which no longer seems unlikely). At that rate, two-dose vaccines would get us to herd immunity at the end of the summer, and a one-shot–only approach would get us there before summer. If one-third of vaccines are one-shot versions, we reach herd immunity by mid-summer — leaving the rest of the summer to, hopefully, live much closer to normal than the last year.

But the numbers, at least, demonstrate the potential of a one-shot vaccine like Johnson & Johnson’s. It could speed up the vaccination process in the US by weeks or even months.

With thousands of people still dying every day from Covid-19, that boost could translate to upward of tens of thousands of lives saved.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 03:59:49 pm
The Astrazeneca vaccine has been in the news. Some countries suspended its use because of concerns over it causing blood clots. The European Medicines Agency has deemed it safe, but there is some concern that the public may have lost confidence in it.

https://apnews.com/article/eu-regulator-review-astrazeneca-shot-blood-clot-links-437190969ed016e40bdfcbb4b63fc7a9

The US is going to "loan" 4 million Astrazeneca doses to Canada and Mexico.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mexico-exclusi/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-send-four-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-official-idUSKBN2BA22S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:08:15 pm
James Bond Q? Something else?
That's what I was hoping for.  But I think it's someone more sinister.  Someone like Dr. No.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:13:02 pm
Yes. In addition, Chris Kern, who started this discussion topic, also brought in the J&J vaccine for discussion. That's the topic "Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine" — Novavax, J&J, perhaps others in trial or rolling out.

It's not uncommon that someone diverts a topic for their own agenda. They then wait for others to take the bait. Their stinky cheese just sits in a trap to promote whatever they would prefer to discuss. I'm not looking to be their mouse.
The title of the thread is Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine.  It should have been labelled Novavax Discovery.  The named title is too open to stay so limited.  How would anyone know it\'s about Novafax?  Until you mentioned it, I didn't know or forgot. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:16:11 pm
The Astrazeneca vaccine has been in the news. Some countries suspended its use because of concerns over it causing blood clots. The European Medicines Agency has deemed it safe, but there is some concern that the public may have lost confidence in it.

https://apnews.com/article/eu-regulator-review-astrazeneca-shot-blood-clot-links-437190969ed016e40bdfcbb4b63fc7a9

The US is going to "loan" 4 million Astrazeneca doses to Canada and Mexico.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mexico-exclusi/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-send-four-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-official-idUSKBN2BA22S
It'll be OK if they don't give them back.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 04:22:57 pm
The Astrazeneca vaccine has been in the news. Some countries suspended its use because of concerns over it causing blood clots. The European Medicines Agency has deemed it safe, but there is some concern that the public may have lost confidence in it.

https://apnews.com/article/eu-regulator-review-astrazeneca-shot-blood-clot-links-437190969ed016e40bdfcbb4b63fc7a9

The US is going to "loan" 4 million Astrazeneca doses to Canada and Mexico.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mexico-exclusi/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-send-four-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-official-idUSKBN2BA22S

Thanks for the link. Interesting article. I've been following the AstraZeneca story and other vaccines not authorized for use in the U.S. currently.

From the article you linked...

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had requested the vaccine. The administration official said the countries were in touch about the vaccine loan. “We’ve been working through the diplomatic channels,” he said.

Mexico has in recent weeks leaned increasingly on China and Russia to secure vaccines to carry out its inoculation plans.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:28:54 pm
Why Johnson & Johnson’s one-shot Covid-19 vaccine is a game changer

March 1, 2021 - The vaccine is very effective — and most importantly, it only requires one shot.

https://www.vox.com/covid-19-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-coronavirus (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22301014/covid-19-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-coronavirus)

Excerpts below...

One big reason to be excited about the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine for Covid-19, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration over the weekend for emergency use in the US: Unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines already in use, it requires only one shot for full protection.

That’s a big deal. From a practical standpoint, it means that the new vaccine could really speed up America’s vaccination campaign — certainly more than another two-dose vaccine would. It also fixes a problem that’s long bedeviled medical treatments that require multiple doses: A lot of patients tend to drop off after the first appointment.

“Especially when you’re trying to think about a massive public health program like this vaccine rollout, a single-dose vaccine would have made it much, much simpler” if it were the first to get approval, Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me.

Based on research that evaluated compliance with other multi-dose vaccines, patients are really, really bad at getting their second dose. Bad as in, as many as half of patients never do. Studies conducted in both the US and UK on the hepatitis B vaccine — which, like the Covid-19 vaccines, is supposed to have around a one-month period between the first and second doses — found that roughly 50 percent of patients failed to get their follow-up shot within a year after their first.

Maybe the numbers will look better for the Covid-19 vaccines. The stakes of a deadly pandemic are much higher, and perhaps people will react accordingly. But if a significant number of people fail to get their second shots, and the first dose of Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines proves to not be enough, that could doom the prospects of herd immunity, when enough of the population is vaccinated to stop the spread of the virus.

One of the most obvious benefits to a one-shot Covid-19 vaccine is it could dramatically speed up — literally double — the US’s vaccine rollout.

Now imagine that the US manages to get to 3 million shots a day (which no longer seems unlikely). At that rate, two-dose vaccines would get us to herd immunity at the end of the summer, and a one-shot–only approach would get us there before summer. If one-third of vaccines are one-shot versions, we reach herd immunity by mid-summer — leaving the rest of the summer to, hopefully, live much closer to normal than the last year.

But the numbers, at least, demonstrate the potential of a one-shot vaccine like Johnson & Johnson’s. It could speed up the vaccination process in the US by weeks or even months.

With thousands of people still dying every day from Covid-19, that boost could translate to upward of tens of thousands of lives saved.
This article seems like it was written by a guy who owns Johnson and Johnson stock.  First off, Moderna and Pfizer were approved months ago and over 70 million people just in the US have already gotten the earlier shots who are now immuned and adding to the herd immunity.  J&J was just approved. People are just starting to get them.

Second, the argument that so many people aren't;lt getting their second shot is not true.  I'm in a group of old people, the more vulnerable, and no one that I know is not getting their second shot.  Old people are particularly getting their shots because of the danger.  They're fighting to get in line.

Here's an extract from the article you linked to of people taking the two-shot versions. Also, Moderna and Pfizer with just the first of two doses are more effective than J&J's one dose.  The first two are at 95% while J&J is somewhere between 10-20% less effective.  So, I think some balance should be included in your post.

In the first analysis, 88% had completed the series, 8.6% had not received the second dose but remained within the allowable interval, and 3.4% had missed the second dose. The percentage of people who missed the second dose was highest among American Indian/Alaska Natives (5.1%) and people aged 16 to 44 years (4%), according to CDC researcher Jennifer Kriss, and colleagues.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:31:39 pm
Thanks for the link. Interesting article. I've been following the AstraZeneca story and other vaccines not authorized for use in the U.S. currently.

From the article you linked...

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had requested the vaccine. The administration official said the countries were in touch about the vaccine loan. “We’ve been working through the diplomatic channels,” he said.

Mexico has in recent weeks leaned increasingly on China and Russia to secure vaccines to carry out its inoculation plans.
I thought Biden was going to give other nations some of ours.  Did he lie?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 04:44:36 pm
I thought Biden was going to give other nations some of ours.  Did he lie?

I don't know. You could probably look it up on Google if you are interested. Or you could just assume he did. It's up to you.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 04:52:09 pm
I don't know. You could probably look it up on Google if you are interested. Or you could just assume he did. It's up to you.
Biden does not intend to give any doses to any other peoples until Americans get their doses.  His campaign promise was a lie.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 05:08:13 pm
Biden does not intend to give any doses to any other peoples until Americans get their doses.  His campaign promise was a lie.

What exactly did Biden say during the campaign about sharing vaccine doses with other countries?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 05:36:55 pm
The Astrazeneca vaccine has been in the news. Some countries suspended its use because of concerns over it causing blood clots. The European Medicines Agency has deemed it safe, but there is some concern that the public may have lost confidence in it.

https://apnews.com/article/eu-regulator-review-astrazeneca-shot-blood-clot-links-437190969ed016e40bdfcbb4b63fc7a9

The US is going to "loan" 4 million Astrazeneca doses to Canada and Mexico.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mexico-exclusi/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-send-four-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-official-idUSKBN2BA22S

Also of note from the article that you linked is that the AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized for use in the United States.

"The Biden administration has come under pressure from countries around the world to share vaccines, particularly its stock of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, which is authorized for use elsewhere but not yet in the United States.

AstraZeneca has millions of doses made in a U.S. facility, and has said that it would have 30 million shots ready at the beginning of April. The company’s shares rose slightly after Reuters first reported the news.

The deal to share the vaccine does not affect President Joe Biden’s plans to have vaccine available for all adults in the United States by the end of May, a senior administration official said, and it does not reduce the supply of available vaccine in the United States.
"

It makes sense to loan a vaccine not authorized for use here to our neighbors that are already using it, rather than have vaccine expire sitting on the shelf.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 05:40:50 pm
What exactly did Biden say during the campaign about sharing vaccine doses with other countries?
He implied he would rejoin WHO (which he did) and be involved in the world as a partner country that helped out others regarding Covid vaccine.  Giving Astra Zeneca to Mexicans and Canadians, which we can't use, and promising we'll give other good vaccines after all Americans get theirs, doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice.  I wonder what he'll charge them? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 05:47:19 pm
Biden does not intend to give any doses to any other peoples until Americans get their doses.  His campaign promise was a lie.

What exactly did Biden say during the campaign about sharing vaccine doses with other countries?

He implied he would rejoin WHO (which he did) and be involved in the world as a partner country that helped out others regarding Covid vaccine.  Giving Astra Zeneca to Mexicans and Canadians, which we can't use, and promising we'll give other good vaccines after all Americans get theirs, doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice.  I wonder what he'll charge them?

I'll ask again. What did he say during the campaign about sharing vaccine doses with other countries that was a lie?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 06:33:37 pm
I'll ask again. What did he say during the campaign about sharing vaccine doses with other countries that was a lie?
He promised to set up a $25 billion dollar plan to distribute the vaccine when approved.  They were to go to Americans and the rest of the world.  (This was recorded in Jul 8, 2020 obviously before any vaccines were approved. )  Giving away Astra Zeneca which we can't use or waiting until the end of the year after all Americans are vaccinated, which are what Biden is promising now,  does not seem to be in the spirit of help he offered last July.

Of course, back then he was competing with Trump and wanted to show how America will be partners with the world in opposition to Trump's America First motto.  Of course, now that Biden is president, it would be political suicide for him to send any vaccine to others in the world before every last American is vaccinated. So it's become Biden's America First motto.

See 18:35 of this video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4CLoiA3vfQ
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 06:50:39 pm
The first two are at 95% while J&J is somewhere between 10-20% less effective.

I've already posted information on the difference between efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines. They are not the same thing.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness.html)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work.html)

I also posted information on why it's foolish to try to compare efficacy with the limited data from separate clinical trials of different vaccines; conducted at different times; in different places; with different populations; with different protocols; with different virus variants. Only a head-to-head clinical trial designed for that purpose would provide comparative results.

Providing this information to you has had 0% efficacy or effectiveness and the effort has now been abandoned.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 07:09:56 pm
I've already posted information on the difference between efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines. They are not the same thing.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness.html)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work.html)

I also posted information on why it's foolish to try to compare efficacy with the limited data from separate clinical trials of different vaccines; conducted at different times; in different places; with different populations; with different protocols; with different virus variants. Only a head-to-head clinical trial designed for that purpose would provide comparative results.

Providing this information to you has had 0% efficacy or effectiveness and the effort has now been abandoned.
The bottom line is that J&J was rated at 75-85% and Moderna and Pfizer were rated at 94-95%.  Which camera would you prefer with similar ratings? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 07:11:13 pm
He promised to set up a $25 billion dollar plan to distribute the vaccine when approved.  They were to go to Americans and the rest of the world.

The COVID relief plan passed earlier this month contained approximately $93 billion for vaccine distribution, testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and the public health workforce. You can read the US vaccine distribution plan on the CDC website.

https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/distribution/index.html

In February, the US pledged $4 billion to the WHO to purchase and distribute vaccines globally.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 19, 2021, 07:16:24 pm
The COVID relief plan passed earlier this month contained approximately $93 billion for vaccine distribution, testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and the public health workforce. In February, the US pledged $4 billion to the WHO to purchase vaccines for distribution globally.
WHO can use the $4 billion to purchase the Chinese or Russian vaccines which I wouldn't use to develop my film (much less put into my arms).   But he's not giving away any of our approved vaccines until every last American is vaccinated.  Very generous of him. And very unlike his promises and intent before the election.  Should we start a lie list for Biden as we had for Trump?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 19, 2021, 07:28:17 pm
The bottom line is that J&J was rated at 75-85% and Moderna and Pfizer were rated at 94-95%.  Which camera would you prefer with similar ratings?

Given the fact that you can't understand the basic terminology, methodology, or variables involved in vaccine assessment; there's no point in discussing that topic. As for cameras compared to vaccines—the best vaccine to take is the one that's available at the time—the best camera to capture an image is the one that's available at the time.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 19, 2021, 07:28:37 pm
And very unlike his promises and intent before the election. 

Again, specifically, what are the promises, and now "intent", he expressed before the election that are not being met with respect to vaccines?

Should we start a lie list for Biden as we had for Trump?

In response to a similar question from you several weeks ago, I suggested that if you wanted to set up a list of Biden's "lies", you were free to do so. You certainly do not need my permission. But hurry; you are already sixty day behind schedule.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 20, 2021, 01:26:05 am
Given the fact that you can't understand the basic terminology, methodology, or variables involved in vaccine assessment; there's no point in discussing that topic. As for cameras compared to vaccines—the best vaccine to take is the one that's available at the time—the best camera to capture an image is the one that's available at the time.
How smart do you have to be to know that a vaccine rated at 94/95% is better than one rated at 75/85%?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 20, 2021, 02:12:11 am
How smart do you have to be to know that a vaccine rated at 94/95% is better than one rated at 75/85%?

It may be more a matter of willingness to learn and a modicum of attention in order to achieve a basic level of comprehension. That's not happening and there is no expectation that will change.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 20, 2021, 06:33:05 am
Given the fact that you can't understand the basic terminology, methodology, or variables involved in vaccine assessment..

That's just a standard smartass technique of the left nuts - question what the definition of "is" is. And condescension. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 20, 2021, 07:55:08 am
WHO can use the $4 billion to purchase the Chinese or Russian vaccines which I wouldn't use to develop my film (much less put into my arms).   But he's not giving away any of our approved vaccines until every last American is vaccinated.  Very generous of him. And very unlike his promises and intent before the election.  Should we start a lie list for Biden as we had for Trump?

Where are the other vaccines actually manufactured? Do we know?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 20, 2021, 08:52:42 am
... the Chinese or Russian vaccines which I wouldn't use to develop my film (much less put into my arms).

Why?

Perhaps you should take into account that the American Embassy in Moscow has pleaded with the Russian authorities to get Sputnik, as State Department was apparently unable to provide Pfizer for them.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: faberryman on March 20, 2021, 09:19:52 am
Why?

That has to be a rhetorical question. Surely by now you know why Alan wouldn't use the Chinese or Russian vaccines. I'll give you a hint: it has to do with precious bodily fluids.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 20, 2021, 09:26:09 am
It may be more a matter of willingness to learn and a modicum of attention in order to achieve a basic level of comprehension. That's not happening and there is no expectation that will change.
Thanks for your advice on life.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 20, 2021, 12:36:02 pm
Who the fuck is "sf" to come here anonymously and pontificate?

Who the hell are you to think you can swear at me?

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 20, 2021, 01:00:20 pm
The New York Times has published an interesting piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vaccine-rollout-astrazeneca.html?smid=em-share) describing why experts believe the coronavirus vaccine rollout in Europe has been slower than here in the States and in Britain, with reporting from Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Quote
There is no single culprit. Rather, a cascade of small decisions have led to increasingly long delays. The bloc was comparatively slow to negotiate contracts with drugmakers. Its regulators were cautious and deliberative in approving some vaccines. Europe also bet on vaccines that did not pan out or, significantly, had supply disruptions. And national governments snarled local efforts in red tape.

But the biggest explanation, the one that has haunted the bloc for months, is as much philosophical as it was operational. European governments are often seen in the United States as free-spending, liberal bastions, but this time it was Washington that threw billions at drugmakers and cosseted their business.

Brussels, by comparison, took a conservative, budget-conscious approach that left the open market largely untouched. And it has paid for it. . . .

The bloc shopped for vaccines like a customer. The United States basically went into business with the drugmakers, spending much more heavily to accelerate vaccine development, testing and production.

Nevertheless, the Times article points out, "[c]ompared with nearly all the rest of the world, the European Union is in an admirable position" because it should be possible to vaccinate 70 percent of the population by this summer.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 20, 2021, 01:28:30 pm
The New York Times has published an interesting piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vaccine-rollout-astrazeneca.html?smid=em-share) describing why experts believe the coronavirus vaccine rollout in Europe has been slower than here in the States and in Britain, with reporting from Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Nevertheless, the Times article points out, "[c]ompared with nearly all the rest of the world, the European Union is in an admirable position" because it should be possible to vaccinate 70 percent of the population by this summer.
The portion you quoted below was the results of Trump's Operation Warp Speed.  It would have been nice for the NY Times to mention that.  Of course, they intend to give all the credit to Biden. 

Quote
There is no single culprit. Rather, a cascade of small decisions have led to increasingly long delays. The bloc was comparatively slow to negotiate contracts with drugmakers. Its regulators were cautious and deliberative in approving some vaccines. Europe also bet on vaccines that did not pan out or, significantly, had supply disruptions. And national governments snarled local efforts in red tape.

But the biggest explanation, the one that has haunted the bloc for months, is as much philosophical as it was operational. European governments are often seen in the United States as free-spending, liberal bastions, but this time it was Washington that threw billions at drugmakers and cosseted their business.

Brussels, by comparison, took a conservative, budget-conscious approach that left the open market largely untouched. And it has paid for it. . . .

The bloc shopped for vaccines like a customer. The United States basically went into business with the drugmakers, spending much more heavily to accelerate vaccine development, testing and production.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 20, 2021, 01:41:43 pm
Who the hell are you to think you can swear at me?

S

I can swear at whomever I want (although what I said was not swearing at you, but a rhetorical expression).

However, I am posting under my real name, have been a member here since 2005, and know other members quite well, so I have good reasons not to swear at them. Newbie, anonymous  smart asses, however, get less respect from me.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 20, 2021, 01:58:33 pm
The New York Times has published an interesting piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vaccine-rollout-astrazeneca.html?smid=em-share) describing why experts believe the coronavirus vaccine rollout in Europe has been slower than here in the States and in Britain, with reporting from Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Nevertheless, the Times article points out, "[c]ompared with nearly all the rest of the world, the European Union is in an admirable position" because it should be possible to vaccinate 70 percent of the population by this summer.

A country that has had great success in getting vaccines administered is Chile. They rank third in the world for per capita vaccination behind only Israel and the UAE.

It is not all good news, however. They are currently experiencing a massive spike in cases and hospitals are nearly full.

Chile sets daily record for coronavirus cases even as vaccination drive plows ahead - Reuters - March 20, 2021

https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-sets-daily-record-for-coronavirus-cases-even-as-vaccination-drive-plows-ahead (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-chile/chile-sets-daily-record-for-coronavirus-cases-even-as-vaccination-drive-plows-ahead-idUSKBN2BC0L3)

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Chile broke its single day record for new cases of the coronavirus on Saturday, health officials said, leaving hospitals on the verge of collapse even as the South American nation races on with a mass vaccination program.

Cases have been ticking up for weeks following the end of the southern hemisphere summer holiday, but soared to 7,084, above the previous high of 6,938 last June, the data shows.

The fast rising caseload has filled critical care wards north to south, leaving Chile with just 198 beds available for new patients. All of the capital Santiago, the economic engine, is in strict lockdown this weekend.

Chile, a comparatively small but wealthy Andean nation, is at the forefront of a global inoculation drive on a per capita basis. It ranks third globally, behind Israel and the United Arab Emirates, for most doses administered per population, according to a Reuters tabulation.

But officials say the holiday infections, the arrival of more contagious variants of the virus and a relaxation of sanitary measures amid the successful vaccination program have prompted a more vicious second wave.

Chile was the first in South America here to begin vaccinating its citizens, with an early shipment of the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 24.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on March 20, 2021, 08:23:14 pm
I am posting under my real name. . . . Newbie, anonymous  smart asses, however, get less respect from me.

Agree.  Posting political views with a pseudonym really is egregious behavior.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 21, 2021, 02:32:50 pm
I can swear at whomever I want (although what I said was not swearing at you, but a rhetorical expression).

However, I am posting under my real name, have been a member here since 2005, and know other members quite well, so I have good reasons not to swear at them. Newbie, anonymous  smart asses, however, get less respect from me.

Agree.  Posting political views with a pseudonym really is egregious behavior.
The necessity for people to use real names seems to have been considered here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131904.msg1131072#new. I don't see you swearing at TechTalk or jeremyrh (who even uses a stolen comedian's photograph).

The derogatory term "smart ass" is an unjustified attack on me, without any attempt to address my argument.

Some of us, and with good reason, find the typically male resort to comparisons with rape as a supposedly kill-all argument extremely offensive.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 21, 2021, 04:14:06 pm
... comparisons with rape...

???

P.S. re jeremyrh... while we are often at the opposing political ends, he and I get quite nicely along in PM exchange and would surely enjoy a pint if we ever get together. I also happen to know his real name. But that relationship has been built over time. You, however, started rather aggressively in the very first two or three posts. Perhaps, in due time, we can also get along better. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 22, 2021, 06:12:01 am
???

P.S. re jeremyrh... while we are often at the opposing political ends, he and I get quite nicely along in PM exchange and would surely enjoy a pint if we ever get together. I also happen to know his real name. But that relationship has been built over time. You, however, started rather aggressively in the very first two or three posts. Perhaps, in due time, we can also get along better.

Drinking a beer with a friend from a different country is looking like a distant dream at this point :-(
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 01:10:42 pm
The necessity for people to use real names seems to have been considered here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131904.msg1131072#new. I don't see you swearing at TechTalk or jeremyrh (who even uses a stolen comedian's photograph).

The derogatory term "smart ass" is an unjustified attack on me, without any attempt to address my argument.

Some of us, and with good reason, find the typically male resort to comparisons with rape as a supposedly kill-all argument extremely offensive.

S

I'm not involved in your argument and don't wish to be dragged into it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 01:16:03 pm
That's just a standard smartass technique of the left nuts - question what the definition of "is" is. And condescension.

No one is questioning the definition of "is". It's more akin to saying this is an apple and this is an orange and repeatedly receiving a blank stare. You're mistaking condescension with exhaustion from running in circles.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on March 22, 2021, 02:40:36 pm
Agree.  Posting political views with a pseudonym really is egregious behavior.

..albeit a behavior with a long and distinguished history. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/08/anonymous-criticism-helped-make-america-great/)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 03:04:34 pm
..albeit a behavior with a long and distinguished history. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/08/anonymous-criticism-helped-make-america-great/)

A quote from the article you linked...

"As Madison, Hamilton and Jay published the Federalist essays, they protected their identities closely, using the pseudonym “Publius” and denying their involvement to all but their closest associates. Yet some contemporaries quickly and accurately guessed their identities.

Their use of a pseudonym was probably not intended to avoid detection or retribution. Rather, they probably hoped that their pseudonym would focus their readers’ attention on their arguments rather than their personalities."

Of course, They weren't alone in their use of pseudonyms...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on March 22, 2021, 03:40:12 pm
A quote from the article you linked...

"As Madison, Hamilton and Jay published the Federalist essays, they protected their identities closely, using the pseudonym “Publius” and denying their involvement to all but their closest associates. Yet some contemporaries quickly and accurately guessed their identities.

Their use of a pseudonym was probably not intended to avoid detection or retribution. Rather, they probably hoped that their pseudonym would focus their readers’ attention on their arguments rather than their personalities."

Of course, They weren't alone in their use of pseudonyms...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates)

Indeed.  As an aside, I've recommended it before here (and other places), but 'Infamous Scribblers' is an incredible read for anyone into political media. (https://www.amazon.com/Infamous-Scribblers-Eric-Burns/dp/1586484281)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 22, 2021, 05:27:30 pm
Some posts submitted by anonymous posters are superior to rushed tripes contrived by posters under real names.

On the other hand, some newbie accounts are obviously fake or troll accounts. Facebook stated that they removed just in the last quarter of 2020 1.3 billion fake accounts.

Quote
Facebook Inc (FB.O) said on Monday it took down 1.3 billion fake accounts between October and December and that it had over 35,000 people working on tackling misinformation on its platform.

The company also removed more than 12 million pieces of content about COVID-19 and vaccines that global health experts flagged as misinformation, it said in a blog post.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-disables-13-billion-fake-accounts-oct-dec-last-year-2021-03-22/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 22, 2021, 06:14:36 pm
long overdue
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 22, 2021, 08:35:36 pm
A quote from the article you linked...

"As Madison, Hamilton and Jay published the Federalist essays, they protected their identities closely, using the pseudonym “Publius” and denying their involvement to all but their closest associates. Yet some contemporaries quickly and accurately guessed their identities.

Their use of a pseudonym was probably not intended to avoid detection or retribution. Rather, they probably hoped that their pseudonym would focus their readers’ attention on their arguments rather than their personalities."

Of course, They weren't alone in their use of pseudonyms...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates)
I doubt if there are any Madisons or Hamiltons posting here. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 22, 2021, 08:40:27 pm
Some posts submitted by anonymous posters are superior to rushed tripes contrived by posters under real names.

On the other hand, some newbie accounts are obviously fake or troll accounts. Facebook stated that they removed just in the last quarter of 2020 1.3 billion fake accounts.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-disables-13-billion-fake-accounts-oct-dec-last-year-2021-03-22/
How can they decide what's misinformation when experts themselves disagree on practically every subject if not all?  Plus knowledge is changing constantly and being upgraded.  Is it 6 feet or 3 feet that's right?  Will inflation stir the economy or just cause the price of everything to go up? 


It sounds like they're making arbitrary and political decisions. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 09:21:03 pm
Facebook stated that they removed just in the last quarter of 2020 1.3 billion fake accounts.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-disables-13-billion-fake-accounts-oct-dec-last-year-2021-03-22/

Your link didn't work for me. This link should work.

https://www.reuters.com/article/Facebook says took down 1.3 billion fake accounts in Oct-Dec (https://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-misinformation-int-idUSKBN2BE12M)

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Monday it took down 1.3 billion fake accounts between October and December and that it had over 35,000 people working on tackling misinformation on its platform.

The company also removed more than 12 million pieces of content about COVID-19 and vaccines that global health experts flagged as misinformation, it said in a blog post.

False claims and conspiracies about the coronavirus vaccines have proliferated on social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter during the pandemic.

Facebook’s disclosure of data on misinformation comes ahead of an inspection by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce into how technology platforms including Facebook are tackling misinformation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 09:25:53 pm
U.S. says Russian-backed outlets spread COVID-19 vaccine 'disinformation' - March 7, 2021

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-covid-disinformation/u-s-says-russian-backed-outlets-spread-covid-19-vaccine-disinformation (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-covid-disinformation/u-s-says-russian-backed-outlets-spread-covid-19-vaccine-disinformation-idUSKBN2B0016)

Excerpt below...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has identified three online publications directed by Russia’s intelligence services that it says are seeking to undermine COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, a State Department spokeswoman said on Sunday.

The outlets “spread many types of disinformation, including about both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, as well as international organizations, military conflicts, protests, and any divisive issue that they can exploit,” the spokeswoman said.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) first reported on the identification of the alleged campaign on Sunday. A Kremlin spokesman denied the U.S. claim Russia was spreading false information about vaccines to the WSJ.

Russia’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 22, 2021, 09:31:42 pm
Your link didn't work for me. This link should work.

https://www.reuters.com/article/Facebook says took down 1.3 billion fake accounts in Oct-Dec (https://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-misinformation-int-idUSKBN2BE12M)

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Monday it took down 1.3 billion fake accounts between October and December and that it had over 35,000 people working on tackling misinformation on its platform.

The company also removed more than 12 million pieces of content about COVID-19 and vaccines that global health experts flagged as misinformation, it said in a blog post.

False claims and conspiracies about the coronavirus vaccines have proliferated on social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter during the pandemic.

Facebook’s disclosure of data on misinformation comes ahead of an inspection by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce into how technology platforms including Facebook are tackling misinformation.
FB is worried about losing its monopoly and be broken apart.  So they're sucking up to Democratic control committees to show they're "woke". They're cowards.  The last time the CEO was up in the Capitol, he defending not getting involved in these things.  He took a lot of static for supporting free speech.  So he's worried.  Money talks.  He's backing off that position showing he'll back democratic positions and social policy as long as they don't hurt him and his company.  What a disgrace.  He's selling out. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 22, 2021, 09:42:55 pm
U.S. says Russian-backed outlets spread COVID-19 vaccine 'disinformation' - March 7, 2021

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-covid-disinformation/u-s-says-russian-backed-outlets-spread-covid-19-vaccine-disinformation (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-covid-disinformation/u-s-says-russian-backed-outlets-spread-covid-19-vaccine-disinformation-idUSKBN2B0016)

Excerpt below...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has identified three online publications directed by Russia’s intelligence services that it says are seeking to undermine COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, a State Department spokeswoman said on Sunday.

The outlets “spread many types of disinformation, including about both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, as well as international organizations, military conflicts, protests, and any divisive issue that they can exploit,” the spokeswoman said.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) first reported on the identification of the alleged campaign on Sunday. A Kremlin spokesman denied the U.S. claim Russia was spreading false information about vaccines to the WSJ.

Russia’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The article didn't say what the disinformation was.  It could have just been typical competitive arguments whose products are better just like American advertisers do.  It would have been nice if the article gave examples.  Russian vaccines are not being used in America.  So it would have to be that they're being sold in the rest of the world against Moderna, Pfizer, and Chinese vaccines.  There's a lot of profit to be made.  So competition is normal.  I would hope that American organizations will be trying to diminish our competitor's ads.  By the way, the article says that the Russian product was peer-reviewed at 92% effective.  That's less than Moderna and Pfizer but more than J&J and Astra Zeneca. Not that I would use it, but it seems the Russian version is pretty good. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 09:58:41 pm
The article didn't say what the disinformation was.

COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Are Spreading Thanks to Russian Propaganda: What to Know - March 12, 2021

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-myths-are-spreading-thanks-to-russian-propaganda-what-to-know (https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-myths-are-spreading-thanks-to-russian-propaganda-what-to-know)

The websites involved have questioned the efficacy of the vaccines, exaggerated the risk of side effects, and claimed that the vaccines were rushed through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, the WSJ reported.

This misinformation campaign comes as the vaccine rollout continues across the United States. Recent polling, though, suggests that public willingness to be vaccinated is on the rise.

Still, health officials face an ongoing fight against the spread of COVID-19 misinformation — some of it perpetuated byTrusted Source the algorithms of social media sites such as Instagram.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 22, 2021, 10:27:18 pm
CDC information on variants circulating in the United States

SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info.html)

Variant Proportions in the U.S.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-proportions (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-proportions.html)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 22, 2021, 11:03:09 pm
How can they decide what's misinformation when experts themselves disagree on practically every subject if not all?  Plus knowledge is changing constantly and being upgraded.  Is it 6 feet or 3 feet that's right?  Will inflation stir the economy or just cause the price of everything to go up? 

3ft is a minimum safe distance, 6 ft is recommended and 8ft is even better.
Staying at home is the best.

Quote
new study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests that 3 feet may be as safe as 6 feet, so long as everyone is masked. The authors compared infection rates at Massachusetts schools that required at least 3 feet of distancing with those that required at least 6 feet, and found no significant difference in the coronavirus case rates among students or staff in the two cohorts.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 23, 2021, 03:48:08 am
Russians again!?

Hahahaha... you guys never learn. Should we call Mueller again?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 09:30:59 am
COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Are Spreading Thanks to Russian Propaganda: What to Know - March 12, 2021

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-myths-are-spreading-thanks-to-russian-propaganda-what-to-know (https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccine-myths-are-spreading-thanks-to-russian-propaganda-what-to-know)

The websites involved have questioned the efficacy of the vaccines, exaggerated the risk of side effects, and claimed that the vaccines were rushed through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, the WSJ reported.

This misinformation campaign comes as the vaccine rollout continues across the United States. Recent polling, though, suggests that public willingness to be vaccinated is on the rise.

Still, health officials face an ongoing fight against the spread of COVID-19 misinformation — some of it perpetuated byTrusted Source the algorithms of social media sites such as Instagram.
Your article confirmed my guess.  It is because different manufacturers are competing with each other.  Not much different than the misinformation you read in photography forums about Nikon vs. Canon vs Leica vs Sony, each highlighting or downright lying about the other's camera's problems. 

From your article:
The campaign against the widely used Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely due to its potential competition against Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine, a report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy said.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 09:39:28 am
3ft is a minimum safe distance, 6 ft is recommended and 8ft is even better.
Staying at home is the best.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing
That's not what the study you quoted said.    If we go by your "rule", schools would stay closed indefinitely.

quote from your article: new study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests that 3 feet may be as safe as 6 feet, so long as everyone is masked. The authors compared infection rates at Massachusetts schools that required at least 3 feet of distancing with those that required at least 6 feet, and found no significant difference in the coronavirus case rates among students or staff in the two cohorts.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 23, 2021, 10:23:22 am
That's not what the study you quoted said.    If we go by your "rule", schools would stay closed indefinitely.

quote from your article: new study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests that 3 feet may be as safe as 6 feet, so long as everyone is masked. The authors compared infection rates at Massachusetts schools that required at least 3 feet of distancing with those that required at least 6 feet, and found no significant difference in the coronavirus case rates among students or staff in the two cohorts.

I don't need a study to come to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 10:57:42 am
More health problems from the shutdown.  Even I put on an extra 5 pounds. Isn't helping my back problem when I have to carry heavy camera equipment. 

How Much Weight Did We Gain During Lockdowns? 2 Pounds a Month, Study Hints
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/virus-weight-gain.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 23, 2021, 11:22:08 am
For anyone curios, I had not significant reaction to neither first, nor second Pfizer shot, short of going to bed on both days around 11pm, while my usual time would be around 1am or 2am. I did have Covid last March, however, so probably still some antibodies present. I also never ever had any reaction to the multitude of vaccines from my childhood, all the way to the last 10-15 years of regular flu shots.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 23, 2021, 11:43:57 am
More health problems from the shutdown.  Even I put on an extra 5 pounds. Isn't helping my back problem when I have to carry heavy camera equipment. 

How Much Weight Did We Gain During Lockdowns? 2 Pounds a Month, Study Hints
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/virus-weight-gain.html

Extra weight might hamper also sex life.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 12:28:24 pm
Extra weight might hamper also sex life.
Oh.  So that's the problem.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 02:54:23 pm
Russians again!?

Hahahaha... you guys never learn.

Yeah! Putin and his pals are comedy gold! I mean, their efforts to undermine democracy in the U.S. and Europe—HeeHee! And when they put their critics in prison or assassinate them—HoHoHo! Invading their neighbors causing death and destruction—HaHaHa! Just looking at how Putin and his corrupt, criminal, comedic, cronies steal the resources and wealth in their country and launder the money all over the world is always good for at least a chuckle or two.

Putin probably polished his comedic talents when he was in the KGB. I hear he used to crack up the Stasi in East Germany with his jokes! I'm sure that he'll give you plenty of laughs and giggles into the foreseeable future! It's nice to know that his attempt to undermine the health and safety of Americans, by spreading propaganda about vaccines, has brought a smile to your face. Thanks for teaching us how to laugh about it!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 02:59:30 pm
Yeah! Putin and his pals are comedy gold! I mean, their efforts to undermine democracy in the U.S. and Europe—HeeHee! And when they put their critics in prison or assassinate them—HoHoHo! Invading their neighbors causing death and destruction—HaHaHa! Just looking at how Putin and his corrupt, criminal, comedic, cronies steal the resources and wealth in their country and launder the money all over the world is always good for at least a chuckle or two.

Putin probably polished his comedic talents when he was in the KGB. I hear he used to crack up the Stasi in East Germany with his jokes! I'm sure that he'll give you plenty of laughs and giggles into the foreseeable future! It's nice to know that his attempt to undermine the health and safety of Americans, by spreading propaganda about vaccines, has brought a smile to your face. Thanks for teaching us how to laugh about it!
99% of the propaganda was spread by Democratic politicians
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 03:10:16 pm
Yeah! Putin and his pals are comedy gold! I mean, their efforts to undermine democracy in the U.S. and Europe—HeeHee! And when they put their critics in prison or assassinate them—HoHoHo! Invading their neighbors causing death and destruction—HaHaHa! Just looking at how Putin and his corrupt, criminal, comedic, cronies steal the resources and wealth in their country and launder the money all over the world is always good for at least a chuckle or two.

Putin probably polished his comedic talents when he was in the KGB. I hear he used to crack up the Stasi in East Germany with his jokes! I'm sure that he'll give you plenty of laughs and giggles into the foreseeable future! It's nice to know that his attempt to undermine the health and safety of Americans, by spreading propaganda about vaccines, has brought a smile to your face. Thanks for teaching us how to laugh about it!
I seem to recall clearly how many democrats for political reasons before the election put down "Trump's vaccine" telling the world how they wouldn't take it.  Were the Democrats colluding with the Russians? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 03:41:13 pm
Is this Russian propaganda?

‘I was sort of stunned’: Fauci and U.S. officials say AstraZeneca released ‘outdated information’ from Covid-19 vaccine trial
U.S. health officials raised concerns early Tuesday that positive results that AstraZeneca announced Monday for its Covid-19 vaccine may have been based on “an incomplete view of the efficacy data” from a clinical trial and relied on “outdated information,” throwing another curveball in the saga of the company’s vaccine.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/23/astrazeneca-may-have-used-outdated-information-in-announcing-covid19-vaccine-results/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 03:47:50 pm
Trump was ahead of this time.

Israel and New Zealand Permit Sale of SaNOtize’s Breakthrough Anti-Viral Nasal Spray
“The product we have developed, which kills viruses in the upper nasal pathways, will be delivered via a nasal spray bottle that contains a month’s supply for an individual,” said Dr. Gilly Regev, the Israeli CEO and co-founder of SaNOtize. “We look forward to updating the public in Israel and New Zealand with details on when Enovid will hit store shelves.”

Last week, SaNOtize and Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Surrey, UK announced results of clinical trials indicating that NONS represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that could prevent the transmission of COVID-19, shorten its course, and reduce the severity of symptoms and damage in those already infected. The study has been submitted to a leading medical journal for review and publication.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210322005226/en/Israel-and-New-Zealand-Permit-Sale-of-SaNOtize%E2%80%99s-Breakthrough-Anti-Viral-Nasal-Spray
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 04:14:34 pm
Is this Russian propaganda?

It's just the opposite. It's transparency, but you knew that already in making the false equivalence.

"Asked why NIAID released its unusual statement, Fauci said, “We just felt we could not remain silent. Because if we did remain silent, we could be understandably accused of covering something up. And we definitely didn’t want to be in that position.”

He added: “In my mind, it’s an unforced error by the company.”

"Fauci said on “Good Morning America” Tuesday the frustration was that “this is very likely a very good vaccine” and that he hoped people would understand the DSMB concerns were an example of one of the many guardrails ensuring the quality of the vaccine development process."

“If you look at it, the data really are quite good, but when they put it into the press release, it wasn’t completely accurate,” Fauci said. “We have to keep essentially trying as hard as we can to get people to understand there are safeguards in place.”
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 23, 2021, 04:34:43 pm
It's just the opposite. It's transparency...

 ;D ;D ;D

Oh, man, what's your real name, Spin Doctor?

But if the same info came attributed to, say, anonymous sources instead of Dr. Fauxi, it would have been labeled "Russian propaganda," right?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 23, 2021, 04:37:05 pm
Yeah! Putin and his pals are comedy gold! I mean, their efforts to undermine democracy in the U.S. and Europe—HeeHee! And when they put their critics in prison or assassinate them—HoHoHo! Invading their neighbors causing death and destruction—HaHaHa! Just looking at how Putin and his corrupt, criminal, comedic, cronies steal the resources and wealth in their country and launder the money all over the world is always good for at least a chuckle or two.

Putin probably polished his comedic talents when he was in the KGB. I hear he used to crack up the Stasi in East Germany with his jokes! I'm sure that he'll give you plenty of laughs and giggles into the foreseeable future! It's nice to know that his attempt to undermine the health and safety of Americans, by spreading propaganda about vaccines, has brought a smile to your face. Thanks for teaching us how to laugh about it!

 ;D ;D ;D

Have you tried a career in stand up?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 05:27:25 pm
I seem to recall clearly how many democrats for political reasons before the election put down "Trump's vaccine" telling the world how they wouldn't take it.

Your clear recollection is faulty. In September, Trump made repeated claims that a vaccine could be available before the election. “We think we can start some time in October. So as soon as it’s announced we’ll be able to start. That will be from mid-October on. It may be a little bit later than that. The vaccine could be distributed starting in October or November, I don’t think it’s going to be too much later than that.”

Trump went further by contradicting the CDC director's timeline of limited quantities of vaccine starting in November or December. “I think he made a mistake when he said that. It’s just incorrect information and I called him and he didn’t tell me that and I think he got the message maybe confused, maybe it was stated incorrectly,” “We’re ready to go immediately as the vaccine is announced and it could be announced in October, it could be announced a little bit after October but once we go we’re ready.”

Following those remarks a number of people pushed back, including Democrats, saying that they trusted what the scientists at CDC and FDA said regarding vaccine development and whether vaccines could be distributed before election day, but not Trump's estimates. Biden said that he trusted vaccines and he trusted scientists but he didn't trust Donald Trump. It was Trump's word they said they wouldn't take NOT the vaccines authorized by the scientists tasked with approving them. Your clear recollection is misleading you and your statements.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/trump-says-he-thinks-us-could-start-distributing-a-coronavirus-vaccine-in-october (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/trump-says-he-thinks-us-could-start-distributing-a-coronavirus-vaccine-in-october.html)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 05:32:27 pm
;D ;D ;D

Oh, man, what's your real name, Spin Doctor?

Just quoting from Alan's link to provide fuller context to the remarks he cited.

But if the same info came attributed to, say, anonymous sources instead of Dr. Fauxi, it would have been labeled "Russian propaganda," right?

Oh! Heaven forbid that anyone would think that Putin engages in activities harmful to democracy or human lives!

;D ;D ;D

Have you tried a career in stand up?

I don't think that anyone could make a career out of the material that you find funny. Not many people would find it so amusing.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 23, 2021, 05:52:56 pm
I seem to recall clearly how many democrats for political reasons before the election put down "Trump's vaccine" telling the world how they wouldn't take it.  Were the Democrats colluding with the Russians?

I seem to remember you claiming this before and failing to substantiate it when you were challenged. Got any more this time around?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 06:11:50 pm
Your article confirmed my guess.

Oh, naturally!

It is because different manufacturers are competing with each other.  Not much different than the misinformation you read in photography forums about Nikon vs. Canon vs Leica vs Sony, each highlighting or downright lying about the other's camera's problems. 

Except misinformation about cameras doesn't affect the health and safety of the people that read and share it with others. Other than that, "Not much different" perhaps.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 06:33:20 pm
The article didn't say what the disinformation was.  It could have just been typical competitive arguments whose products are better just like American advertisers do....

So you associate propaganda designed to spread doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines to Americans with advertising? Doing so at a critical time, when efforts are ramping up to contain a pandemic and save lives by getting enough people vaccinated doesn't give you pause?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 23, 2021, 06:36:17 pm
Trump was ahead of this time.

Israel and New Zealand Permit Sale of SaNOtize’s Breakthrough Anti-Viral Nasal Spray
“The product we have developed, which kills viruses in the upper nasal pathways, will be delivered via a nasal spray bottle that contains a month’s supply for an individual,” said Dr. Gilly Regev, the Israeli CEO and co-founder of SaNOtize. “We look forward to updating the public in Israel and New Zealand with details on when Enovid will hit store shelves.”

Last week, SaNOtize and Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Surrey, UK announced results of clinical trials indicating that NONS represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that could prevent the transmission of COVID-19, shorten its course, and reduce the severity of symptoms and damage in those already infected. The study has been submitted to a leading medical journal for review and publication.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210322005226/en/Israel-and-New-Zealand-Permit-Sale-of-SaNOtize%E2%80%99s-Breakthrough-Anti-Viral-Nasal-Spray

No wonder, considering his great wisdom and extensive knowledge of microbiology. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 23, 2021, 06:48:07 pm
I seem to recall clearly how many democrats for political reasons before the election put down "Trump's vaccine" telling the world how they wouldn't take it.  Were the Democrats colluding with the Russians?

I don't recall it, but according to Radio Yerevan, in principle this is true. However, it was not the Democrats but the Republicans, instead of the vaccines it was pomegranates, and rather than saying they wouldn't take it, they were asking for it.

More Yerevan jokes at: Radio Yerevan  (http://www.armeniapedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_Jokes)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 23, 2021, 08:48:21 pm
... the material that you find funny. Not many people would find it so amusing.

Maybe because I speak Russian, spent eight years in Moscow (working for American companies), from Yeltsin to Putin... maybe because of that I have a more realistic grasp of Russian affairs than someone who reads about it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on March 23, 2021, 09:12:30 pm
Maybe because I speak Russian, spent eight years in Moscow (working for American companies), from Yeltsin to Putin... maybe because of that I have a more realistic grasp of Russian affairs than someone who reads about it.

So, setting aside your inherent distaste for Democrats/liberals, what’s your take on how Russia is operating here? It’s not like the “left” are the only ones that believe Putin and his government are bad actors.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 23, 2021, 09:17:56 pm
Maybe because I speak Russian

I have no doubt that your Russian language abilities vastly exceed mine. I only had a couple of years of Russian in high school and I'm a poor speaker of the language, though my reading ability is a bit better than my speaking.

spent eight years in Moscow (working for American companies), from Yeltsin to Putin... maybe because of that I have a more realistic grasp of Russian affairs than someone who reads about it.

maybe... maybe not... People that have lived in the U.S. their entire lives can have a very different grasp and opposing opinions about what's realistic regarding American affairs. The same seems to hold true in every other country I've visited. Everyone forms opinions and judgments from their own perspective—too often, thru very narrow ideological lenses of all manner and description.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 23, 2021, 11:39:18 pm
I seem to remember you claiming this before and failing to substantiate it when you were challenged. Got any more this time around?
There was a constant drum beat before the election to make Trump's Operation Warp Speed look ineffective.  Heck, you still claim Trump had nothing to do with its success.  You want to have it both ways.  Frankly, you are distorting it now as well as then.  Your attacks on the vaccines undermined many Amricans support of it. 

Democrats face quandary on vaccine support as election nears
President Donald Trump is escalating his promise for a coronavirus vaccine before Election Day.

But across America, Democrats, independents and even some Republicans do not trust his administration to produce a safe and effective vaccine on such an aggressive timeline. Such hesitancy threatens to exacerbate the public health risk for millions of Americans whenever a vaccine is released.

With the Nov. 3 election fast approaching, Democratic officials face a delicate political challenge.

Should they attack Trump’s vaccine claims too aggressively, Democrats risk further undermining public confidence in a possible lifesaving medicine while looking as though they are rooting against a potential cure. But if they don’t push back, it makes it easier for Trump to use the real or imagined prospect of a vaccine to boost his reelection campaign.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-elections-public-health-archive-8790eda23e94aec7cf7b4beaaa67ceaf
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 24, 2021, 12:24:44 am
Speaking about the good old times, here are some indisputable historical facts.

Quote
The practice of immunisation dates back hundreds of years. Buddhist monks drank snake venom to confer immunity to snake bite and variolation (smearing of a skin tear with cowpox to confer immunity to smallpox) was practiced in 17th century China. Edward Jenner is considered the founder of vaccinology in the West in 1796, after he inoculated a 13 year-old-boy with vaccinia virus (cowpox), and demonstrated immunity to smallpox. In 1798, the first smallpox vaccine was developed. Over the 18th and 19th centuries, systematic implementation of mass smallpox immunisation culminated in its global eradication in 1979.

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/vaccine-development/brief-history-vaccination#:~:text=Edward%20Jenner%20is%20considered%20the,first%20smallpox%20vaccine%20was%20developed.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 24, 2021, 03:05:32 am
...  what’s your take on how Russia is operating here?...

The same thing we are doing there. And in the other 193 countries in the world. Interfering in internal affairs. Except we do it more aggressively and on a grander scale. Bomb countries into submission. Change regimes. Assassinate foreign leaders. Target civilians.

One of the most attractive electoral promises made by Trump was better relations with Moscow. We are not the same ideological enemies as during the Cold War. We have the same enemy today: radical Islam. There are still certain geopolitical realities where we have different interests, so the best strategy is to treat them as frenemies. It doesn’t help that we continue encroaching them years after the fall of the Soviet empire and Warsaw Pact.

That there is certain bipartisan agreement on Russia is not a surprise. Many Republicans represent the military industrial complex, which thrives on a permanent bogeyman. Many intelligence agencies were wrong before. They also depend on constantly amplifying threats, real or mythical.

You might remember that I spent seven years working in the American embassy in Belgrade in the ‘80s, and had a front row seat to how events were misinterpreted by mid-rank diplomats I worked with. Or their intellectual level and “expertise.”

#orangemanbad #russiabad
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 24, 2021, 09:05:28 am
The same thing we are doing there. And in the other 193 countries in the world. Interfering in internal affairs. Except we do it more aggressively and on a grander scale. Bomb countries into submission. Change regimes. Assassinate foreign leaders. Target civilians.

One of the most attractive electoral promises made by Trump was better relations with Moscow. We are not the same ideological enemies as during the Cold War. We have the same enemy today: radical Islam. There are still certain geopolitical realities where we have different interests, so the best strategy is to treat them as frenemies. It doesn’t help that we continue encroaching them years after the fall of the Soviet empire and Warsaw Pact.

That there is certain bipartisan agreement on Russia is not a surprise. Many Republicans represent the military industrial complex, which thrives on a permanent bogeyman. Many intelligence agencies were wrong before. They also depend on constantly amplifying threats, real or mythical.

You might remember that I spent seven years working in the American embassy in Belgrade in the ‘80s, and had a front row seat to how events were misinterpreted by mid-rank diplomats I worked with. Or their intellectual level and “expertise.”

#orangemanbad #russiabad
In addition to Russia and America having to deal with radical Islam, is the geopolitical threat of China.  Russia could be our ally for that as a nuclear power and being located along China's northern border.  Instead, because of the stupid domestic politics in the USA against Trump for five years, we've driven them to be friends with China.  Now, how dumb is that?

China, Russia officials meet in show of unity against EU, US
China and Russia were rivals for leadership of the communist world during the Cold War but have built a strong relationship in recent years based on opposition to the U.S.-led liberal order, as well as cooperation in military affairs, technology and trade in natural resources.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 24, 2021, 10:32:14 am
A useful video that might help people understand what vaccine efficacy numbers mean and what they don't mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 24, 2021, 10:52:34 am
A useful video that might help people understand what vaccine efficacy numbers mean and what they don't mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A
The video does not support that J&J and other vaccines with lower efficacy rates are just as good.  In fact, they support a position that they don't know how good they really are for the normal Covid 19 we have in the USA. This is so because the test for J&J was made in South Africa and other areas where a variant was spreading.  Since Moderna and Pfizer were not tested there, the video claims we don't know how effective they would against the variants.  Of course, that works both ways.  So J&J's effectiveness means little in the USA since it wasn't tested against Covid 19 that predominates in the USA.  So why would you take J&J when you don't really know how effective it is in America?

The other argument the video made is that all vaccines seem to reach 100% effectiveness for suffering less and living should you get it and go to the hospital.  The point they're stressing the herd immunity overall and not the individual.  Again, from a personal standpoint, this still makes Moderna and Pfizer more effective since it has a supposed higher rate of immunity against getting it in the first place.  I'd rather not get infected than be assured that should I get infected because I'm using J&J, I won't die but still need hospitalization.

The whole video seems to be political in trying to get J&J and other less effective vaccines accepted from an overall population standpoint.  I understand that might be true.  But still, from a personal standpoint, in America, you'd want to take the ones that have the higher effectiveness especially because they were the ones tested against Covid 19 and J&J wasn't.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 24, 2021, 12:19:01 pm

The whole video seems to be political in trying to get J&J and other less effective vaccines accepted from an overall population standpoint. 

It's not remotely political, it's simply explaining what the efficacy numbers are and how they were obtained.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 24, 2021, 01:15:49 pm
It's not remotely political, it's simply explaining what the efficacy numbers are and how they were obtained.
Who produced the video and why?  When you click on the link there titled Learn More, you go to the CDC website who has taken a political position that all vaccines are equal.  That's false.

To me, it seems they were trying to convince people J&J is just as effective.  For the people who didn't listen to what they really were saying, it seems that way.  But their statements actually prove the opposite or at a minimum, do not prove its effectiveness in America one way or the other because they didn't test it much on the American common strain but rather on a foreign variant. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 24, 2021, 01:39:41 pm
Who produced the video and why?  When you click on the link there titled Learn More, you go to the CDC website who has taken a political position that all vaccines are equal.  That's false.

To me, it seems they were trying to convince people J&J is just as effective.  For the people who didn't listen to what they really were saying, it seems that way.  But their statements actually prove the opposite or at a minimum, do not prove its effectiveness in America one way or the other because they didn't test it much on the American common strain but rather on a foreign variant.

You are talking nonsense. Any information that doesn't fit in with your understanding or prejudice you just brush off as "political". Maybe the change in menu at your local burger joint to replace chili sauce with bbq is "political" too. Take off your paranoid glasses and try to assess information on its merits. 

What is said that the numbers quoted for "efficacy" can't be compared like for like. The numbers don't say that the J&J (or AZ) vaccine is as good as Pfizer, but they don't say that it's worse. What they say is that under specific circumstances (very high infection rates, Brazil and SA variants) it gives a good level of protection. Would Pfizer have worked better in that case? - we can't say (I hope it would, cos that's the jab I had). How the different vaccines work in future, with a different background infection level, and a different variant, remains to be seen - in ny case much better than having no vaccine at all.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 24, 2021, 02:51:21 pm
The video does not support that J&J and other vaccines with lower efficacy rates are just as good.  In fact, they support a position that they don't know how good they really are for the normal Covid 19 we have in the USA. This is so because the test for J&J was made in South Africa and other areas where a variant was spreading.  Since Moderna and Pfizer were not tested there, the video claims we don't know how effective they would against the variants.  Of course, that works both ways.  So J&J's effectiveness means little in the USA since it wasn't tested against Covid 19 that predominates in the USA.  So why would you take J&J when you don't really know how effective it is in America?

The other argument the video made is that all vaccines seem to reach 100% effectiveness for suffering less and living should you get it and go to the hospital.  The point they're stressing the herd immunity overall and not the individual.  Again, from a personal standpoint, this still makes Moderna and Pfizer more effective since it has a supposed higher rate of immunity against getting it in the first place.  I'd rather not get infected than be assured that should I get infected because I'm using J&J, I won't die but still need hospitalization.

The whole video seems to be political in trying to get J&J and other less effective vaccines accepted from an overall population standpoint.  I understand that might be true.  But still, from a personal standpoint, in America, you'd want to take the ones that have the higher effectiveness especially because they were the ones tested against Covid 19 and J&J wasn't.

Complete nonsense.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 24, 2021, 02:55:59 pm
J&J's effectiveness means little in the USA since it wasn't tested against Covid 19 that predominates in the USA.

100% false. The J&J vaccine clinical trials were conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and the United States.

COVID-19 variants circulate faster than samples can be collected and sequenced and proportions vary by state. In California variants are the dominate proportion. Florida and Illinois have all of the CDC Variants of Concern from the UK, California, South Africa, and Brazil circulating. New Jersey has the UK and California variants. In Nevada over 44% of recent samples are variants. The relative proportion of variants currently circulating throughout the U.S. is uncertain, but what is known is that more emerge over time and spread throughout the country.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 24, 2021, 03:37:50 pm
Others can watch the video and draw their own conclusions. Then they can chose J&J if they agree with you and Moderna or Pfizer if they agree with me. Simple.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 24, 2021, 03:43:44 pm
Others can watch the video and draw their own conclusions.

... which will provide a vastly more accurate picture than the one you paint.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 24, 2021, 04:00:25 pm
Others can watch the video and draw their own conclusions. Then they can chose J&J if they agree with you and Moderna or Pfizer if they agree with me. Simple.

That would be worrying if I thought anyone was dumb enough to take your medical advice.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 24, 2021, 04:57:56 pm
I seem to recall clearly how many democrats for political reasons before the election put down "Trump's vaccine" telling the world how they wouldn't take it.

I seem to remember you claiming this before and failing to substantiate it when you were challenged. Got any more this time around?

Democrats face quandary on vaccine support as election nears
President Donald Trump is escalating his promise for a coronavirus vaccine before Election Day.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-elections-public-health-archive-8790eda23e94aec7cf7b4beaaa67ceaf

Please tell us what in the article that you linked confirms your false assertion that "democrats for political reasons" told "the world how they wouldn't take" "Trump's vaccine". I'll save you some time... absolutely nothing.

The pushback was against Trump claims, "for political reasons", that vaccines could start shipping before election day and the distrust expressed was in regard to what Trump was saying. The basic message to the public was to trust what the science and scientists say regarding vaccines, not Trump.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 24, 2021, 05:35:48 pm
Please tell us what in the article that you linked confirms your false assertion that "democrats for political reasons" told "the world how they wouldn't take" "Trump's vaccine". I'll save you some time... absolutely nothing.

The push back was against Trump claims that vaccines could start shipping before election day and the distrust expressed was in regard to what Trump was saying—NOT the vaccines, which hadn't completed their FDA evaluation or received authorization for use.


You deliberately clipped out the part of my response that refuted your point. Let me repeat it here.  and the fact is he did release effetive vaccines in time.  Democrats were claiming it couldn't be done in two years, maybe by Spring when the fact is 20,000,000 shots were given befor Biden became president.

But across America, Democrats, independents and even some Republicans do not trust his administration to produce a safe and effective vaccine on such an aggressive timeline. Such hesitancy threatens to exacerbate the public health risk for millions of Americans whenever a vaccine is released.

With the Nov. 3 election fast approaching, Democratic officials face a delicate political challenge.

Should they attack Trump’s vaccine claims too aggressively, Democrats risk further undermining public confidence in a possible lifesaving medicine while looking as though they are rooting against a potential cure. But if they don’t push back, it makes it easier for Trump to use the real or imagined prospect of a vaccine to boost his reelection campaign.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 24, 2021, 05:39:20 pm
You deliberately...

Enough with the smoke and mirrors. Cut to the chase. Where does the article you cite quote Democrats saying they won't take a vaccine? That's your specific accusation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 24, 2021, 07:09:11 pm
J&J plant authorization clears way for big boost in U.S. COVID-19 shots

Reuters - March 23, 2021

https://www.reuters.com/article/J&J plant authorization clears way for big boost in U.S. COVID-19 shots (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-johnson-johnson-va-idUSKBN2BF2MA)

A large plant being used to manufacture Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was cleared by U.S. regulators on Tuesday, setting the stage for the weekly U.S. supply to surge more then 20 percent.

About 27 million COVID-19 vaccine doses will be allocated to U.S. states and other localities this week, including 4 million from J&J, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters. That is the largest allocation yet, up from 22 million last week.

Earlier, the Indiana plant at which Catalent Inc is helping to manufacture the J&J vaccine received U.S. regulatory authorization, the companies said.

J&J’s shipments had slowed considerably since the first week of the month, but the new authorization will enable it to ship out millions of doses.

J&J tapped contract manufacturers Catalent and Emergent BioSolutions Inc to scale up production and meet its global supply targets. Catalent provides the final stage - called fill and finish - while Emergent makes the drug substance.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the one-shot J&J vaccine in February, but only for its production facility in the Netherlands and a small fill-and-finish plant in the United States.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 25, 2021, 07:38:51 am
Slobo - interested in your "insider's take" on this new item:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/25/i-am-begging-you-get-the-vaccine-pockets-of-fear-emerge-in-serbia
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 25, 2021, 01:09:57 pm
Kudos to those who have posted in this topic.
It is both informative and civil.

Didn't last, did it?

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 25, 2021, 01:11:46 pm
The necessity for people to use real names seems to have been considered here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131904.msg1131072#new. I don't see you swearing at TechTalk or jeremyrh (who even uses a stolen comedian's photograph).

I see jeremyrh has changed his avatar.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 25, 2021, 02:51:57 pm
Slobo - interested in your "insider's take" on this new item:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/25/i-am-begging-you-get-the-vaccine-pockets-of-fear-emerge-in-serbia

Typical for today's journalism (or any journalism). If there is a good news, ignore it and search for the bad one. Those sell the papers. Of course we have pockets of anti vaccers, every country does. But you do not become #2 in Europe and #3-4 in the world if that would be a dominant factor.

 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Michael West on March 25, 2021, 03:30:52 pm
Don't kids sit closer than 3 feet?  I don't see how that changes anything.

The CDC had to "say" something to justify their existence. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 25, 2021, 03:39:33 pm
So, it looks like 200 million shots will be administered in the first 100 days of Biden's presidency.
Under promised and over delivered, unlike many things over promised and under delivered under the previous president.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 25, 2021, 03:55:03 pm
The CDC had to "say" something to justify their existence. 
My question was rhetorical. Of course, I agree with you.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 25, 2021, 03:59:32 pm
So, it looks like 200 million shots will be administered in the first 100 days of Biden's presidency.
Under promised and over delivered, unlike many things over promised and under delivered under the previous president.
Oh Les stop it.  The only reason the vaccines are ahead of schedule is because of Trump's Operation Warp Speed.  20,000,000 shots were already injected by Jan 20 on Trump's last day in office. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 25, 2021, 04:05:28 pm
Kudos to those who have posted in this topic.
It is both informative and civil.

Gratefully,
Dale

Didn't last, did it?

S

And what would you say is your most valuable contribution to the discussion of new vaccines?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 25, 2021, 04:26:11 pm
The CDC had to "say" something to justify their existence.

CDC is the acronym for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As long as diseases exist or public health is a reasonable concern, I don't think it will be all that difficult for CDC to "justify their existence".
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 25, 2021, 05:02:40 pm
Oh Les stop it.  The only reason the vaccines are ahead of schedule is because of Trump's Operation Warp Speed.  20,000,000 shots were already injected by Jan 20 on Trump's last day in office.

Warp speed or not, 20 million shots in the two months prior to Jan 20, or 180 million in the last 2 months are remarkable achievements.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 25, 2021, 07:33:04 pm
Looks like in Miami the safe social distance is less than 6 ft.

(https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/x06qv0/picture250117529/alternates/FREE_1140/MIA_MIAMI_BEACH_DAV20.JPG)

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article250181905.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 25, 2021, 07:51:16 pm
Warp speed or not, 20 million shots in the two months prior to Jan 20, or 180 million in the last 2 months are remarkable achievements.
They were all in the pipeline from orders from Warp Speed. After all the Decmorts laughing at Trump's promise to get the vaccines out by the end of the  year, for Biden to take credit and for you to acknowledge his claim is incredible.   Meanwhile, in two months, Biden has completely reversed the lid Trump put onto illegals coming across the border. Even the Mexican President blames him for the crisis.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 25, 2021, 07:53:32 pm
Speaking of Mexicans, a couple of them invented this new mask that even Fauci should approve for eating.  However, I wouldn't be eating while watching the video.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1374777986965209100
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 25, 2021, 10:19:13 pm
Oh Les stop it.  The only reason the vaccines are ahead of schedule is because of Trump's Operation Warp Speed.  20,000,000 shots were already injected by Jan 20 on Trump's last day in office. 
Even Macron admits that America had the vision last summer to go for the stars in developing vaccines.

“We didn’t think it would happen that quickly... You can give that to the Americans, as early as the summer of 2020 they said: let’s pull out all the stops and do it,” Macron said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-macron-idUKKBN2BG33P
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 26, 2021, 12:13:06 am
Even Macron admits that America had the vision last summer to go for the stars in developing vaccines.

“We didn’t think it would happen that quickly... You can give that to the Americans, as early as the summer of 2020 they said: let’s pull out all the stops and do it,” Macron said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-macron-idUKKBN2BG33P

I'm surprised that most countries didn't do a proper planning. They had full year to plan it. But what can you expect from the government employees and career bureaucrats?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 26, 2021, 10:05:15 am
I'm surprised that most countries didn't do a proper planning. They had full year to plan it. But what can you expect from the government employees and career bureaucrats?

Macron has shown himself to be a complete incompetent, labelling AZ as "quasi-ineffective" and now throwing his toys out of the pram because AZ supplies to France have been held up, and despite the fact that 50% of French people have said they won't accept a vaccination, and so now the SA variant is on the rise in France threatening both them and their neighbours. Quel foutoir!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 26, 2021, 10:47:19 am
I'm surprised that most countries didn't do a proper planning. They had full year to plan it. But what can you expect from the government employees and career bureaucrats?
It required a leader with foresight and willingness to act.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 26, 2021, 11:06:21 am
It required a leader with foresight and willingness to act.

Too funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXxuUJJz4VE
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 26, 2021, 11:29:53 am
It required a leader with foresight and willingness to act.

Like Benjamin Netanyahu.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on March 26, 2021, 12:41:28 pm
And what would you say is your most valuable contribution to the discussion of new vaccines?

Refraining from silly political posturing, which I understand from its title ("the sole domicile of politics") is supposed to be confined to just one topic (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1212976#new).

They also serve, who only stand and wait.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 26, 2021, 02:08:16 pm
Refraining from silly posturing, political or otherwise, would be a good practice for each of us to embrace going forward. It will make for a better flow of useful information.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 26, 2021, 02:17:11 pm
If you're looking for concise and informative discussion of vaccines and variants, this recent 60 Minutes video is useful. It discusses the current vaccines and variants; the fundamnental science; and the newly emerging domestic variants in the U.S. including the most recent New York variant. It's about 13-minutes long.

How do coronavirus variants form and will the current vaccines work against them?

https://www.youtube.com/60 Minutes - How do coronavirus variants form and will the current vaccines work against them? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOK-yvXCcGo)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 26, 2021, 02:34:37 pm
Another interesting 60 Minutes segment on the development of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is worth watching. Again 13-minutes in length.

As you probably know, the vaccine was developed by Turkish immigrants in Germany who founded the R&D company BioNTech and were funded by a $445 million grant from the German government and an open checkbook from their manufacturing and distribution partner Pfizer.

How the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was developed

https://60 Minutes - How the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was developed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM3gSgvN2Fw)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 26, 2021, 03:11:29 pm
And... One more short 12-minute video worth watching on how and why the first ever mRNA vaccines were ready for development and use just when the world needed them. It seems like their development came overnight, in reality they have been in development for several decades.

In a later post, I'll give my views on who the real heroes are inside and outside of government that made rapid vaccine development and deployment in the U.S. possible. Spoiler alert... It wasn't Biden, or Trump, or even Fauci.

Meanwhile, This is a concise and very informative history of mRNA development that led to the current vaccines.

Why It Actually Took 50 Years to Make COVID mRNA Vaccines

https://www.youtube.com/Why It Actually Took 50 Years to Make COVID mRNA Vaccines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeeCyJReZw)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 26, 2021, 04:01:18 pm
... why the first ever mRNA vaccines were ready for development and use just when the world needed them. It seems like their development came overnight, in reality they have been in development for several decades.


This is probably always true.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 27, 2021, 08:51:53 am
Enough said:
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on March 27, 2021, 09:23:52 am
Enough said
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on March 27, 2021, 10:15:56 am
Enough said:

Clearly unequivocal proof that MASKS CAUSE COVID.

Also, going on boats causes summer, and falling leaves causes snow.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 27, 2021, 10:51:44 am
Clearly unequivocal proof that MASKS CAUSE COVID.

Also, going on boats causes summer, and falling leaves causes snow.

You are smarter than that, buddy  ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on March 27, 2021, 01:37:29 pm
Enough said:

The reason that Czechia had a remarkably low covid counts in the initial phase, was due to mandatory masks and border closings. In March 2020, Czechia and Slovakia were the only two EU countries which made mask wearing mandatory.

In May 2020, the mask wearing and travel restrictions in Czechia were relaxed and the infection count started to slowly rise. In September 2020, the numbers started to rise more rapidly and mask wearing was ordered again. 

The three peaks in the second chart coincide with Summer Travel, Christmas, and Carnival (mid February) events.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on March 27, 2021, 01:43:43 pm
You are smarter than that, buddy  ;)

I was until I started arguing politics with you goofballs on LuLa ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 27, 2021, 02:38:59 pm
Enough said:

Not even remotely enough.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 27, 2021, 09:25:36 pm
Not even remotely enough.

+10
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 30, 2021, 08:30:51 am
1 dose of Moderna, Pfizer vaccines effective against COVID-19. 'Get the second dose,' experts say.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/1-dose-moderna-pfizer-vaccines-effective-covid-19-get-second-dose-experts-192823135.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 30, 2021, 08:32:44 am
She doesn't provide much confidence as a CDC director.  "I'm scared,"  she says.

Covid-19: CDC head warns of 'impending doom' in US
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56572452
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 30, 2021, 08:57:09 am
She doesn't provide much confidence as a CDC director.  "I'm scared,"  she says.

Covid-19: CDC head warns of 'impending doom' in US
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56572452

How can any doom happen under St. Biden and Virgin Harris watch?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 31, 2021, 10:21:37 am
Meanwhile, the CDC director says:

CDC Director: Vaccinated People Don't Carry Virus, Don't Get Sick
People who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are not carriers of the virus and don't have symptoms from the disease, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Monday on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data," she said.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on March 31, 2021, 10:44:01 am
No link provided, but there is this article...

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3)

During an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow on Monday, Walensky said: "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."

Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 frontline workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March.

Among fully vaccinated people in the study, there were only three "breakthrough" COVID-19 infections detected. In stark contrast, unvaccinated participants in the study logged 161 COVID-19 cases.

This is a great sign, because it means that vaccinated people likely protect those around them from catching the coronavirus very, very well.

But, more data is still needed to say so definitively, which is why researchers are currently recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people.

"We hope that within the next five or so months we'll be able to answer the very important question about whether vaccinated people get infected asymptomatically, and if they do, do they transmit the infection to others," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious-disease expert, said at a White House COVID-19 task force briefing on Friday.

On MSNBC, Walensky also spoke about the challenges ahead for the country to exit the pandemic.

New, more transmissible virus variants are spreading fast, at a time when a majority of younger US adults have not been vaccinated quite yet. Walensky shared her fears about a forth surge on the horizon this spring.

"We've done so well in vaccinating the more senior members of our society that deaths might not be what we would expect with prior surges. It's also the case, though, that, you know, if we don't see those number of deaths, the deaths that we're going to see is among younger people," Walensky told Maddow. "Obviously, we don't want to see those either."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 31, 2021, 10:46:11 am
Meanwhile, the CDC director says:

CDC Director: Vaccinated People Don't Carry Virus, Don't Get Sick
People who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are not carriers of the virus and don't have symptoms from the disease, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Monday on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data," she said.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/ny-woman-contracts-coronavirus-month-after-covid-19-vaccination-report-says
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 31, 2021, 10:59:10 am
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ny-woman-contracts-coronavirus-month-after-covid-19-vaccination-report-says

What is missing is the inoculation status of all of the family members and others she was around within the last 4-5 days or even a week.
This appears to be about getting the infection after inoculation rather than spreading the virus after inoculation.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 31, 2021, 11:18:31 am
Meanwhile, the CDC director says:

CDC Director: Vaccinated People Don't Carry Virus, Don't Get Sick
People who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are not carriers of the virus and don't have symptoms from the disease, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Monday on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data," she said.
I forgot to add the link to my original post as I normally do.  This is it. It's from Newsmax, but basically, the same story others have linked to in other articles.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/cdc-vaccinated-immunity/2021/03/30/id/1015768/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 31, 2021, 11:27:42 am
What is missing is the inoculation status of all of the family members and others she was around within the last 4-5 days or even a week.
This appears to be about getting the infection after inoculation rather than spreading the virus after inoculation.
The article says she only got a mild bout of the virus.  That's what the "experts" are saying.  That even if you get the virus, it's like a common cold.  You don't need the ICU and you don't die.  So the vaccine is really a great thing for the small percentage of people who will get Covid despite getting their shots. 

Also, your comment is erroneous that she passed the infection along to others or can be passed along even if you had the vaccine is not confirmed in the article.  In fact, only she said that with out proof or knowledge that she passed it to anyone else.  Could you copy here where in the article it says says anyone else got the disease from her? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: degrub on March 31, 2021, 09:03:49 pm
What i apparently was not clear about in my comment about inoculation status was where/who  she was infected by. As written in the article, it implied that other members of the funeral party that she was in contact with were the source of her infection as they tested positive for having been infected at some time.
It would be equally likely that she was infected elsewhere since this is transmitted by air.

I was responding to earlier posts that seemed to be using this example somehow to show that if one had been vaccinated one could infect others.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on March 31, 2021, 10:31:14 pm
What i apparently was not clear about in my comment about inoculation status was where/who  she was infected by. As written in the article, it implied that other members of the funeral party that she was in contact with were the source of her infection as they tested positive for having been infected at some time.
It would be equally likely that she was infected elsewhere since this is transmitted by air.

I was responding to earlier posts that seemed to be using this example somehow to show that if one had been vaccinated one could infect others.
Just to be clear to other readers.  There's nothing in the article that indicated that someone who was vaccinated passed the virus to someone else or could do this.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2021, 06:08:42 am
Just to be clear to other readers.  There's nothing in the article that indicated that someone who was vaccinated passed the virus to someone else or could do this.

Which, of course, is a very real possibility. Being vaccinated doesn't prevent you from being infected, it just mitigates the consequences. If you are infected, you can pass it on as well.

The benefit of vaccination is that, supposedly, a vaccine-induced immune reaction would be faster and more potent, thus killing more viruses quicker. As a result, even if you infect others, it would be with a smaller viral load. Not unlike if you are asymptomatic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 01, 2021, 06:34:37 am
Which, of course, is a very real possibility. Being vaccinated doesn't prevent you from being infected, it just mitigates the consequences. If you are infected, you can pass it on as well.

The benefit of vaccination is that, supposedly, a vaccine-induced immune reaction would be faster and more potent, thus killing more viruses quicker. As a result, even if you infect others, it would be with a smaller viral load. Not unlike if you are asymptomatic.

Guardian reports that one third of C19 patients who were treated in the hospital are re-admitted within 4 months back to the hospital. Very likely, they have infected others while there were re-infected. 

Quote
Nearly a third of people who have been in hospital suffering from Covid-19 are readmitted for further treatment within four months of being discharged, and one in eight of patients dies in the same period, doctors have found. The striking long-term impact of the disease has prompted doctors to call for ongoing tests and monitoring of former coronavirus patients to detect early signs of organ damage and other complications caused by the virus.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/almost-third-of-uk-covid-hospital-patients-readmitted-within-four-months
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2021, 07:40:56 am
Guardian reports that one third of C19 patients who were treated in the hospital are re-admitted within 4 months back to the hospital. Very likely, they have infected others while there were re-infected. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/almost-third-of-uk-covid-hospital-patients-readmitted-within-four-months

That's just more commie panic porn. There is no chance in hell that ⅓ are reinfected.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2021, 07:45:35 am
Quote
... one in eight of patients dies...

Note that when someone dies within days of weeks after being vaccinated, it is dismissed as "coincidental" (i.e., they would have died anyway, from old age or underlying illness). But when someone dies within four months after recovering from Covid... it is a long-term Covid damage(!)  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 10:09:56 am
That's just more commie panic porn. There is no chance in hell that ⅓ are reinfected.

Note that when someone dies within days of weeks after being vaccinated, it is dismissed as "coincidental" (i.e., they would have died anyway, from old age or underlying illness). But when someone dies within four months after recovering from Covid... it is a long-term Covid damage(!)  ;D ;D ;D

Is your primary expertise in panic, porn, or pathology? If it isn't pathology, I would give considerably more weight to the opinions of doctors and research scientists.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 10:23:59 am
Which, of course, is a very real possibility. Being vaccinated doesn't prevent you from being infected, it just mitigates the consequences. If you are infected, you can pass it on as well.

The benefit of vaccination is that, supposedly, a vaccine-induced immune reaction would be faster and more potent, thus killing more viruses quicker. As a result, even if you infect others, it would be with a smaller viral load. Not unlike if you are asymptomatic.
There was nothing in the article stating retransmission happened although the poster implied the article stated that.  I was correcting his statement. 

Additionally, from a separate March 30 article below, the CDC now says that re-transmission from a vaccinated person doesn't happen.  Since she said it on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show, it must be true.   ::)

CDC Director: Vaccinated People Don't Carry Virus, Don't Get Sick
People who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are not carriers of the virus and don't have symptoms from the disease, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Monday on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data," she said.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/cdc-vaccinated-immunity/2021/03/30/id/1015768/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 10:35:03 am
There was nothing in the article stating retransmission happened although the poster implied the article stated that.  I was correcting his statement. 

The poster said: "This appears to be about getting the infection after inoculation rather than spreading the virus after inoculation." You corrected nothing. You simply didn't understand the statement.

Look up what "rather than" means.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/rather-than (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/rather-than)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 10:35:29 am
Is your primary expertise in panic, porn, or pathology? If it isn't pathology, I would give considerably more weight to the opinions of doctors and research scientists.
Which experts are we to believe?  One of the major problems is the average person on the street reads these headlines and is just more confused every day.  Evidence supposedly shifts and we go back and forth opening businesses then closing them again only to open them again.  Who is right? Experts are mistrusted.   On top of "no-nothing" experts, you got politicians playing politics.   People get fed up. 

That why not only in America but in Europe too, people are protesting shutdowns because they see their livelihoods disappearing.  In six months when the disease will be forgotten because it passed, millions of people will be worried about how they will feed their family because they are out of work, losing their homes and savings if they have anything left.  The experts and politicians would have moved on to some other issue.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 10:46:16 am
The poster said: "This appears to be about getting the infection after inoculation rather than spreading the virus after inoculation." You corrected nothing. You simply didn't understand the statement.

Look up what "rather than" means.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/rather-than (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/rather-than)
Here is my post and his. There were a number of posts.  You can't take one out of context.

Quote from: degrub on March 31, 2021, 09:03:49 pm
What i apparently was not clear about in my comment about inoculation status was where/who  she was infected by. As written in the article, it implied that other members of the funeral party that she was in contact with were the source of her infection as they tested positive for having been infected at some time.
It would be equally likely that she was infected elsewhere since this is transmitted by air.

My subsequent response: I was responding to earlier posts that seemed to be using this example somehow to show that if one had been vaccinated one could infect others.
Just to be clear to other readers.  There's nothing in the article that indicated that someone who was vaccinated passed the virus to someone else or could do this.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 11:14:12 am
You skipped the original post from degrub and your response that indicated you didn't understand his statement. He then had to post a reply in an effort for you to understand what he originally posted.

Quote
What is missing is the inoculation status of all of the family members and others she was around within the last 4-5 days or even a week.
This appears to be about getting the infection after inoculation rather than spreading the virus after inoculation.

The article says she only got a mild bout of the virus.  That's what the "experts" are saying.  That even if you get the virus, it's like a common cold.  You don't need the ICU and you don't die.  So the vaccine is really a great thing for the small percentage of people who will get Covid despite getting their shots. 

Also, your comment is erroneous that she passed the infection along to others or can be passed along even if you had the vaccine is not confirmed in the article.  In fact, only she said that with out proof or knowledge that she passed it to anyone else.  Could you copy here where in the article it says says anyone else got the disease from her?

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137509.msg1213313#msg1213313 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137509.msg1213313#msg1213313)

You called "erroneous" a statement ("that she passed the infection along to others") which no one made.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 11:20:42 am
You skipped the original post from degrub and your response that indicated you didn't understand his statement. He then had to post a reply in an effort for you to understand what he originally posted.

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137509.msg1213313#msg1213313 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137509.msg1213313#msg1213313)


You called "erroneous" a statement ("that she passed the infection along to others") which no one made.
You're beating this thing to death to prove a minor and silly point.  Who cares if your interpretation differs from mine? We've passed that issue of what someone said about some insignificant article that proved nothing.  The most important thing now is that the CDC director said you can't spread the disease if you got the shots. The earlier discussion points are outdated.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 11:55:24 am
Which experts are we to believe?

The ones with the most knowledge and experience in the relevant field.

Experts are mistrusted.

Mostly by those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda and desire to spread confusion and distrust of science.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 01, 2021, 01:26:18 pm
You're beating this thing to death to prove a minor and silly point.  Who cares if your interpretation differs from mine? We've passed that issue of what someone said about some insignificant article that proved nothing.  The most important thing now is that the CDC director said you can't spread the disease if you got the shots. The earlier discussion points are outdated.

Who cares what you say. You don't seem to have a moral issue with telling lies so we can't assume that anything you say is true, that anything you quote as fact is actually correct. You are just a waste of time.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 01:31:54 pm
The ones with the most knowledge and experience in the relevant field.

Mostly by those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda and desire to spread confusion and distrust of science.
If this was true,  no one would bother getting a second opinion of medical advice from a doctor.  We'd accept the advice from the first expert.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 02:32:27 pm
If this was true,  no one would bother getting a second opinion of medical advice from a doctor.  We'd accept the advice from the first expert.

You might note that in my reply, I said "The ones with the most knowledge and experience in the relevant field." — ones, plural, not singular.

That's how science, including doctors and medical science, works. Each has their individual work, but they also work together, often in teams, in order to broaden their understanding and expand the range of knowledge being applied. As they all have human limitations, no one person can absorb all of the available knowledge and data in science, medicine, or particular field and they routinely seek out knowledge, opinions, and advice from others within their field of expertise and from other fields as well. They routinely engage in consultations with each other. The more serious or complex a disease or condition, the more likely those additional consultations become.

This is why often, a doctor making a diagnosis or recommending a treatment plan will suggest a second opinion or consult with other colleagues themself. It's done to insure that before a consensus is reached on diagnosis or treatment that someone else with similar expertise, but their own collection of knowledge and experience, has come to the same conclusions and recommendations. If there  are differences of opinion or questions raised, it indicates a need for further investigation. It's good professional practice, good advice, good medicine, and good science. It's also why science journals engage in peer review prior to publishing articles. Scientists and doctors check each others work for omissions or errors in data, including human error, looking for explanations and recommendations based on the best available evidence. That's how science, including medical science, routinely works.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 02:47:47 pm
You might note that in my reply, I said "The ones with the most knowledge and experience in the relevant field." — ones, plural, not singular.

That's how science, including doctors and medical science, works. Each has their individual work, but they also work together, often in teams, in order to broaden their understanding and expand the range of knowledge being applied. As they all have human limitations, no one person can absorb all of the available knowledge and data in science, medicine, or particular field and they routinely seek out knowledge, opinions, and advice from others within their field of expertise and from other fields as well. They routinely engage in consultations with each other. The more serious or complex a disease or condition, the more likely those additional consultations become.

This is why often, a doctor making a diagnosis or recommending a treatment plan will suggest a second opinion or consult with other colleagues themself. It's done to insure that before a consensus is reached on diagnosis or treatment that someone else with similar expertise, but their own collection of knowledge and experience, has come to the same conclusions and recommendations. If there  are differences of opinion or questions raised, it indicates a need for further investigation. It's good professional practice, good advice, good medicine, and good science. It's also why science journals engage in peer review prior to publishing articles. Scientists and doctors check each others work for omissions or errors in data, including human error, looking for explanations and recommendations based on the best available evidence. That's how science, including medical science, routinely works.
The problem is different experts are giving different opinions on what to do.  And then they change their minds every few weeks.  How do average people suppose to decipher all this? It's all confusing to them.

Interestingly, the people who follow a lot of these things are actually more confused than the average person. The more they read, the more they learn that no one has an exact handle on anything.  A lot of suggestions are just that. Odds making.  So-called facts are diverse and become overwhelming.  It's like looking for a new camera.  The more you study the specs, the more questions they raise and the more difficult it becomes to make a decision.  You begin to realize that no camera will satisfy all your needs.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 03:01:36 pm
The confused are mostly those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda and desire to spread confusion and distrust of science.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 03:14:44 pm
The confused are mostly those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda and desire to spread confusion and distrust of science.
People aren't stupid.  They're concerned about their health and the health of their families.  However, when conflicting rules occur or keep changing, you can't expect ordinary people to behave consistently.  That requires clear messaging. It's up to political officials and experts to be concise and clear.  However, when you get Politicians like Gov Newsom of California to pronounce edicts against mingling yet we discover he's comingling at expensive restaurants with his rich supporters, you can understand why people think the whole thing is BS.  Or you get the CDC lying about masks early on.  They lose credibility.  I'm excited about science as much as you are.  But, science isn't the problem.  It's the game playing and lies and distortion and politics that create opposition.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 03:44:22 pm
I'm excited about science as much as you are.

You're the judge of your own excitement. It's of no concern to me.

But, science isn't the problem.

No, science isn't the problem. It's lacking a fundamental understanding of what science is; what it is not; and its basic principles. That creates an opportunity for those with an agenda to exploit those lacking that basic knowledge to sow confusion and doubt. It's your basic FUD tactic of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt being used by people that don't care about science to manipulate those that don't understand it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 04:15:36 pm
You're the judge of your own excitement. It's of no concern to me.

No, science isn't the problem. It's lacking a fundamental understanding of what science is; what it is not; and its basic principles. That creates an opportunity for those with an agenda to exploit those lacking that basic knowledge to sow confusion and doubt. It's your basic FUD tactic of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt being used by people that don't care about science to manipulate those that don't understand it.
Science isn't the truth.  And people make mistakes.  And everyone has agendas, even scientists.  You have to use discernment.  Do not put your trust in princes.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: pschefz on April 01, 2021, 04:50:48 pm

In six months when the disease will be forgotten because it passed, millions of people will be worried about how they will feed their family because they are out of work, losing their homes and savings if they have anything left.  The experts and politicians would have moved on to some other issue.

hard to take anyone seriously who still, after more then a year of this, somehow think this will "pass". it won't....I have no clue if vaccines are the answer, what the long term effects of the vaccines or covid are, I do know that masks and washing hands work (to a degree) and that this is real and still very much around and kicking and morphing.....
I am probably more worried about my livelihood then you are, which is also why I have taken this seriously from day one on and taken and adjusted to all measures put in place....my kids missed a year of school and after school sports....and everything we (as a family) have sacrificed has been less effective because of people like you....
what on earth is wrong with you to think that NOW, a year later this will just magically pass?!
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 04:59:56 pm
hard to take anyone seriously who still, after more then a year of this, somehow think this will "pass". it won't....I have no clue if vaccines are the answer, what the long term effects of the vaccines or covid are, I do know that masks and washing hands work (to a degree) and that this is real and still very much around and kicking and morphing.....
I am probably more worried about my livelihood then you are, which is also why I have taken this seriously from day one on and taken and adjusted to all measures put in place....my kids missed a year of school and after school sports....and everything we (as a family) have sacrificed has been less effective because of people like you....
what on earth is wrong with you to think that NOW, a year later this will just magically pass?!
I'm sorry you're having difficulty.  But you are the point I'm trying to make. After the virus is gone, and it's predicted it will be gone soon, the country and world will be left with economic problems to deal with.  People who have lost their businesses, jobs, and livelihoods.  While many people seemed to not be concerned with these things and moved to fight the disease to a higher level than jobs, once the disease is gone, we're left with the economic issues.  I hope things work out for you and your family.  I'm sure it must be very tough on you all.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 05:33:48 pm
You're beating this thing to death to prove a minor and silly point.  Who cares if your interpretation differs from mine? We've passed that issue of what someone said about some insignificant article that proved nothing... The earlier discussion points are outdated.

Just to lay a wreath on the grave of what you understandably now want to bury and forget, I only made a grand total of two posts on this subject prior to your post above. The first post I made was only after you had made multiple false assertions in multiple posts. I pointed out that you clearly misunderstood what a poster (degrub) had said. I also pointed out that your repeated claims of "correcting" a statement were unfounded. It was just your own misreading and resulting assertion of what you stated as his "erroneous" "claim" which needed "correcting".

The second post was just a response to your reply in which you attempted to obfuscate by ignoring and deliberately skipping over the original post that contained what I had quoted and your reply. I pointed out that no one had made the statement (except yourself) which you repeatedly claimed to be correcting. If two posts is "beating this thing to death", you must have run over it with a bulldozer.

Those two posts and this one were made because, you have all too often made false assumptions and assertions regarding what others have said in a post. It has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads and yet you persist. In my opinion, it's a result of being in a rush to reply and as a result, hastily made assumptions come out as a false assertion regarding what someone has written or means in your reply. I'm not saying nor implying that it is intentional. I'm suggesting, again in my opinion, that some of your replies would be less contentious and more accurate if you took a bit more time to consider what someone is actually saying before hitting reply.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 01, 2021, 05:33:56 pm
I have no clue if vaccines are the answer . . .

I think it's fairly clear that vaccines are the answer.  The things that aren't clear yet are (1) how effective the current vaccines will turn out to be against the mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are currently circulating in various places, (2) whether those of us who have been "fully" vaccinated will need additional doses or different vaccines to deal with the mutating virus, (3) how transmissible the virus is by individuals who have been vaccinated, (4) how durable the protection offered by the various vaccines will prove to be, and (5) whether enough of the world population can be vaccinated in order to reasonably consider the virus under control.

The first four questions can be answered by gathering more evidence.  It will take time and considerable monitoring of the real-world performance of the vaccines, but definitive answers should be possible.  The fifth issue is the one that worries me.  I don't see any indication yet of the ramping up of an international effort that would be sufficient to deploy an effective vaccination effort everywhere and, as we all learned all too quickly at the beginning of 2020, a virus as aggressive as this one is no respecter of national borders or oceans.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 05:50:27 pm
An excellent and informative post. I would only add  to your comments — "(5) whether enough of the world population can be vaccinated in order to reasonably consider the virus under control." "The fifth issue is the one that worries me.  I don't see any indication yet of the ramping up of an international effort that would be sufficient to deploy an effective vaccination effort everywhere and, as we all learned all too quickly at the beginning of 2020, a virus as aggressive as this one is no respecter of national borders or oceans." — that this should be of concern to everyone. Until the world has sufficient immunity everywhere, the virus will continue to mutate and allow the possibility for one or more variants to emerge with the potential to be worse than the original or current known variants.

It's the reason why a pandemic like this has to be taken seriously everywhere and brought under control as quickly as possible to prevent further spread and mutation. This particular virus has shown a worrisome ability to spread quickly and to mutate into more transmissible and potentially deadlier variants.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 06:05:35 pm
Science isn't the truth.

Science is the never ending search for the best available understanding and explanation of what is observed in the natural world.

Do not put your trust in princes.

You can however trust that science will continually evolve in better understanding the natural world as that's what science and nature do—evolve.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on April 01, 2021, 06:14:23 pm
Science isn't the truth.  And people make mistakes.  And everyone has agendas, even scientists.  You have to use discernment.  Do not put your trust in princes.

Please spare us this drivel.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 07:07:53 pm
Just to lay a wreath on the grave of what you understandably now want to bury and forget, I only made a grand total of two posts on this subject prior to your post above. The first post I made was only after you had made multiple false assertions in multiple posts. I pointed out that you clearly misunderstood what a poster (degrub) had said. I also pointed out that your repeated claims of "correcting" a statement were unfounded. It was just your own misreading and resulting assertion of what you stated as his "erroneous" "claim" which needed "correcting".

The second post was just a response to your reply in which you attempted to obfuscate by ignoring and deliberately skipping over the original post that contained what I had quoted and your reply. I pointed out that no one had made the statement (except yourself) which you repeatedly claimed to be correcting. If two posts is "beating this thing to death", you must have run over it with a bulldozer.

Those two posts and this one were made because, you have all too often made false assumptions and assertions regarding what others have said in a post. It has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads and yet you persist. In my opinion, it's a result of being in a rush to reply and as a result, hastily made assumptions come out as a false assertion regarding what someone has written or means in your reply. I'm not saying nor implying that it is intentional. I'm suggesting, again in my opinion, that some of your replies would be less contentious and more accurate if you took a bit more time to consider what someone is actually saying before hitting reply.
Well, now you posted three posts.  I hope you feel better.  :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2021, 07:40:40 pm
I think it's fairly clear that vaccines are the answer....

They most certainly are not. Unless we want to vaccinate the whole world every six months. And invent newer and newer vaccines for newer and newer virus strains. The ONLY answer is improving one’s immune system. And deal with it like we deal with a seasonal flu. That is, some will take a vaccine, some won’t, and we won’t crash the economy every year and screw lives of 99.9x percent of the population for the sake of fat bitches who don’t want to take care of their own health.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2021, 07:42:41 pm
....and everything we (as a family) have sacrificed has been less effective because of people like you....

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 08:54:01 pm
I think it's fairly clear that vaccines are the answer....

They most certainly are not. Unless we want to vaccinate the whole world every six months. And invent newer and newer vaccines for newer and newer virus strains. The ONLY answer is improving one’s immune system. And deal with it like we deal with a seasonal flu. That is, some will take a vaccine, some won’t, and we won’t crash the economy every year and screw lives of 99.9x percent of the population for the sake of fat bitches who don’t want to take care of their own health.

This is why no one should ever ever take medical advice or public health recommendations from some online comment. As for, "The ONLY answer is improving one’s immune system."; well, that's what vaccines do in a very specific and effective way.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 01, 2021, 09:01:22 pm
The ONLY answer is improving one’s immune system.

Yes, but that's a good way of describing what vaccines do.  They prime the recipient's immune system to react effectively to the invading pathogen.

Quote
And deal with it like we deal with a seasonal flu. That is, some will take a vaccine, some won’t . . .

That indeed is what may happen, which is why I'm not optimistic about getting this coronavirus under control without a concerted multinational effort unless it takes a currently unexpected turn and mutates in new, more benign directions.  This virus is very different from any influenza.  It is significantly more infectious and more lethal, especially to old people who are otherwise healthy.  If we don't get it under control, I suspect we will be living with its disruptions indefinitely.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 01, 2021, 09:18:11 pm
Thanks. That's a much better reasoned and complete response than my own, with an accurate assessment of the evolving situation as it appears today. I may be a little more optimistic about the possibility of a strong multinational effort in pursuit of global vaccination; but, only time will tell.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2021, 02:35:49 am
... This virus is very different from any influenza.  It is significantly more infectious and more lethal...

Actually, as I am sure you already know, the flu killed more people than Covid ever will. Just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid currently stands at 1/100 of that (0.03%). That calc doesn’t even take into account annual death toll from the flu ever since (or before).
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on April 02, 2021, 07:58:39 am
Actually, as I am sure you already know, the flu killed more people than Covid ever will. Just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid currently stands at 1/100 of that (0.03%). That calc doesn’t even take into account annual death toll from the flu ever since (or before).

Sounds like you're still clinging to the "this is just another flu, nothing to see here" line.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 02, 2021, 09:58:11 am
Actually, as I am sure you already know, the flu killed more people than Covid ever will. Just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid currently stands at 1/100 of that (0.03%). That calc doesn’t even take into account annual death toll from the flu ever since (or before).

Comparison of Spanish Flu in 1918-20 and Covid-19 in 2020 is a compelling point of view. There were no vaccines for the Spanish Flu, but at that time people were not such wussies as today and their immune system must have been stronger. They had fewer comorbidities due to obesity, diabetes, and poor nutrition, and generally they didn't suffer from the lack of vitamin D, so the large percentage of Spanish Flu deaths can be explained only by the lack of ventilators and also by rather poor distribution of necessary information due to missing Internet.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 02, 2021, 10:03:52 am
Actually, as I am sure you already know, the flu killed more people than Covid ever will. Just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population . . .

Actually, as I'm sure you already know, the H1N1 virus that caused the 1918 pandemic was very different from the influenza viruses (including H1N1 variants) which circulate today.  That older H1N1 no longer exists in the wild, but it has been reconstructed in the laboratory in an attempt to discover why so many people died.  Secondary infections, such as pneumonia, may have been a significant factor.  (Many 'flu deaths today are attributable to pneumonia. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827586/))  Much about the 1918 pandemic is still unknown, but the environment in which that virus spread probably accounted for much of its mortality:

Quote
Besides the properties of the virus itself, many additional factors contributed to the virulence of the 1918 pandemic.  In 1918, the world was still engaged in World War I.  Movement and mobilization of troops placed large numbers of people in close contact and living spaces were overcrowded.  Health services were limited, and up to 30% of U.S. physicians were deployed to military service.

In addition, medical technology and countermeasures at the time were limited or non-existent.  No diagnostic tests existed at the time that could test for influenza infection.  In fact, doctors didn’t know influenza viruses existed.  Many health experts at the time thought the 1918 pandemic was caused by a bacterium called “Pfeiffer’s bacillus,” which is now known as Haemophilus influenzae.

Influenza vaccines did not exist at the time, and even antibiotics had not been developed yet.  For example, penicillin was not discovered until 1928.  Likewise, no flu antiviral drugs were available.  Critical care measures, such as intensive care support and mechanical ventilation also were not available in 1918.  Without these medical countermeasures and treatment capabilities, doctors were left with few treatment options other than supportive care.

In terms of national, state and local pandemic planning, no coordinated pandemic plans existed in 1918.  Some cities managed to implement community mitigation measures, such as closing schools, banning public gatherings, and issuing isolation or quarantine orders, but the federal government had no centralized role in helping to plan or initiate these interventions during the 1918 pandemic.

     —The Deadliest Flu: The Complete Story of the Discovery and Reconstruction of the 1918 Pandemic Virus (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-1918-virus.html), publication of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Modern influenza viruses are still a serious health risk, especially for the unvaccinated.  But the SARS-CoV-2 virus is so far unique in that it spreads rapidly and silently: the majority of those infected are asymptomatic, and therefore transmit the pathogen unknowingly—including to individuals who are much more vulnerable for a variety of reasons and who do develop symptoms which can escalate radically, often resulting in death.  Attempts to equate it with "the 'flu" don't make any sense.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 02, 2021, 10:09:02 am
Comparison of Spanish Flu in 1918-20 and Covid-19 in 2020 is a compelling point of view. There were no vaccines for the Spanish Flu, but at that time people were not such wussies as today and their immune system must have been stronger. They had fewer comorbidities due to obesity, diabetes, and poor nutrition, and generally they didn't suffer from the lack of vitamin D, so the large percentage of Spanish Flu deaths can be explained only by the lack of ventilators and also by rather poor distribution of necessary information due to missing Internet.
Their rules were sterner in many cases.  One guy who refused to wear a mask was shot by a cop.  Churches and saloons were exempt.  "Open face" sneezers were arrested.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#/media/File:1918_Headlines_from_Chicago_newspapers_-_Spanish_flu_-_1918_influenza_pandemic.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#/media/File:1918_Headlines_from_Chicago_newspapers_-_Spanish_flu_-_1918_influenza_pandemic.jpg
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2021, 10:35:02 am
... majority of those infected are asymptomatic, and therefore transmit the pathogen unknowingly...

Asymptomatic transmission accounts from zero to negligible. Which makes perfect sense. If you have no symptoms, you are not coughing or sneezing. The asymptomatic cases are also caused by a low viral load, therefore even their breathing contains even smaller viral load, acting almost like a vaccine for the recipients.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2021, 10:35:41 am
Sounds like you're still clinging to the "this is just another flu, nothing to see here" line.

You got it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 02, 2021, 12:58:33 pm
Fully vaccinated people can travel at low risk to themselves, new CDC guidance says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/cdc-travel-guidance-fully-vaccinated-wellness/index.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 02, 2021, 01:21:28 pm
Fully vaccinated people can travel at low risk to themselves, new CDC guidance says
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/cdc-travel-guidance-fully-vaccinated-wellness/index.html

Amazing how what we have learned over the last 100+ years of vaccine science, even after all of this, is ...

... still true. 

Honestly, and I do realize that if you are over 65 and still not vaccinated you should have concerns, people in general are over this.  My wife teaches workout classes part time (mainly for fun and getting us significantly reduced gym memberships) and two weeks ago two ladies (60+) did the class without any masks.  Their response was it is time for this silliness to end.  No in the class pushed back. 

I did a shoot yesterday at a large print and fabrication shop that had a full crew working, around 35 employees.  Not a single mask was to be seen.  Being in architecture and working with contractors half the time, whom have been pretty "caviler" over these restriction since the beginning, it was not surprising to see the shop workers not wearing anything.  But even the office staff was mask free. 

I asked the guy I was working with if they require visitors to wear masks.  He just looked at me as if to say, of course not.  Grant it, this shop is in a 1800s commercial building with little to no windows on the first floor, none clean enough to see through at least, was not open to the public, and not in a neighborhood you would just happen to find yourself in for no good reason, and even with a good reason you may not either, so away from prying eyes. 

It was a pretty good shoot. 

Although the faint smell of tremendous quantities of raw paper and ink that gradually grows in intensity within your nasal cavity while being in such facilities to point of making you feel like you are on the verge of dry heaving was, by the end of the day, making me reconsider going mask free. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on April 02, 2021, 02:59:12 pm
Who cares what you say. You don't seem to have a moral issue with telling lies so we can't assume that anything you say is true, that anything you quote as fact is actually correct. You are just a waste of time.

How feeble: a purer example of argumentum ad hominem would be hard to find.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on April 02, 2021, 03:23:51 pm
My wife teaches workout classes part time (mainly for fun and getting us significantly reduced gym memberships) and two weeks ago two ladies (60+) did the class without any masks.  Their response was it is time for this silliness to end.  No in the class pushed back. 

Déjà vu.

Jimmy Kimmel on Sarah Palin:

“I love these people who only believe in science when it happens to them,” Kimmel deadpanned. “It’s like saying ‘now that I’ve been mauled by a bear personally, I realize that their claws and teeth are very sharp.”

Quote
Jimmy Kimmel touched on a surprising change of heart by former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin in the Covid culture wars on Thursday evening. After revealing that she and several members of her family had been stricken with the coronavirus, Palin encouraged others to wear masks.

“Which is rich,” said Kimmel, “because back in May she flew all the way to Texas to visit a beauty salon to support the owner of that salon who went to jail because she refused to shut her business down.” The Texas woman “said that it was her constitutional right to endanger her community,” Kimmel continued, “but now that Sarah has herself been bitten by the bug, she changed her tune."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 02, 2021, 04:09:38 pm
Déjà vu.

Jimmy Kimmel on Sarah Palin:

“I love these people who only believe in science when it happens to them,” Kimmel deadpanned. “It’s like saying ‘now that I’ve been mauled by a bear personally, I realize that their claws and teeth are very sharp.”

LOL, the same old same old sky is falling nonsense.  If it was up to people like you, we would be wearing masks from now until the end of time. 

I am fully aware of C-19 and it's risks for people in my age group with my health, which is why I am not too concerned about it.  For someone like me, all the science shows I am just as likely to die from it as the flu, perhaps a smidge more, if I were to catch it.  The IFR, last I checked for my age group, is 0.04%.  Now, do I want to catch it.  No, but I dont want to be in a car accident either.  However, my desire to avoid both those things is not enough to justify changing my actions since the chances of each are extremely small.   

Furthermore, spare me the argument that I, a singular person, am responsible for the health of the world.  I give that no credence anymore.

Now, when it comes to bear attacks, regardless of age, if you are mauled by one, the science shows you will probably die.  Even if you play dead, you still have a 25% chance of dying when encountering a bear.  (I just looked that up and it is surprisingly higher then what I thought after being told playing dead can be effective strategy.  I guess when there are only bad options, you go for the least bad.)  That is not a fatality rate to take lightly, and even if you survive you will most likely be marred for the rest of your life.  Now, does this keep from hiking in the forest?  No, but I make sure to make plenty of noise so I dont surprise a bear and get my face ripped off for the pleasure. 


Just as an aside, if you could guarantee me that by wearing a mask I would live 5 years longer then by not wearing one, I would still choose to not wear one.  As to why, life is not just about ensuring you will wake up the next day.  A life without joy or laughter or company is not a life worth living.  A life inside left purely to your own devices and slowing going mad in the process is certainly not one I choose to live either. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 04:27:45 pm
Furthermore, spare me the argument that I, a singular person, am responsible for the health of the world.  I give that no credence anymore.

None of us is "responsible for the health of the world". It's a non-argument.

If you live in a society of people, you do have an obligation not to needlessly put the health or well-being of those around you at risk. It may not be an obligation you want or accept, but it exists nonetheless. Neither ignorance nor ideology is a reason to do so during a pandemic. There is no sensible reason not to wear a mask and take other common sense public health measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 04:31:58 pm
How feeble: a purer example of argumentum ad hominem would be hard to find.

S

So far you've made no worthwhile contribution of any kind in any of your posts. You're a fly at a picnic and that seems to be the role you enjoy. Pathetic.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 02, 2021, 05:01:05 pm
None of us is "responsible for the health of the world". It's a non-argument.

If you live in a society of people, you do have an obligation not to needlessly put the health or well-being of those around you at risk. It may not be an obligation you want or accept, but it exists nonetheless. Neither ignorance nor ideology is a reason to do so during a pandemic. There is no sensible reason not to wear a mask and take other common sense public health measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

As of today, about 75% of seniors have been vaccinated nationwide, and that number is only going up.  They are, by far, the most at risk group representing 80.75% of all C-19 deaths in the USA. 

Regardless if the vaccines work, and they appear to be working, or if vaccinated individuals can still spread C-19, we have now done all that we can, and it is time to get back to normal.  Even if they did not work, it would still be time to accept the reality and move on.  If you cant let go of the fear, that is understandable. 

But, even so, I think by the end of this month, it will be common place in nearly the entire USA to see more people without masks then with. 

PS, I did enjoy how you shot down my critique of the health of the world arguments out there and then proceeded to use one, justifying my need for critiquing it in the first place. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 05:32:39 pm
If you cant let go of the fear, that is understandable. 

Fear can be reasonable or unreasonable and can also fall somewhere in between. The lack of fear follows the same pattern.

My personal goal is to aim for reasonable. At all times, I aim to steer away from reckless fearlessness and paranoid fear.

During a pandemic without parallel in a century of an easily transmitted virus, I find it a sensible course of action to listen to the guidance of public health officials for the simple reason that they have a much deeper knowledge of the subject than I do. It's generally worked out well for me to listen to those that have a deeper understanding of a particular subject than I possess in navigating life. This is no exception.

Until this pandemic is under control, there isn't going to be any normal to get back to. People have seen overflowing hospitals and bodies stacked in refrigerated trucks in various places during waves of its spread. Fear of that reoccurring is not unreasonable. The greater the number of people who are vaccinated and following public health recommendations, like masks and social distancing, the sooner we will see normal again.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 05:56:01 pm
PS, I did enjoy how you shot down my critique of the health of the world arguments out there and then proceeded to use one, justifying my need for critiquing it in the first place.

I did dismiss anyone being responsible for "the health of the world" as a non-argument. That's why I then referred to an obligation to "those around you". The "world" and "those around you" are two different things; unless, of course, you believe that the world revolves around you.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 02, 2021, 06:13:09 pm
I did dismiss anyone being responsible for "the health of the world" as a non-argument. That's why I then referred to an obligation to "those around you". The "world" and "those around you" are two different things; unless, of course, you believe that the world revolves around you.
As an old guy in the worse demographic for this disease, I can still understand why others wish to get on with their lives.  Taking care of people around you also includes your family, who are the people closest to you and for which you are most responsible.  Blood is thicker than water. 

We have to consider that providers are responsible for caring for their families and feeding them.  Whenever we act, there's a chance of hurting ourselves or others.  Sometimes it's hard to balance these things as is the case with Covid.  I think a little understanding on all sides that there are no simple answers to these questions would go a long way in maintaining some comity in our society.  No one is evil or a monster.  We're all trying to stay healthy and care for those we love as well as be responsible to our neighbors. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 02, 2021, 06:28:32 pm
I did dismiss anyone being responsible for "the health of the world" as a non-argument. That's why I then referred to an obligation to "those around you". The "world" and "those around you" are two different things; unless, of course, you believe that the world revolves around you.

Once again, you are showing us how bright of a future you would have in left wing fact checking.  I can see your retort. 

"Although anyone with half a brain knows Joe is referring to his personal community with the use of "world," this is rated as false since, you know, he is in fact not responsible for the health of the world even though we know he did not mean that."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 02, 2021, 06:29:09 pm

Just as an aside, if you could guarantee me that by wearing a mask I would live 5 years longer then by not wearing one, I would still choose to not wear one.  As to why, life is not just about ensuring you will wake up the next day.  A life without joy or laughter or company is not a life worth living.  A life inside left purely to your own devices and slowing going mad in the process is certainly not one I choose to live either.

The actual good time would depend on when that 5 year period starts. For some it could be drastically shortened.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 02, 2021, 06:59:53 pm
The actual good time would depend on when that 5 year period starts. For some it could be drastically shortened.
The problem with spending all that time exercising in mid-life to stay healthy is that the extra years you may obtain are added at the end when you're senile and drooling.   :o
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 07:23:37 pm
Once again, you are showing us how bright of a future you would have in left wing fact checking.  I can see your retort. 

"Although anyone with half a brain knows Joe is referring to his personal community with the use of "world," this is rated as false since, you know, he is in fact not responsible for the health of the world even though we know he did not mean that."

No, you can't see my retort although you believe that you can. My retort would be...

I'm familiar with the use of "the world" as an idiom. It's an expressive substitute for "everyone" as in: Hey, tell the world, why don't you!. It's an expressive substitute for "everything" as in: You mean the world to me. It's an expressive substitute for "anything" as in: I wouldn't miss this for the world. It is of course used as a substitute for "everywhere". It can also be used to refer to the "entirety" of something or something contained within an entire entity as in: The world of science.

In other words, "the world" is used to express the expansiveness or all-inclusiveness of something. As an idiom it is the opposite of something small, exclusive, personal, or local. Though I wouldn't assume that "anyone with half a brain" would necessarily know that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 02, 2021, 10:04:47 pm
Cuba has their own vaccine development program. Two are being tested in Phase III trials. A couple of news stories and a video below...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/americas/cuba-vaccines-covid-phase-three (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/americas/cuba-vaccines-covid-phase-three-intl-latam/index.html)

Despite a worsening economy and increased US sanctions, the communist-run island has pulled off a feat no other Latin American country can claim to date: the development of five Covid-19 vaccine candidates, two of which that are in their final phase three trials.

As the number of coronavirus cases on the island continue to rise, its vaccine candidates and the island's aspirations to be a biomedical powerhouse will be put to the test. On Wednesday, Cuba hit a grim new record in Covid-19 infections -- 1,051 new cases diagnosed in 24 hours.

Cuban officials in March announced they were expanding the vaccine trials already underway to include hundreds of thousands more people. First up in the expanded trials are 150,000 front line workers, including Ida Martínez Hernández, a dentist who early on in the pandemic was sent by the government to help fight the spread of the virus.

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/cuba-vaccine-covid-19/ (https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/cuba-vaccine-covid-19/)

https://www.youtube.com/Vaccine Watch: Cuba develops its own COVID-19 vaccines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K14lvAeQUCE)

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 08:29:10 am
Cuba has their own vaccine development program. Two are being tested in Phase III trials. A couple of news stories and a video below...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/americas/cuba-vaccines-covid-phase-three (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/americas/cuba-vaccines-covid-phase-three-intl-latam/index.html)

Despite a worsening economy and increased US sanctions, the communist-run island has pulled off a feat no other Latin American country can claim to date: the development of five Covid-19 vaccine candidates, two of which that are in their final phase three trials.

As the number of coronavirus cases on the island continue to rise, its vaccine candidates and the island's aspirations to be a biomedical powerhouse will be put to the test. On Wednesday, Cuba hit a grim new record in Covid-19 infections -- 1,051 new cases diagnosed in 24 hours.

Cuban officials in March announced they were expanding the vaccine trials already underway to include hundreds of thousands more people. First up in the expanded trials are 150,000 front line workers, including Ida Martínez Hernández, a dentist who early on in the pandemic was sent by the government to help fight the spread of the virus.

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/cuba-vaccine-covid-19/ (https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/cuba-vaccine-covid-19/)

https://www.youtube.com/Vaccine Watch: Cuba develops its own COVID-19 vaccines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K14lvAeQUCE)


I hope Cuban vaccines work well and the Cuban people are vaccinated against this dreadful disease.  But I think it's unfair to blame America for its economic condition.  The Communist nation should have thrown off their socialist economy 30 years ago when their benefactor the Soviet Union collapsed economically.  You think they would have learned something from that. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 09:12:11 am
Which experts are we to believe?  One of the major problems is the average person on the street reads these headlines and is just more confused every day.  Evidence supposedly shifts and we go back and forth opening businesses then closing them again only to open them again.  Who is right? Experts are mistrusted.   On top of "no-nothing" experts, you got politicians playing politics.   People get fed up. 

That why not only in America but in Europe too, people are protesting shutdowns because they see their livelihoods disappearing.  In six months when the disease will be forgotten because it passed, millions of people will be worried about how they will feed their family because they are out of work, losing their homes and savings if they have anything left.  The experts and politicians would have moved on to some other issue.
Here's an example of my point.  CDC says one thing.  Then they qualify it. Then the president, who tells everyone to listen to the experts, overrides the CDC and qualifies their qualifications.  So what should the poor guy who's trying to get on with life make of these confusing and contradictory edicts?  It's a joke.  Of course, since Biden is overriding experts, and not Trump, the press gives him a pass.


CDC tells vaccinated Americans travel is 'low risk,' as Biden urges caution amid rising infection numbers
While appearing to condone travel, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky still urged even vaccinated Americans to remain at home as case numbers continue to rise, a message that could be confusing for people weighing visits to family or vacation spots.

Speaking from the White House earlier on Friday afternoon in celebration of both jobs gained and coronavirus vaccinations administered throughout the course of March, President Biden also offered a cautious message. “The progress we’ve worked so hard to achieve can be reversed,” he said, speaking of both economic and pandemic-related developments.

“Too many Americans are acting as if this fight is over,” Biden warned a few minutes later. “It is not.”

The White House did not respond to a Yahoo News inquiry regarding whether the president agreed with the new CDC guidance. Such seemingly contradictory messages have marked the response to the coronavirus at all levels of government. Much as every elected official has vowed to “listen to the science,” science and politics rarely walk hand in hand.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-tells-vaccinated-american-travel-is-low-risk-as-biden-urges-caution-amid-rising-infection-numbers-185026202.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 03, 2021, 10:27:33 am
Here's an example of my point.  CDC says one thing.  Then they qualify it. Then the president, who tells everyone to listen to the experts, overrides the CDC and qualifies their qualifications. 

Yes, this is a problem because it requires intelligence to put it all together and understand the message.

I can see why you liked Trump - his message was always easy to understand (even if it was wrong.)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 03, 2021, 10:34:57 am
Just as an aside, if you could guarantee me that by wearing a mask I would live 5 years longer then by not wearing one, I would still choose to not wear one.  As to why, life is not just about ensuring you will wake up the next day.  A life without joy or laughter or company is not a life worth living.  A life inside left purely to your own devices and slowing going mad in the process is certainly not one I choose to live either.

What if you wearing a mask meant that your best friend didn't get COVID-19 from you and die as a result?

What if wearing a mask means that you don't get COVID-19 and survive but with much reduced kidney function that is unknown now but means you are on dialysis in 10 years? For many people, surviving COVID-19 is not the end of their encounter with COVID-19, just the beginning of living with the aftermath.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2021, 10:47:00 am
What if you wearing a mask meant that your best friend didn't get COVID-19 from you and die as a result?

What if wearing a mask means that you don't get COVID-19 and survive but with much reduced kidney function that is unknown now but means you are on dialysis in 10 years? For many people, surviving COVID-19 is not the end of their encounter with COVID-19, just the beginning of living with the aftermath.

 ;D ;D ;D

Just more panic-porn.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on April 03, 2021, 10:55:46 am
;D ;D ;D

Just more panic-porn.

I have two close friends that have died, and my Father in law was not looking good until he got hit with the monoclonal antibody treatments.  It's not panic porn to me, at least.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2021, 10:59:06 am
I have two close friends that have died, and my Father in law was not looking good until he got hit with the monoclonal antibody treatments.  It's not panic porn to me, at least.

Sorry to hear that. However, that doesn't have much to do with what I was ridiculing, that is that someone healthy not wearing a mask was responsible for those deaths.

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on April 03, 2021, 11:03:22 am
Sorry to hear that. However, that doesn't have much to do with what I was ridiculing, that is that someone healthy not wearing a mask was responsible for those deaths.

Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that if someone, somewhere could have prevented their infections by having a mask on, it seems an inconsequential price to pay.  I guess one could argue that they don't believe masks would have prevented that, but again, it's just so damn small an inconvenience for most of us, y'know?    I really don't understand the problem with it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: sf on April 03, 2021, 11:10:50 am
So far you've made no worthwhile contribution of any kind in any of your posts. You're a fly at a picnic and that seems to be the role you enjoy. Pathetic.

I think I can tolerate personal abuse from another hider in anonymity.

S
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2021, 11:16:29 am
Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that if someone, somewhere could have prevented their infections by having a mask on, it seems an inconsequential price to pay.  I guess one could argue that they don't believe masks would have prevented that, but again, it's just so damn small an inconvenience for most of us, y'know?    I really don't understand the problem with it.

It is a huge inconvenience for me, both physically and metaphorically. You don't muzzle 99.9x percent of the population for the questionable benefit of the 0.0y percent. Having said that, masks have their place,  based on individual decision and assessment of risk: in crowded, purely ventilated spaces, where one would spend more than 10-15 min in close proximity to strangers.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 11:22:24 am
I think I can tolerate personal abuse from another hider in anonymity.

S

Well, thanks for sharing with us that you derive pleasure from provoking personal abuse.

Now, why don't you fly off to some other part of the web and see if you can't find some useful contribution to bring back on the topic of Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine. Until, then, buzz off.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 12:02:56 pm
Yes, this is a problem because it requires intelligence to put it all together and understand the message.

I can see why you liked Trump - his message was always easy to understand (even if it was wrong.)
Well, I was planning a trip when I first read the headline.  Now, I don't know.  What are the odds I'll get sick anyway?  Do you know?  Would you go on the trip?  Pass on the trip? 

How do you know what to do based on this advisory? 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2021, 12:35:38 pm
Well, I was planning a trip when I first read the headline.  Now, I don't know.  What are the odds I'll get sick anyway?  Do you know?  Would you go on the trip?  Pass on the trip? 

How do you know what to do based on this advisory? 

Alan, enjoy life. Go on a trip. Do not listen to political idiots, the likes of CDC and Dr. Fauxi.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 03, 2021, 12:38:19 pm
Alan, enjoy life. Go on a trip. Do not listen to political idiots, the likes of CDC and Dr. Fauxi.

Not sure it's that wise to take advice from the guy who said "wake me up when we get to 60K deaths" :-)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 03, 2021, 12:39:56 pm
Not sure it's that wise to take advice from the guy who said "wake me up when we get to 60K deaths" :-)

Well, that doesn't mean anything. I didn't imply it will stop at 60K, just to wake me up. I had it, survived it. You? Still live in fear?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 12:55:25 pm
I appreciate the advice.  But rhetorically, my main point was that the waffling of our politicians and experts only confuses people.  It's been going on since this began.  People finally throw up their hands in frustration and tell them to screw it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 03:41:56 pm
Well, that doesn't mean anything.

It means that you were asleep at the wheel then and are still asleep. Had you been behind the wheel and driving public health response to the pandemic, it would have quickly ended up in a ditch with far more people mourning friends and loved ones than we already have and the virus running even more rapidly beyond any hope of control.

You may view this post as one more bit of "panic porn" for you to laugh at and ridicule. Then again, I'm more interested in science and public health than your entertainment. So, I posted it regardless. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 03:53:14 pm
Alan, enjoy life. Go on a trip. Do not listen to political idiots, the likes of CDC and Dr. Fauxi.

Politics is not what scientists and doctors at CDC, and other similar institutions, have spent a lifetime researching and studying. It is the prevention and control of infectious diseases. I suspect they are a far better source of information on that particular subject than anyone here, including yourself, despite being a distinguished gentleman, as you are, in other areas of life.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 03:57:51 pm
I appreciate the advice.  But rhetorically, my main point was that the waffling of our politicians and experts only confuses people.  It's been going on since this began.  People finally throw up their hands in frustration and tell them to screw it.

The confused are mostly those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda to spread confusion and distrust of science.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 07:29:05 pm
The confused are mostly those that lack a basic understanding of science, making them an easy target for those with an agenda to spread confusion and distrust of science.
Did you read my earlier post?  What does a basic understanding of science have to do with deciphering this advice? It seems Yahoo did not understand the advice either.

Quote from: Alan Klein on April 01, 2021, 10:35:29 am
Quote
Here's an example of my point.  CDC says one thing.  Then they qualify it. Then the president, who tells everyone to listen to the experts, overrides the CDC and qualifies their qualifications.  So what should the poor guy who's trying to get on with life make of these confusing and contradictory edicts?  It's a joke.  Of course, since Biden is overriding experts, and not Trump, the press gives him a pass.


CDC tells vaccinated Americans travel is 'low risk,' as Biden urges caution amid rising infection numbers
While appearing to condone travel, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky still urged even vaccinated Americans to remain at home as case numbers continue to rise, a message that could be confusing for people weighing visits to family or vacation spots.


Speaking from the White House earlier on Friday afternoon in celebration of both jobs gained and coronavirus vaccinations administered throughout the course of March, President Biden also offered a cautious message. “The progress we’ve worked so hard to achieve can be reversed,” he said, speaking of both economic and pandemic-related developments.

“Too many Americans are acting as if this fight is over,” Biden warned a few minutes later. “It is not.”

The White House did not respond to a Yahoo News inquiry regarding whether the president agreed with the new CDC guidance. Such seemingly contradictory messages have marked the response to the coronavirus at all levels of government. Much as every elected official has vowed to “listen to the science,” science and politics rarely walk hand in hand.
https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-tells-vaccinated-american-travel-is-low-risk-as-biden-urges-caution-amid-rising-infection-numbers-185026202.html

Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 08:00:31 pm
Did you read my earlier post?  What does a basic understanding of science have to do with deciphering this advice? It seems Yahoo did not understand the advice either.

It isn't hard to understand the advice from CDC or the administration. Individuals that are fully vaccinated are at much lower personal risk to engage in certain activities such as small gatherings with other fully vaccinated individuals without masks and travel without being tested.

However, the pandemic is still not under control. Therefore, masks and social distancing are recommended in public; gatherings other than the ones described above or where distance is difficult to maintain should be avoided; and other hygiene measures practiced as we have been doing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html)

The overall message is that as more people are vaccinated we get closer to control of the pandemic, but it is too soon to relax and think it's over — so, get vaccinated, wear a mask in public, avoid crowded situations, maintain social distancing, follow CDC guidance as it is updated for current conditions, and we can get thru this more quickly, together, and without another unnecessary and unwanted resurgence.

What are you confused about?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 03, 2021, 08:23:21 pm
What does a basic understanding of science have to do with deciphering this advice?

I don't think understanding the science is a prerequisite for being able to decipher the information and recommendations from the federal government.  What is useful is to be able to distinguish the evidence from the guidance.

For residents of the United States (I haven't seen reliable information from other countries), the evidence is that "fully vaccinated" individuals who wear effective face masks, and observe physical-distancing and hand-sanitizing precautions, can probably travel on public conveyances with relatively low risk of infection and very low risk of hospitalization or dying, even if they are exposed to people who are infected.

The guidance is that nobody should travel unless absolutely necessary (e.g., hoping to see a dying family member for the last time) because (1) some proportion of even fully-vaccinated individuals will get infected (probably between five and ten percent, according to the current data, which are likely to change as more evidence is gathered), and (2) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention only have fragmentary evidence about the effectiveness of the vaccines that have been administered against the mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are currently circulating.

If you don't want to deal with complexity, or are risk-averse, it isn't very difficult to figure out what to do: stay put for now.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 11:00:55 pm
Rather than the CDC telling us it's OK to travel but you'd be safer not traveling, would be if they said nothing at all.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 03, 2021, 11:22:19 pm
Here's the summary of recommendations from CDC for those who are fully vaccinated. Which part do find confusing?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 03, 2021, 11:26:47 pm
Just more panic-porn.

Seriously, if you've survived COVID-19, get a blood and urine test done to check on the health and function of your internal organs (kidneys, liver, etc.) Or just do it anyway if you don't do it regularly (ie yearly) as early signs of prostate cancer can show up there too. Talk to your doctor.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 03, 2021, 11:59:42 pm
Here's the summary of recommendations from CDC for those who are fully vaccinated. Which part do find confusing?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html)
I read the Yahoo article which is confusing.  Most people see Yahoo or some TV program that are confusing.  99.9% of people don't read the CDC;s official site.

Quote
Here's an example of my point.  CDC says one thing.  Then they qualify it. Then the president, who tells everyone to listen to the experts, overrides the CDC and qualifies their qualifications.  So what should the poor guy who's trying to get on with life make of these confusing and contradictory edicts?  It's a joke.  Of course, since Biden is overriding experts, and not Trump, the press gives him a pass.


CDC tells vaccinated Americans travel is 'low risk,' as Biden urges caution amid rising infection numbers
While appearing to condone travel, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky still urged even vaccinated Americans to remain at home as case numbers continue to rise, a message that could be confusing for people weighing visits to family or vacation spots.

Speaking from the White House earlier on Friday afternoon in celebration of both jobs gained and coronavirus vaccinations administered throughout the course of March, President Biden also offered a cautious message. “The progress we’ve worked so hard to achieve can be reversed,” he said, speaking of both economic and pandemic-related developments.

“Too many Americans are acting as if this fight is over,” Biden warned a few minutes later. “It is not.”

The White House did not respond to a Yahoo News inquiry regarding whether the president agreed with the new CDC guidance. Such seemingly contradictory messages have marked the response to the coronavirus at all levels of government. Much as every elected official has vowed to “listen to the science,” science and politics rarely walk hand in hand.
https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-tells-vaccinated-american-travel-is-low-risk-as-biden-urges-caution-amid-rising-infection-numbers-185026202.html
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 02:24:11 am
Sorry, this bus is too crowded for me. I'm leaving you, and "Yahoo", and "TV", and "the CDC", and their "official site", and "Biden", and "Trump, and "the press", and "Rochelle Walensky", and "people weighing visits to family or vacation spots", and the "White House", and "all levels of government", and "every elected official", and "science", and "politics" to finish this ride together or walk hand-in-hand.

But, I'm getting off. This is where I got on and the bus hasn't moved in hours. It's only taken on more passengers.

Best of luck and have a safe trip.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2021, 05:08:59 am
... The guidance is that nobody should travel unless absolutely necessary...

 ;D ;D ;D 

Sorry, Chris, I am not laughing at you, you know I like you, but at the absolutely idiotic, dystopian, Orwellian “guidance.”

Jesus, people, live your life! Travel (millions have been doing that), laugh with friends, get together, go out. Your chances of NOT getting infected are 95%-ish, your chances or surviving if you do are even better, 99%-ish. It is a virus. Microscopic. It might get to you no matter what you do. Fascist states, like CA and NY, have no better results than free states, like FL. European states with harsh mask and lockdown mandates have no better results (and often worse) than those with less restrictive measures. The same state, regardless of having strict or lax mask usage, will experience ups and downs in cases due to other factors (a proof mask mandates are irrelevant). I have friends who put their life on pause for a year, lived a panicky and miserable life, and still got infected. Get vaccinated. Wear a mask when absolutely necessary (not to virtue signal): in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces, when exposed to strangers in close proximity for more than 10-15 minutes.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2021, 05:11:35 am
Seriously, if you've survived COVID-19, get a blood and urine test done to check on the health and function of your internal organs (kidneys, liver, etc.) Or just do it anyway if you don't do it regularly (ie yearly) as early signs of prostate cancer can show up there too. Talk to your doctor.

Well, thanks. That’s a sound advice in general. It’s been a year. Absolutely no after effects.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 04, 2021, 07:23:40 am
Seriously, if you've survived COVID-19, get a blood and urine test done to check on the health and function of your internal organs (kidneys, liver, etc.) Or just do it anyway if you don't do it regularly (ie yearly) as early signs of prostate cancer can show up there too. Talk to your doctor.

Apparently. Covid-19 virus can damage also brain.

Quote
COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2021, 07:41:25 am
Apparently. Covid-19 virus can damage also brain....

As can a prolonged participation in LuLa forums.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 04, 2021, 08:21:14 am
As can a prolonged participation in LuLa forums.

 ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 04, 2021, 10:43:40 am
As can a prolonged participation in LuLa forums.

Right! The first manifestation of such a condition is usually a switch from Coffee Corner to Wet Darkroom.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 04, 2021, 11:44:13 am
Rather than the CDC telling us it's OK to travel but you'd be safer not traveling, would be if they said nothing at all.

It's always safer to not travel then to travel.  This is nothing but them stating a truism to try and further panic. 

The CDC under the current administration, IMO, can not be taken seriously.  The director at first said going back to school was okay, but then changed her tune the following week based on nothing but talks with teacher unions (by her own admission).  That is not science, but engaging in politics. 

It use to be that the CDC would list the infection fatality rates by age on their website.  I was on there this week and that was taken down and replaced by the likelihood you would die from C-19 compared to a reference group of 5 to 17 year olds.  I believe my age group was 130x more likely to die from it then the reference group.  Sounds scary, until you realize 5 to 17 years are not dying from this, so that really small probability times 130 is still a really small probability.  So this is specifically being used to make the disease look more scary then it is for those under 55.  Once again, not science, but politics. 

Trump may have tried to push the CDC in certain directions, but Biden is clearly forcing them to align with his politics.  Even Fauci is giving in, not that I have had any respect for him since his famous "NY did everything right" line last summer.  It is obvious now they are doing this to try and force through stupid policies, since you can never let a good crisis go to waste, right? 

God help us if vaccine passports become required.  That's just what I want to do, share my medical information with oh so trustworthy private tech companies.  Not to mention that I would need to always have my phone on me (and charged), not something I always do. 

In my opinion, if your older and not vaccinated, you should probably not travel too much.  If you are vaccinated, well you only have a little more time left on this planet, and there is no reason to waste it held up in your house.  This is the opinion of my parents, and much to my brother's chagrin, they will be traveling this year. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 11:56:02 am
The CDC under the current administration, IMO, can not be taken seriously.  The director at first said going back to school was okay, but then changed her tune the following week based on nothing but talks with teacher unions (by her own admission).  That is not science, but engaging in politics. 

You made this same false claim recently which I showed you was false with verbatim transcript quotes. Why make it again? Didn't think anyone would notice or you forgot?

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 04, 2021, 11:59:50 am
You made this same false claim recently which I showed you was false with verbatim transcript quotes. Why make it again? Didn't think anyone would notice or you forgot?

She very specifically said that children can be back in school without teachers being vaccinated. 

Psaki was asked about this the same week, and Psaki said the director was speaking from a personal position. 

The next week the guidance was suddenly changed on the CDC website, because they had talked to parent and school administration personal (aka teacher unions). 

This is not a false accusation, and it is pretty obvious why the change was made, pure politics.  All the science shows kids should be back in school and doing so does not increase spread, especially for grade and middle schools.  The current guidance from the CDC would close 99% of all schools.  They are not following the science here, but politics. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 04, 2021, 12:02:17 pm
You made this same...

I thought you got off this bus!?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 12:03:48 pm
You are really not paying attention then. 

Two weeks the head of the CDC issued a statement in which she said schools are safe to reopen.  Jen Psaki was asked about this the day after and she said the director was speaking in her own person position (even though it was a CDC press conference).  This past Friday at 5 PM, the CDC changed the reopening policies for schools in which they admitted that took advice from teachers on what the policies would be. 

This is blatant political manipulation of the CDC.

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947)

What the CDC director said is NOT "schools are safe to reopen" the remarks were around a question regarding vaccination priorities and teachers and the statement was that "there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen". Also, she said "taken under recommendation guidance from the states" regarding the prioritization of vaccines NOT "advice from teachers on what the policies would be". And, the latest CDC guidance did NOT contradict the statements made about schools and teacher vaccinations. Just the opposite, the guidance was in agreement with Walensky’s statement that schools could reopen before teachers had been vaccinated. If you think that I'm not paying attention that's fine, but let's get the facts straight.

Question: Great.  I wondered if we could get an update on vaccine prioritization.  I know under the previous administration this was largely left up to states to decide when they wanted to move to the next levels of priority.  But we’re seeing a lot of states open this up for teachers, and it’s kind of created a patchwork.  And I just wondered if the federal government would be working more closely with states to kind of get more vaccinations to teachers in particular so that schools can reopen in the fall.

DR. WALENSKY: Yeah, thank you for that question.  You know, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has created these guides — this guidance for how we should be thinking about prioritizing among all essential workers and all of the population at large.

You know, those have been taken under recommendation — guidance from the states, and then the states are creating their own individual plans.  And, you know, those plans have to, sort of, be in sync with how they are able to titrate, really, their supply versus the number of people who are wanting it.  We don’t want to be too prescriptive so that they have these queues of people, and yet we don’t want to be too open so that they also have queues of people.  We don’t want to have too much supply on the shelf.

So we’ve left that to the states to manage, in terms of recognizing the prioritization of ACIP, but also manage at their own local level.

That said, I want to be very clear about schools, which is: Yes, ACIP has put teachers in the 1b category, the category of essential workers.  But I also want to be clear that there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely.

So while we are implementing the criteria of the Advisory Committee and of the state and local guidances to get vaccination across these eligible communities, I would also say that safe reopening of schools is not — that vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools.

MR. ZIENTS:  Yeah, let me just add here.  You know, President Biden has been very clear that he wants schools to reopen and actually to stay open.  And that means that every school has the equipment and the resources to open safely — not just private schools or schools in wealthy areas, but all schools.  And that’s why we need the American Rescue Plan passed now.  It includes money to get schools better access to testing, enables smaller class sizes, acquire the necessary ventilation, ensure everyone has PPE, and that schools are properly sanitized.  It also includes much-needed funds to support the learning and social, emotional needs of our kids in what has been an extremely, extremely difficult year. So again, Congress has to do its part in order to make sure that we can safely reopen schools and keep them open.

Is there muddled messaging coming from the administration? Yes there is. That does not equate to "blatant political manipulation of the CDC". If anything, it shows that the CDC director isn't being muzzled; that the administration is new; and that getting information out unfiltered is a higher priority right now than everyone singing from the same hymnal.

Like I said, messaging has benn muddled. For an editorial critique of that muddled messaging you can read commentary here from yesterday...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-02-18/editorial-covid-19-school-reopening
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 12:08:26 pm
I thought you got off this bus!?

I got off the ride that Alan was taking. I asked a straightforward question and got everyone and everything but the kitchen sink in reply.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 04, 2021, 12:13:53 pm
Your chances of NOT getting infected are 95%-ish . . .

Currently, the best available current evidence (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is that the two mRNA vaccines (from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) are 90 percent effective in preventing infection after a second dose and 80 percent effective after only one dose.  These data, from a real-world study of medical care providers and other "first responders" between mid-December and mid-March, are consistent with the results from the respective clinical trials of the two vaccines; the slightly lower effectiveness estimates probably reflect the fact that the real-world study checked for infections among asymptomatic as well as symptomatic individuals while the clinical trials only counted those who contracted symptomatic COVID-19.  Still, these are remarkably good results for any vaccine.

It's still not clear how likely infected vaccinated individuals are to transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others or whether the vaccines' effectiveness is significantly reduced against some of the recent, more aggressive mutations of the virus that were first discovered in the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Brazil.  Both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reportedly are developing modified mRNA doses that are specifically targeted at these mutations and which could, if necessary, be administered as a second "booster" dose.  (There is some evidence from its clinical trials that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, based on a different technology—an adenovirus vector—provides good protection from the the first two of these variants.)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 04, 2021, 12:17:10 pm
I got off the ride that Alan was taking. I asked a straightforward question and got everyone and everything but the kitchen sink in reply.

You missed some: 

On or around Feb. 3rd, she said, “There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated ... Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools.”  That is pretty clear cut. 

Schools can safely reopen without vaccinating teachers, CDC says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEHI_Ia6zmg)

Then on February 4th, Jen Psaki walks the director backwards by saying “Dr. Walensky spoke to this in her personal capacity,” Psaki said. “Obviously, she’s the head of the CDC, but we’re going to wait for the final guidance to come out.”  I look at this as a massive insult towards Dr. Walensky, especially since she was talking in front of CDC logos, not in her personal capacity, and not to mention she is a doctor while Psaki is just a media personality, and an obvious signal the administration was going to dictate what the guidance should be. 

Then the following week, we got the new guidance, which, if followed, would require 99% of schools nationwide to close down even though 50+% were open at the time. 

It is obvious the administration stepped and "guided" the CDC on what to do due to concerns from teachers unions.  After the guidance came out, many experts in the private sector rejected them for being too stringent and difficult to achieve. 

Now if you want to get bogged down in the minutia of things to try and obscure the clearly obvious 30K foot view, that being we are not following the science but politics instead, be my guest.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 12:35:49 pm
It's always safer to not travel then to travel.  This is nothing but them stating a truism to try and further panic. 

The CDC under the current administration, IMO, can not be taken seriously.  The director at first said going back to school was okay, but then changed her tune the following week based on nothing but talks with teacher unions (by her own admission).  That is not science, but engaging in politics. 

It use to be that the CDC would list the infection fatality rates by age on their website.  I was on there this week and that was taken down and replaced by the likelihood you would die from C-19 compared to a reference group of 5 to 17 year olds.  I believe my age group was 130x more likely to die from it then the reference group.  Sounds scary, until you realize 5 to 17 years are not dying from this, so that really small probability times 130 is still a really small probability.  So this is specifically being used to make the disease look more scary then it is for those under 55.  Once again, not science, but politics. 

Trump may have tried to push the CDC in certain directions, but Biden is clearly forcing them to align with his politics.  Even Fauci is giving in, not that I have had any respect for him since his famous "NY did everything right" line last summer. It is obvious now they are doing this to try and force through stupid policies, since you can never let a good crisis go to waste, right? 

God help us if vaccine passports become required.  That's just what I want to do, share my medical information with oh so trustworthy private tech companies.  Not to mention that I would need to always have my phone on me (and charged), not something I always do. 

In my opinion, if your older and not vaccinated, you should probably not travel too much.  If you are vaccinated, well you only have a little more time left on this planet, and there is no reason to waste it held up in your house.  This is the opinion of my parents, and much to my brother's chagrin, they will be traveling this year. 
Well, Fauci is trying to get on the Emmy committee. 

My wife and I are looking to travel in the Fall, maybe, overseas.  We might need some sort of vaccine "passport" that would make it easier to get in and out of various countries. 
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 12:39:33 pm
She very specifically said that children can be back in school without teachers being vaccinated. 

Psaki was asked about this the same week, and Psaki said the director was speaking from a personal position. 

The next week the guidance was suddenly changed on the CDC website, because they had talked to parent and school administration personal (aka teacher unions). 

This is not a false accusation, and it is pretty obvious why the change was made, pure politics.  All the science shows kids should be back in school and doing so does not increase spread, especially for grade and middle schools.  The current guidance from the CDC would close 99% of all schools.  They are not following the science here, but politics. 
It never was about science with the Democrats.  It was always politics.  The only thing that's changed is now they're in power.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 12:41:33 pm
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1208947#msg1208947)

What the CDC director said is NOT "schools are safe to reopen" the remarks were around a question regarding vaccination priorities and teachers and the statement was that "there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen". Also, she said "taken under recommendation guidance from the states" regarding the prioritization of vaccines NOT "advice from teachers on what the policies would be". And, the latest CDC guidance did NOT contradict the statements made about schools and teacher vaccinations. Just the opposite, the guidance was in agreement with Walensky’s statement that schools could reopen before teachers had been vaccinated. If you think that I'm not paying attention that's fine, but let's get the facts straight.

Question: Great.  I wondered if we could get an update on vaccine prioritization.  I know under the previous administration this was largely left up to states to decide when they wanted to move to the next levels of priority.  But we’re seeing a lot of states open this up for teachers, and it’s kind of created a patchwork.  And I just wondered if the federal government would be working more closely with states to kind of get more vaccinations to teachers in particular so that schools can reopen in the fall.

DR. WALENSKY: Yeah, thank you for that question.  You know, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has created these guides — this guidance for how we should be thinking about prioritizing among all essential workers and all of the population at large.

You know, those have been taken under recommendation — guidance from the states, and then the states are creating their own individual plans.  And, you know, those plans have to, sort of, be in sync with how they are able to titrate, really, their supply versus the number of people who are wanting it.  We don’t want to be too prescriptive so that they have these queues of people, and yet we don’t want to be too open so that they also have queues of people.  We don’t want to have too much supply on the shelf.

So we’ve left that to the states to manage, in terms of recognizing the prioritization of ACIP, but also manage at their own local level.

That said, I want to be very clear about schools, which is: Yes, ACIP has put teachers in the 1b category, the category of essential workers.  But I also want to be clear that there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely.

So while we are implementing the criteria of the Advisory Committee and of the state and local guidances to get vaccination across these eligible communities, I would also say that safe reopening of schools is not — that vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools.

MR. ZIENTS:  Yeah, let me just add here.  You know, President Biden has been very clear that he wants schools to reopen and actually to stay open.  And that means that every school has the equipment and the resources to open safely — not just private schools or schools in wealthy areas, but all schools.  And that’s why we need the American Rescue Plan passed now.  It includes money to get schools better access to testing, enables smaller class sizes, acquire the necessary ventilation, ensure everyone has PPE, and that schools are properly sanitized.  It also includes much-needed funds to support the learning and social, emotional needs of our kids in what has been an extremely, extremely difficult year. So again, Congress has to do its part in order to make sure that we can safely reopen schools and keep them open.

Is there muddled messaging coming from the administration? Yes there is. That does not equate to "blatant political manipulation of the CDC". If anything, it shows that the CDC director isn't being muzzled; that the administration is new; and that getting information out unfiltered is a higher priority right now than everyone singing from the same hymnal.

Like I said, messaging has benn muddled. For an editorial critique of that muddled messaging you can read commentary here from yesterday...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-02-18/editorial-covid-19-school-reopening

Oh, stop it.  She got a call from Biden and switched her opinion.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 12:59:00 pm
Now if you want to get bogged down in the minutia of things to try and obscure the clearly obvious 30K foot view, that being we are not following the science but politics instead, be my guest.

Nah. There's no point when you filter out "the minutia" to the point that statements become distorted.

What you call "minutia" is context and full quotes. You filter that out in order to hear what you want to hear.

So for instance, when a question is asked about "vaccinations to teachers in particular so that schools can reopen in the fall."

And the answer to that question is : "That said, I want to be very clear about schools, which is: "Yes, ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] has put teachers in the 1b category, the category of essential workers.  But I also want to be clear that there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely."

And after going thru your filter it comes out... "the head of the CDC issued a statement in which she said schools are safe to reopen"

The fall school term is still some months away. The CDC hasn't changed their guidance about teachers needing to be vaccinated to re-open. But if you filter and distort statements enough, I'm sure that you'll feel secure in your point of view.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 01:01:12 pm
Oh, stop it.  She got a call from Biden and switched her opinion.

Really? When did the CDC switch their opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 01:22:53 pm
Biden's supporting the teacher's union because they supported him in the election.  The CDC director works for the President. It's politics, not science.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 01:26:13 pm
The question was in regard to your claim. When did the CDC switch their opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 01:49:40 pm
The question was in regard to your claim. When did the CDC switch their opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?
I seem to recall the reduction to 3 feet from six feet was a sop to the unions.  Biden was trying to split the baby.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Manoli on April 04, 2021, 03:14:43 pm
My wife and I are looking to travel in the Fall, maybe, overseas.  We might need some sort of vaccine "passport" that would make it easier to get in and out of various countries. 

No! Please, No!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51094806402_070f05f2b4_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 03:29:04 pm
I seem to recall the reduction to 3 feet from six feet was a sop to the unions.  Biden was trying to split the baby.

You refuse to answer the question about your claim that the CDC director switched her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to reopen because it's false. So, you try to dance around it.

To once again dance around that question, you make another claim that the the CDC guidance which reduced desk spacing was a concession to teachers' unions. Despite the fact that it was the opposite of what their unions wanted. Teachers' unions opposed that change, just like they opposed CDC guidance that teachers did not need to be vaccinated for schools to re-open. The new Secretary of Education, that Biden appointed, successfully overcame resistance and protests from the teachers' unions in Connecticut to reopen their schools as Education Commissioner. Reopening schools for in person learning is a top priority for Biden and they're actively working to overcome reluctance from teachers' unions to get schools open and provide the necessary resources to make it happen.

The current guidance from CDC for school reopening recognizes local situations and has flexibility.

"Schools should determine, in collaboration with state and local health officials to the extent possible, whether and how to implement each of these considerations while adjusting to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the local community. Implementation should be guided by what is feasible, practical, acceptable, and tailored to the needs of each community. It is also critically important to develop strategies that can be revised and adapted depending on the level of viral transmission in the school and throughout the community, as this may change rapidly. Strategies should be implemented in close coordination with state, local, or tribal public health authorities, recognizing the differences between school districts, including urban, suburban, and rural districts."

Your claims are so far off base that they're not even in the ballpark.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 04:50:22 pm
You refuse to answer the question about your claim that the CDC director switched her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to reopen because it's false. So, you try to dance around it.

To once again dance around that question, you make another claim that the the CDC guidance which reduced desk spacing was a concession to teachers' unions. Despite the fact that it was the opposite of what their unions wanted. Teachers' unions opposed that change, just like they opposed CDC guidance that teachers did not need to be vaccinated for schools to re-open. The new Secretary of Education, that Biden appointed, successfully overcame resistance and protests from the teachers' unions in Connecticut to reopen their schools as Education Commissioner. Reopening schools for in person learning is a top priority for Biden and they're actively working to overcome reluctance from teachers' unions to get schools open and provide the necessary resources to make it happen.

The current guidance from CDC for school reopening recognizes local situations and has flexibility.

"Schools should determine, in collaboration with state and local health officials to the extent possible, whether and how to implement each of these considerations while adjusting to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the local community. Implementation should be guided by what is feasible, practical, acceptable, and tailored to the needs of each community. It is also critically important to develop strategies that can be revised and adapted depending on the level of viral transmission in the school and throughout the community, as this may change rapidly. Strategies should be implemented in close coordination with state, local, or tribal public health authorities, recognizing the differences between school districts, including urban, suburban, and rural districts."

Your claims are so far off base that they're not even in the ballpark.
I said Biden split the baby when he reduced the distance from 6 feet to 3 feet.  It wasn't a full concession.  That's what splitting the baby means.  I didn't say he kissed their ass.  He tried to have it both ways.  Following the science somewhat, but giving the teacher's union a sop.

Regarding what the CDC and its director said, I got my information from Joe's post. It seems what I believe about the situation and I believe Joe's point.  Here it is again:
You missed some: 

On or around Feb. 3rd, she said, “There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated ... Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools.”  That is pretty clear cut. 

Schools can safely reopen without vaccinating teachers, CDC says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEHI_Ia6zmg)

Then on February 4th, Jen Psaki walks the director backwards by saying “Dr. Walensky spoke to this in her personal capacity,” Psaki said. “Obviously, she’s the head of the CDC, but we’re going to wait for the final guidance to come out.”  I look at this as a massive insult towards Dr. Walensky, especially since she was talking in front of CDC logos, not in her personal capacity, and not to mention she is a doctor while Psaki is just a media personality, and an obvious signal the administration was going to dictate what the guidance should be. 

Then the following week, we got the new guidance, which, if followed, would require 99% of schools nationwide to close down even though 50+% were open at the time. 

It is obvious the administration stepped and "guided" the CDC on what to do due to concerns from teachers unions.  After the guidance came out, many experts in the private sector rejected them for being too stringent and difficult to achieve. 

Now if you want to get bogged down in the minutia of things to try and obscure the clearly obvious 30K foot view, that being we are not following the science but politics instead, be my guest.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 04, 2021, 05:38:04 pm
;D ;D ;D

Just more panic-porn.

Really. Well I have a cousin right now fighting for his life on an intubator in a induced comma with major damage to his lungs and kidneys. Very poor prognosis. His wife a teacher brought Covid home and infected my cousin.

I'm getting a little sick of your attempt of humour around this deadly virus. Quit being such an ass and have a little companion for the millions that died and 10's of millions that survived but will be compromised for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 06:04:53 pm
Regarding what the CDC and its director said, I got my information from Joe's post. It seems what I believe about the situation and I believe Joe's point.  Here it is again:

Now you want to pass the buck to Joe. You made the claim "She got a call from Biden and switched her opinion". When did the CDC director switch her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?

Stop with the copy and paste, the dancing around it, it's your claim — own it. When did the CDC director switch her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 04, 2021, 06:05:43 pm
Sorry to hear that. However, that doesn't have much to do with what I was ridiculing, that is that someone healthy not wearing a mask was responsible for those deaths.

How does a healthy person know they are not carrying the virus. Many people are asymptomatic and can spread the virus just like someone else on their death bed. See that's the false sense of security the ignorant have...I feel great so I don't need no damn mask.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 04, 2021, 06:07:56 pm
Alan, enjoy life. Go on a trip. Do not listen to political idiots, the likes of CDC and Dr. Fauxi.

Yeh, listen to that other political idiot called Trump. He knows best.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 04, 2021, 06:10:10 pm
Well, that doesn't mean anything. I didn't imply it will stop at 60K, just to wake me up. I had it, survived it. You? Still live in fear?

Bullshit. At the time you were claiming Covid is no worse than the yearly flew where on a bad year it kills 60,000 people in the US. Well I guess your smart ass remarks back then about waking you up hasn't changed any...you are still a selfish inconsiderate smart ass.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 06:15:07 pm
Now you want to pass the buck to Joe. You made the claim "She got a call from Biden and switched her opinion". When did the CDC director switch her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?

Stop with the copy and paste, the dancing around it, it's your claim — own it. When did the CDC director switch her opinion on teachers not needing to be vaccinated for schools to re-open?
I believe she was told by Biden to back off when it came to the teacher's union.  I wasn't a fly on the wall.    There were no witnesses, no transcripts, no video. When he told her , how it developed, I will leave it to Joe and everyone's imagination.  She understood the science that it was OK to open schools.  But, it is my belief based on the fact that the union supported Biden in the election and he had to pay them back.  So he told her to back off. That's how politics work.  In order to satisfy the science and to give the union a sop, she reduced it from 6 feet to 3 feet.  That's what I believe.  You can believe what you want to believe.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 06:15:44 pm
I said Biden split the baby when he reduced the distance from 6 feet to 3 feet.  It wasn't a full concession.  That's what splitting the baby means.  I didn't say he kissed their ass.  He tried to have it both ways.  Following the science somewhat, but giving the teacher's union a sop.

And this is just more BS as well. The CDC director pointed to recent evidence from a study of Massachusetts schools in the decision to decrease the desk separation recommendation.

CDC Looks At Whether 3 Feet — Instead Of 6 — Is Safe For Schools' Social Distancing - March 15, 2021

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing)

The CDC's current guidance for schools recommends seating or desks be "at least 6 feet apart when feasible."

But a new study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests that 3 feet may be as safe as 6 feet, so long as everyone is masked. The authors compared infection rates at Massachusetts schools that required at least 3 feet of distancing with those that required at least 6 feet, and found no significant difference in the coronavirus case rates among students or staff in the two cohorts.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, addressed the Massachusetts study at the White House COVID-19 briefing on Monday, and noted that schools have struggled with the 6-foot guidance.

"We are looking at these data carefully," Walensky said. "The question actually prompted more studies to be done, so we know more are forthcoming. We're taking all of those data carefully and revisiting our guidances in that context."
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 04, 2021, 06:24:46 pm
And this is just more BS as well. The CDC director pointed to recent evidence from a study of Massachusetts schools in the decision to decrease the desk separation recommendation.

CDC Looks At Whether 3 Feet — Instead Of 6 — Is Safe For Schools' Social Distancing - March 15, 2021

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/15/977564878/cdc-looks-at-whether-3-feet-instead-of-6-is-safe-for-schools-social-distancing)

The CDC's current guidance for schools recommends seating or desks be "at least 6 feet apart when feasible."

But a new study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests that 3 feet may be as safe as 6 feet, so long as everyone is masked. The authors compared infection rates at Massachusetts schools that required at least 3 feet of distancing with those that required at least 6 feet, and found no significant difference in the coronavirus case rates among students or staff in the two cohorts.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, addressed the Massachusetts study at the White House COVID-19 briefing on Monday, and noted that schools have struggled with the 6-foot guidance.

"We are looking at these data carefully," Walensky said. "The question actually prompted more studies to be done, so we know more are forthcoming. We're taking all of those data carefully and revisiting our guidances in that context."

They found a fig leaf to satisfy the union and the science.  You can always find something to justify your political position.  Politicians are great at that.  They talk out of both sides of their mouths all the time.  Walensky is kissing Biden's ass as Birx kissed Trump's.  It's all politics.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 06:31:06 pm
I believe she was told by Biden to back off when it came to the teacher's union.  I wasn't a fly on the wall.    There were no witnesses, no transcripts, no video. When he told her , how it developed, I will leave it to Joe and everyone's imagination.  She understood the science that it was OK to open schools.  But, it is my belief based on the fact that the union supported Biden in the election and he had to pay them back.  So he told her to back off. That's how politics work.  In order to satisfy the science and to give the union a sop, she reduced it from 6 feet to 3 feet.  That's what I believe.  You can believe what you want to believe.

This is typical. What a waste of freaking time. There are facts.

The CDC director was asked by a reporter about the prioritization of teachers for vaccines before schools reopen in the fall at a press conference. That's a FACT.

The CDC director responded "there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely." That's a FACT. There  are "witnesses" and "transcripts". I know because I posted the transcript twice myself. That's a FACT.

You made the FALSE claim that ""She got a call from Biden and switched her opinion". That's a FACT.

There has been and there was no "switch of opinion" regardless of your "belief" and that too is a FACT.

I'm done with this. What a waste.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 04, 2021, 06:33:06 pm
They found a fig leaf to satisfy the union and the science.  You can always find something to justify your political position.  Politicians are great at that.  They talk out of both sides of their mouths all the time.  Walensky is kissing Biden's ass as Birx kissed Trump's.  It's all politics.

It's all paranoia and a waste of time.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 04, 2021, 06:35:30 pm
Many people are asymptomatic and can spread the virus just like someone else on their death bed.

For obvious reasons, it is difficult to produce precise statistics on asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.  I have read estimates ranging from 30 percent to 60 percent of all infections.  There appears to be an expert consensus that transmission by presymptomatic individuals is somewhat more common than transmission by those who never develop symptoms.  However, that may be an artifact of contact-tracing being performed more often on the former group than on the latter because the infection was not discovered in many of the latter until it was too late to initiate a contact-tracing regime.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 03:58:53 am
Really. Well I have a cousin right now fighting for his life on an intubator in a induced comma with major damage to his lungs and kidneys. Very poor prognosis. His wife a teacher brought Covid home and infected my cousin.

I'm getting a little sick of your attempt of humour around this deadly virus. Quit being such an ass and have a little companion for the millions that died and 10's of millions that survived but will be compromised for the rest of their lives.

 ;D ;D ;D

Oh, brother... spare me your appeal to emotion (look it up, it is a logical fallacy)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 04:02:29 am
... Many people are asymptomatic and can spread the virus just like someone else on their death bed...

 ;D ;D ;D

I have posted, months ago, links to research that found zero to negligible chance of asymptomatic transmission.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 04:05:49 am
Bullshit. At the time you were claiming Covid is no worse than the yearly flew where on a bad year it kills 60,000 people in the US. Well I guess your smart ass remarks back then about waking you up hasn't changed any...you are still a selfish inconsiderate smart ass.

I posted a few posts above that the flu has killed more than 100 times more people in the world than Covid.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 05, 2021, 04:36:36 am
;D ;D ;D

I have posted, months ago, links to research that found zero to negligible chance of asymptomatic transmission.

Some updates:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

As Chris Kern points out above, because of its nature, it's difficult to produce definitive evidence on the importance of asymptomatic transmission.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 05, 2021, 05:35:22 am
I posted a few posts above that the flu has killed more than 100 times more people in the world than Covid.

Perhaps it's just one of those statements which provides less reassurance with repetition.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 06:36:22 am
Perhaps it's just one of those statements which provides less reassurance with repetition.

Feel free to dispute it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 06:37:07 am
What neo-fascism is like:
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: TechTalk on April 05, 2021, 06:59:13 am
Feel free to dispute it.

I'm just suggesting that like telling someone in intensive care — the person in the next bed over looks even closer to death than you do — the statement may provide less reassurance with repetition.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 05, 2021, 07:50:49 am
What neo-fascism is like:

That is the state we have fallen to in the UK. More interested in statues than people.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 05, 2021, 09:01:06 am
I posted a few posts above that the flu has killed more than 100 times more people in the world than Covid.

You have all the answers don't you. If I had the energy, which I don't for someone as smug as you, I'd look up your post about the yearly flu being much more deadly than Covid. You explicitly said the flu kills more yearly than Covid and so smartly said to wake you up when Covid hits 60,000 deaths, as this is what a bad year of flu kills in the US. You can spin you BS anyway you like, but you were totally WRONG back then and you are totally WRONG now. Keep digging, you just might disappear.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: chez on April 05, 2021, 09:02:07 am
Some updates:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

As Chris Kern points out above, because of its nature, it's difficult to produce definitive evidence on the importance of asymptomatic transmission.

Slobo doesn't believe in facts...just his BS that he spreads.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Robert Roaldi on April 05, 2021, 11:04:25 am
I posted a few posts above that the flu has killed more than 100 times more people in the world than Covid.

I was listening to a infectious disease doctor one day on some podcast or other who said that at any one time there are about 100 common viruses floating around causing illnesses of differing seriousness among humans. Some are more commonly seen than others. Some cause mild symptoms and we usually refer to them as the common cold. Others cause more severe symptoms and we lump those together and call them "flu". There are also other more serious ones.

About a year ago, on either this thread or a previous one, you compared the numbers of deaths due to flu at 30,000 or 40,000 per year (I forget the exact number you used; USA numbers) and compared it to the known number of Covid deaths AT THAT TIME, which was a few hundred and you concluded that Covid was not serious. It made no sense at the time to compare annual flu deaths with the up-to-then deaths due to Covid, but it must have made sense to you. Well, the USA had about 500,000 deaths in one year due to Covid. This should have caused you to revisit your thinking.

Nowadays, you compare total deaths due to flu, apparently for the whole of the last century or so (or am I misunderstanding) to the up-to-now Covid deaths. You're using the same logic as last spring, but translated it to a different time of reference. It made no sense to compare the numbers in that way last year and it makes no sense now.

You have decided, for reasons of your own, that Covid is not important and all your analyses somehow support that. At best, that logic is suspect. Over time and different discussions, you have shown yourself to take pride in being a contrarian, and seem to justify that to yourself because it makes you feel independent and not a follower of trends. You are confusing independence of thought with contrarianism, they are not the same thing. If everyone in the room looks up at the sky and says it's blue, your calling it yellow does not make you an independent thinker, it makes you wrong.

Luckily, mostly due to various interventions, practical and vaccine, controlling Covid seems now possible. Over time, with some more luck, the virus will mutate to be less virulent. Your notion that it was never anything to worry is preposterous.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 05, 2021, 11:41:52 am
I think the problem with Covid is that it became an either-or situation.  The argument has been go 100% medical and damn the economic considerations or go 100% economic, damn the medical issues.  The real solution is a compromise. 

Pretty much that's how it's been addressed first going one way then the other, then back again almost like the tide. It's one of those situations that have no single solution, no one answer that resolves all the issues. We all have been fumbling as we try to find a way to handle both sides effectively and that's been difficult, probably impossible.  Both sides think they're right and don't budge from their position, especially complicated by an election year in the USA.  Of course, these same issues have become apparent in other countries a well where conflicts have grown violent.  Fear about dying or losing your home causes conflict for individuals as well as nations. I'm sure we'll all get beyond these arguments and move on.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 05, 2021, 01:19:48 pm
I think

Little evidence of that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 02:09:51 pm
... Your notion that it was never anything to worry is preposterous.

Your whole post (as well as chez' - but he is not worth debating) is based on a several straw-man arguments, i.e., something you think I said. Quote me as saying "it was never anything to worry about." My position then, as now, is that of whatever seriousness Covid might be, it is not worth lockdowns and mask mandates. It is a natural event that is going to play out regardless of what you do to stop it (you can't). I certainly know better than to compare annual figures with those of few weeks. As for the historic comparison, just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid is currently, after more than a year, at only 0.03%, that is 1/100 of that. Which does NOT take into account annual death from flu, before or after the Spanish one. So, certainly Covid is never going to match the Spanish flu record. We will live with it just as we live with the flu. Which means no lockdowns, no mask mandates, nor any other fascist measures. If we can resist the commie wave that is rolling across the world, that is.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2021, 11:29:47 pm
... If everyone in the room looks up at the sky and says it's blue, your calling it yellow does not make you an independent thinker, it makes you wrong....

You sure?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 06, 2021, 12:31:21 am
My position then, as now, is that of whatever seriousness Covid might be, it is not worth lockdowns and mask mandates. It is a natural event that is going to play out regardless of what you do to stop it (you can't). I certainly know better than to compare annual figures with those of few weeks. As for the historic comparison, just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid is currently, after more than a year, at only 0.03%, that is 1/100 of that.

I understand where you're coming from regarding "natural event", but I would say that as a species, we've come to understand that the actions we collectively take as well as don't take can manage the spread of viruses. Back in the Spanish Flu days, they most certainly did wear masks (there are pictures of men wearing them at various places) to combat the spread of the virus. What they didn't have then was the technology we do now to quickly and effectively treat the virus.

Looking at the % of the population that died from each ignores what % of the population was exposed to the disease. That's what's missing in your 3% vs 0.03%. There's also many questions around the reliability of the numbers, especially out of China, for political reasons that weren't present 100 years ago. And remember that the 3% was with mask wearing and without the anti-mask religious political debate.

The greater question to ask is that by providing treatment to prevent people from dieing from diseases like this are we collectively weakening the human race to survive in the future. i.e we're playing God and telling Darwin to take a hike. it's not exactly hypothetical either, as more women now need IV treatment to get pregnant because more women have been born with related defects due to it being passed down from their mothers.

As many have said, the problem with COVID-19 isn't just the disease itself but the denial of service attach it has on health services for other ailments due to COVID-19 overwhelming existing facilities. It may be that you yourself don't die from COVID-19 but because you can't get care that you need because of COVID-19 denying you the medical resources required.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 12:55:40 am
... The greater question to ask is that by providing treatment to prevent people from dieing from diseases like this are we collectively weakening the human race to survive in the future. i.e we're playing God and telling Darwin to take a hike. it's not exactly hypothetical either, as more women now need IV treatment to get pregnant because more women have been born with related defects due to it being passed down from their mothers....

That’s an interesting angle.

As for masks, I am not against masks, but against mask mandates. I am with Obama: “If you like your mask, you can keep your mask.” I am against lockdowns. Not to mention curfews. Or any other fascist measures, like tracking, neighbor snitching, backyard drone-monitoring, yellow arm bands (a.k.a. Covid passports). Or sending people to jail for 10 years for lying (or forgetting) which countries they visited.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 12:59:34 am
... Looking at the % of the population that died from each ignores what % of the population was exposed to the disease. That's what's missing in your 3% vs 0.03%....

Can you elaborate why is that relevant in this context?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 01:00:55 am
Another interesting angle:
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2021, 05:43:52 am
Your whole post (as well as chez' - but he is not worth debating) is based on a several straw-man arguments, i.e., something you think I said. Quote me as saying "it was never anything to worry about." My position then, as now, is that of whatever seriousness Covid might be, it is not worth lockdowns and mask mandates. It is a natural event that is going to play out regardless of what you do to stop it (you can't).

That's almost reaching Klein levels of wrongness.  OK, maybe not, but still very wrong.  The simple fact is that lockdowns etc have reduced the spread of infection and kept the level of death from reaching the levels they could have got to if we'd just gone about our business as normal.  That gave us the time to develop and roll out vaccines.  What happens next we don't know - hopefully some sort of annual booster jab will be sufficient.  If new variants keep arising in non-vaccinated populations then it is hard to see an end.

Quote
I certainly know better than to compare annual figures with those of few weeks. As for the historic comparison, just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid is currently, after more than a year, at only 0.03%, that is 1/100 of that. Which does NOT take into account annual death from flu, before or after the Spanish one. So, certainly Covid is never going to match the Spanish flu record. We will live with it just as we live with the flu. Which means no lockdowns, no mask mandates, nor any other fascist measures. If we can resist the commie wave that is rolling across the world, that is.

I don't really see the point of your comparison. Spanish flu killed a lot of people, bubonic plague killed a lot of people - so what ?

"Commie wave", "fascist measures" - too funny!! :-)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 05:54:50 am
As for the historic comparison, just the Spanish flu killed about 3% of the world population, while Covid is currently, after more than a year, at only 0.03%, that is 1/100 of that. Which does NOT take into account annual death from flu, before or after the Spanish one. So, certainly Covid is never going to match the Spanish flu record. We will live with it just as we live with the flu. Which means no lockdowns, no mask mandates, nor any other fascist measures. If we can resist the commie wave that is rolling across the world, that is.

It's hard to compare the Spanish Flu in 1918-20 with Covid-19 in 2020. Spanish Flu killed between 20 million to 50 million lives. Covid-19 killed in the first 15 months 3 million people worldwide. It is highly probably that without the modern communications, lockdowns, testing facilities, skilled medical personnel and advanced medical equipment the number of Covid-19 infections and deaths would be substantially higher, quite possibly on the same level as Spanish Flu.

Although more dangerous for the seniors, there are plenty of reports of even young healthy people falling ill and dying due to the C19 virus. In Canada, we are going through the third wave which is more deadly, and spread also among younger individuals.
 
Quote
As more seniors get vaccinated for COVID-19, Canada is seeing a shift in the coronavirus spread with an increasing number of cases among the younger population.

While infections have declined in Canadians aged 80 and older since January, cases are now highest among young adults aged 20 to 39, according to the latest national public health modelling released March 26. The rise of new more transmissible variants, vaccination programs focusing on the elderly and coronavirus fatigue are driving the spread among the younger group, experts say.

“It is important to remember that although severe illness is less common in younger age groups, serious or prolonged illness can occur at any age, and there are emerging concerns about increasing severity of the B.1.1.7 variant in adults,” Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief health officer, said during a March 26 news conference.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7731485/covid-variant-cases-young-canadians/
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 06:44:12 am
... The simple fact is that lockdowns etc have reduced the spread of infection and kept the level of death from reaching the levels they could have got to if we'd just gone about our business as normal....

Not reduced... just postponed... that your and many other countries have to resort to 3rd or 4th lockdown is a proof of that. Just like masks. Since one is not effective, the current advice is two or even three. As demonstrated before, countries with stricter lockdowns do not have better (and often worse) results than those with more lax (or none). The same goes with strict vs. lax mask mandates.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 06:45:37 am
... there are plenty of reports of even young healthy people falling ill and dying due to the C19 virus...

Many young people also die crossing the street. It happens. The always crucial question is with what probability. Still extremely low.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2021, 07:10:23 am
Not reduced... just postponed... that your and many other countries have to resort to 3rd or 4th lockdown is a proof of that. Just like masks. Since one is not effective, the current advice is two or even three. As demonstrated before, countries with stricter lockdowns do not have better (and often worse) results than those with more lax (or none). The same goes with strict vs. lax mask mandates.

Delayed until people can be protected by vaccines - which is the whole point.  Comparing countries is not sensible as there are too many differences between them; better idea to look at the rates of infection/hospitalisation/deaths in a given country compared with the dates of lockdown. The evidence is clear.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 06, 2021, 07:59:42 am

It's hard to compare the Spanish Flu in 1918-20 with Covid-19 in 2020. Spanish Flu killed between 20 million to 50 million lives. Covid-19 killed in the first 15 months 3 million people worldwide. It is highly probably that without the modern communications, lockdowns, testing facilities, skilled medical personnel and advanced medical equipment the number of Covid-19 infections and deaths would be substantially higher, quite possibly on the same level as Spanish Flu.


Although more dangerous for the seniors, there are plenty of reports of even young healthy people falling ill and dying due to the C19 virus. In Canada, we are going through the third wave which is more deadly, and spread also among younger individuals.
 
https://globalnews.ca/news/7731485/covid-variant-cases-young-canadians/

But modern society does reduce the danger of diseases. It doesn't matter why the current disease is not as dangerous whether innately compared to Spanish flu or because of better measures available today to deal with it.  So it is valuable to compare to other diseases in the past that had a larger effect to figure out if similar measures done then have to be done now.   
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 08:00:23 am
You are just proving my point, Jeremy, with that graph. Of course lockdowns work, albeit temporarily. That's why you need three of them (so far).

"Until vaccines" argument... it was "two weeks to flatten the curve" initially, now it is two years. And then variants occur. And vaccines needed every six months. And different vaccines for different mutations. And then, like the seasonal flu, some people will take it, others want. But the cost of the two years until vaccines is staggering, measured by many other parameters than just death from Covid: world hunger, premature child death, lack of education, depression, obesity, alcoholism, narcotics, denied medical services, and last, but not least, unemployment, ruined lives and careers, economic crash.

P.S. Forgot to add: the rise of fascism and communism.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 08:06:23 am
But modern society does reduce the danger of diseases. It doesn't matter why the current disease is not as dangerous whether innately compared to Spanish flu or because of better measures available today to deal with it.  So it is valuable to compare to other diseases in the past that had a larger effect to figure out if similar measures done then have to be done now.

My point was that Covid-19 is not necessarily more benign than Spanish flu.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2021, 08:09:31 am
You are just proving my point, Jeremy, with that graph. Of course lockdowns work, albeit temporarily. That's why you need three of them (so far).

"Until vaccines" argument... it was "two weeks to flatten the curve" initially, now it is two years. And then variants occur. And vaccines needed every six months. And different vaccines for different mutations. And then, like the seasonal flu, some people will take it, others want. But the cost of the two years until vaccines is staggering, measured by many other parameters than just death from Covid: world hunger, premature child death, lack of education, depression, obesity, alcoholism, narcotics, denied medical services, and last, but not least, unemployment, ruined lives and careers, economic crash.

P.S. Forgot to add: the rise of fascism and communism.

Your alternative seems to be to just let millions of people die, and to say it's no big deal cos millions of people died from some other diseases in the past. That makes no sense, and that's before you even try to figure out the economic cost of large amounts of your workforce being sick, and what's the impact on your health care system of the hospitals being permanently clogged up with Covid patients.

p.s. you seem to have dodged the fascism bullet in the US; we are not so lucky here.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 06, 2021, 08:40:29 am
My point was that Covid-19 is not necessarily more benign than Spanish flu.
I agree.  But I was only pointing out that modern advantages like vaccines allow us to adjust the measures we take in dealing with it.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: James Clark on April 06, 2021, 08:56:17 am
Your alternative seems to be to just let millions of people die, and to say it's no big deal cos millions of people died from some other diseases in the past. That makes no sense, and that's before you even try to figure out the economic cost of large amounts of your workforce being sick, and what's the impact on your health care system of the hospitals being permanently clogged up with Covid patients.

p.s. you seem to have dodged the fascism bullet in the US; we are not so lucky here.

Well, no.  Some states ask us to wear masks inside public places.  It’s a very short and exceedingly slippery slope from there to the gulags ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 09:25:02 am
I agree.  But I was only pointing out that modern advantages like vaccines allow us to adjust the measures we take in dealing with it.

That was my other point.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 09:32:40 am
My point was that Covid-19 is not necessarily more benign than Spanish flu.

Are you suggesting that we actually have a cure for Covid?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 09:35:24 am
Well, no.  Some states ask us to wear masks inside public places.  It’s a very short and exceedingly slippery slope from there to the gulags ;)

If Americans wouldn't have, what, 400-500 millions of guns in their hands, it indeed would be a short, slippery slope to AOC's re-education camps. Or jail, as in the UK.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 09:50:42 am
Your alternative seems to be to just let millions of people die...

You are again proving my point, which you are not disputing. Your retort is "we got to do something." Never mind that it isn't working, but it looks good as it seems the nanny state is doing something.

Millions of people die every year regardless. Very early in the pandemic it was clear that this virus is dangerous predominantly and overwhelmingly to the 65+ population. Retirees. Thus not the workforce.

The solution should have been "targeted protection," as advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration.

As for the "overwhelmed" medical facilities... I do not know about your country, but here, where I am now, Serbia, hospitals have been at full capacity ever since the dawn of time (i.e., socialized medicine). Way before I left, 28 years ago, patients were in corridors, or on long-waiting lists for major operations. My mother waited seven months for a triple bypass, three times being invited to come and then returned home, or invitation canceled. There seems to be the case everywhere with socialized medicine. Makeshift hospitals are relatively quick to build, many have been in the States and then dismantled, for the lack of patients. Military ships sent to NY to deal with non-covid patients returned unused soon thereafter. Serbia has built I think three specialized Covid hospitals, fourth under construction.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Chris Kern on April 06, 2021, 10:01:34 am
Although more dangerous for the seniors, there are plenty of reports of even young healthy people falling ill and dying due to the C19 virus. In Canada, we are going through the third wave which is more deadly, and spread also among younger individuals.

We're experiencing a similar phenomenon in many parts of the United States, including here in the state of Maryland, where three-quarters of the residents 65 and older have received at least one dose of vaccine.  Individuals in their 20s and 30s increasingly are getting sick and requiring hospitalization, and some are dying.  This probably reflects the growing prevalence of the very aggressive B.1.1.7 mutation (the variant which was first identified in the U.K. and is now rapidly spreading worldwide), which is both significantly more infectious and substantially more lethal than earlier variants of SARS-CoV-2, and the tendency of young adults to ignore mask and physical distancing regulations.  The state government is now making vaccines available to everyone 16 and older—many other states are doing the same—in an attempt to prevent another massive wave of infection and avoid overwhelming the intensive-care capacity of the hospitals.  Unfortunately, it's unlikely enough people can be vaccinated in time to prevent that.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 10:02:59 am
Are you suggesting that we actually have a cure for Covid?

The global precautions including vaccines and advanced medical care during the last year saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Spanish flu was fought 100 years ago with by today's standards more primitive methods and on much smaller and uncoordinated level, and consequently the outcome was much worse.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Alan Klein on April 06, 2021, 10:17:15 am
The global precautions including vaccines and advanced medical care during the last year saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Spanish flu was fought 100 years ago with by today's standards more primitive methods and on much smaller and uncoordinated level, and consequently the outcome was much worse.
Like when the cop shot the guy who refused to wear a mask. :)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2021, 10:18:09 am
You are again proving my point, which you are not disputing. Your retort is "we got to do something." Never mind that it isn't working, but it looks good as it seems the nanny state is doing something.

Of course it's working - we have avoided millions of people dying and are a long way towards vaccination in many places.

Quote

Millions of people die every year regardless. Very early in the pandemic it was clear that this virus is dangerous predominantly and overwhelmingly to the 65+ population. Retirees. Thus not the workforce.

Not so. Most of the people dying were old, but young people also got very sick, and a lot are now strugglinhg with long term health issues that we don't yet understand fully.
Quote
The solution should have been "targeted protection," as advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration.
It's beyond naive to imagine you can achieve such a thing. In any case, I think even pensioners deserve to be allowed out one day. How else are we going to tempt them away from typing BS on their keyboards?
Quote
As for the "overwhelmed" medical facilities... I do not know about your country, but here, where I am now, Serbia, hospitals have been at full capacity ever since the dawn of time (i.e., socialized medicine). Way before I left, 28 years ago, patients were in corridors, or on long-waiting lists for major operations. My mother waited seven months for a triple bypass, three times being invited to come and then returned home, or invitation canceled. There seems to be the case everywhere with socialized medicine. Makeshift hospitals are relatively quick to build, many have been in the States and then dismantled, for the lack of patients. Military ships sent to NY to deal with non-covid patients returned unused soon thereafter. Serbia has built I think three specialized Covid hospitals, fourth under construction.

I have no idea about Serbia. Certainly Italy, which has an excellent health service, was overwhelmed in the first wave. Hospitals are quick to build - we built three huge ones here. They were never used because hospitals need staff, not just beds.

What is kind of ironic is that you seem happy to sacrifice millions of lives on the altar of ideological purity. Did someone mention "gulags"?
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 10:48:45 am
The global precautions including vaccines and advanced medical care during the last year saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Spanish flu was fought 100 years ago with by today's standards more primitive methods and on much smaller and uncoordinated level, and consequently the outcome was much worse.

Forget vaccines. We are talking about a cure. I know no one who was cured from Covid, thanks to a medication. Medication just mitigates the symptoms. It is always one's immune system.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 10:52:04 am
... but young people also got very sick, and a lot are now strugglinhg with long term health issues that we don't yet understand fully.

You are hiding behind weasel words "also." "some," "a lot" etc. These are media panic-porn headlines. The percentages are miniscule.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 10:54:58 am
...  Hospitals are quick to build - we built three huge ones here. They were never used because hospitals need staff, not just beds...

Covid patients do not need constant attention. Most of the time you just sleep. Doctor's visit once a day. Mostly to appear they can do something.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 11:01:42 am
Forget vaccines. We are talking about a cure. I know no one who was cured from Covid, thanks to a medication. Medication just mitigates the symptoms. It is always one's immune system.

You'll be pleased to know that a cure is coming.

Quote
Therapeutic applications for CRISPR are on the rise, with the technology playing a key role in the development of potential cures for a variety of genetic diseases by directly editing the genome. Meanwhile, taking a different approach and looking outside the human genome, researchers from Stanford University (CA, USA) are working towards a CRISPR-based therapeutic for infectious disease. Beginning their work targeting the influenza virus, the team have followed suit of many before them and refocused the aim of their gene-targeting antiviral agent towards COVID-19 and the global battle against the pandemic.

The Prophylactic Antiviral CRISPR in huMAN cells – or PAC-MAN – technology includes the Cas13 enzyme and a strand of gRNA that is specific to nucleotide sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. In targeting and subsequently destroying the viral genome, PAC-MAN technology effectively eliminates the threat of the virus by preventing viral replication. Further, by targeting RNA sequences that are conserved across all members of the Coronaviridae family, the researchers suggest that PAC-MAN could become a pan-coronavirus inhibition strategy that is effective against all disease-causing coronaviruses.

https://www.future-science.com/doi/10.2144/btn-2020-0145
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 am
You'll be pleased to know that a cure is coming...

Which is just a confirmation that it doesn't exist today.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 11:30:39 am
... What is kind of ironic is that you seem happy to sacrifice millions of lives on the altar of ideological purity?...

It only appears to you so, because you are obsessed only with direct deaths from Covid, while I look at the much broader measure of overall casualties, mostly due to our misguided  response to Covid (see how my vocabulary has mellowed? - in the past I would say "idiotic"  :) )
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: LesPalenik on April 06, 2021, 11:48:29 am
Which is just a confirmation that it doesn't exist today.

and also it is an entirely different matter than the previously discussed comparison of CC19 with Spanish flu.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 06, 2021, 12:01:26 pm
and also it is an entirely different matter than the previously discussed comparison of CC19 with Spanish flu.

As well as completely different matter than Biden's dog having more bite than the owner ;)
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: dreed on April 06, 2021, 12:06:31 pm
Not reduced... just postponed... that your and many other countries have to resort to 3rd or 4th lockdown is a proof of that. Just like masks. Since one is not effective, the current advice is two or even three. As demonstrated before, countries with stricter lockdowns do not have better (and often worse) results than those with more lax (or none). The same goes with strict vs. lax mask mandates.

The problem with statements like this is that it can be shown to be wrong wtih some good examples: Australia, China, New Zealand and Vietnam.

There is now close to 0 community transmission of SARS-CoV-19 in Australia, China, New Zealand and Vietnam.

The problem was only gotten on top of in Wuhan by a very strict lockdown and that worked.

Summary: lockdowns work.

For lockdowns to work there are some essential requirements:
- the area being locked down has to have a reduced number of people entering and leaving that area to critical people only (transport workers for freight, etc)
- people within the locked down zone also need to limit travel, curfews are one way of doing that
- they need to be long enough to get to the point of 0 unknown causes of infection (this can take 2-3 months)

Which is to say that if California went into "lockdown" but still allowed people to fly in from Florida or NYC or Houston then it is not going to be very effective because you've still got the potential for new infection to arrive by plane.

The Spanish Flu was limited to traveling between continents by boat. SARS-CoV-19 gets a free ride on planes that will take it from one side of the planet to the other before a victim because symptomatic.

Mask wearing was part of how the Spanish Flu was defeated.
Title: Re: Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine
Post by: jeremyrh on April 06, 2021, 12:23:59 pm