Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Alan Klein]

Your personal attacks on other members being no exception.

If I've done it then I was wrong and I apologize.  But the personal attacks on me have been vicious and continuous.   

[Robert Roaldi]

There aren't any studies of that specifically of which I'm aware. I think it's likely too early to have enough data. I've never felt that comparison of the two diseases is of much value as they are different diseases with different characteristics. I realize that the comparison is of interest and has been made several times here, likely due to the fact that one characteristic they share is that they are both airborne viruses and exposure occurs in that manner. Also, either is capable of causing serious deadly pandemics.

I've posted statistics before on flu and COVID-19. Now that CDC has data on two complete years of COVID-19, I may post an update of those. I compiled those only because of the dangerous assertion made that, for those in their 40s or younger, COVID-19 was of no more concern than the flu. No doubt, there are some that still believe this notion.

I appreciate those points. My interest is solely to have a reference or thread post at which to point to the next time someone says it's just a flu, since apparently approx 400,000 deaths per year isn't enough evidence. Luckily, I haven't seen that kind of statement lately so maybe there has been some progress.

[TechTalk]

Yours was a valuable question to ask. Maybe some progress has been made. Let's continue to hope we won't see more of that kind of dangerous misinformation spread here.

[Alan Klein]

Yours was a valuable question to ask. Maybe some progress has been made. Let's continue to hope we won't see more of that kind of dangerous misinformation spread here.

I don't recall the original comparisons made as being dangerous, certainly not deliberately.  It was early in the disease.  There were honest differences in opinions on how bad Covid would become.  Comparing to the regular flu was a reasonable thing to do when you consider that we've had some seasons when 50-60K people died from it.  No one ever shut down communities or made people wear masks because of it.   Did the CDC recommend no masks required in the beginning although we now know it was because they were trying to reserve them for the medical community? 

I think going forward, if deaths from Covid continue every year with different strains but at a much lower rate, might be compared to regular flu and treated similarly.  People will die but there will be no shutdowns.  Masks will probably be recommended to be used.  And those most vulnerable will be told to isolate themselves.  Of course, we might get lucky and Covid will disappear altogether.

[TechTalk]

As the statistics at the bottom of the previous page show, there is a great deal of variation from year to year with viruses that continually mutate like influenza or SARS-CoV-2 which causes COVID-19 disease. Over the ten years prior to the appearance of COVID-19, annual U.S. estimated flu deaths ranged from 12,447 to 51,646. The percentage of flu deaths comprised of those in the age range of 0-49 varied from 3.5% to 15.3%.

For the flu season 2010-2011, the 36,656 total flu season deaths were close to the average of 34,152; but for ages 0-49, this age group comprised 15.3% of all flu deaths, more than double the average of 7.6%. In 2014-2015, with a well above average number of total deaths at 51,376, ages 0-49 comprised just 3.5% of all flu deaths. This is why I stated that you can average flu statistics, but no flu year is typical. The variations from year-to-year are unpredictable and widespread.

While epidemiologists create models for infectious diseases to forecast trends, they do so with the knowledge and understanding that a model's forecast is limited by variables which are unpredictable and over which they have no control. Three major variables are the pathogen (how a virus may mutate and evolve in virulence or transmission), the host (level of immunity to existing or emerging virus variants thru acquired active immunity, induced by vaccination or previous exposure, or innate immune response), and environment (level of community immunity, availability and uptake of effective vaccines, public health interventions, public response, etc.).

It comes with the territory that statistical modeling is limited by variables which are unpredictable. Modeling by experts in their field; whether those are epidemiologists, meteorologists, or some other discipline are nonetheless valuable in advising planning and responses to events.

Predictions made by those without the knowledge, experience, or expertise to do so—such as those you find online or from commentators elsewhere—are of little to no informative or useful value to anyone but themselves. As always—buyer beware of the goods being offered.

[Alan Klein]

As the statistics at the bottom of the previous page show, there is a great deal of variation from year to year with viruses that continually mutate like influenza or SARS-CoV-2 which causes COVID-19 disease. Over the ten years prior to the appearance of COVID-19, annual U.S. estimated flu deaths ranged from 12,447 to 51,646. The percentage of flu deaths comprised of those in the age range of 0-49 varied from 3.5% to 15.3%.

For the flu season 2010-2011, the 36,656 total flu season deaths were close to the average of 34,152; but for ages 0-49, this age group comprised 15.3% of all flu deaths, more than double the average of 7.6%. In 2014-2015, with a well above average number of total deaths at 51,376, ages 0-49 comprised just 3.5% of all flu deaths. This is why I stated that you can average flu statistics, but no flu year is typical. The variations from year-to-year are unpredictable and widespread.

While epidemiologists create models for infectious diseases to forecast trends, they do so with the knowledge and understanding that a model's forecast is limited by variables which are unpredictable and over which they have no control. Three major variables are the pathogen (how a virus may mutate and evolve in virulence or transmission), the host (level of immunity to existing or emerging virus variants thru acquired active immunity, induced by vaccination or previous exposure, or innate immune response), and environment (level of community immunity, availability and uptake of effective vaccines, public health interventions, public response, etc.).

It comes with the territory that statistical modeling is limited by variables which are unpredictable. Modeling by experts in their field; whether those are epidemiologists, meteorologists, or some other discipline are nonetheless valuable in advising planning and responses to events.

Predictions made by those without the knowledge, experience, or expertise to do so—such as those you find online or from commentators elsewhere—are of little to no informative or useful value to anyone but themselves. As always—buyer beware of the goods being offered.

This is the Coffee Corner section of a photo forum website.  People give their opinions on all sorts of topics they are inexperienced in. Frankly, I would be suspect of most opinions here given on photography. 

[TechTalk]

Your photography or advice on photography is not a serious health liability to others—so, far as I know.

[TechTalk]

I don't recall the original comparisons made as being dangerous, certainly not deliberately. It was early in the disease.

I was referring to comments made less than two months ago like, "For those under 45, the fatality rate is comparable to the flu". The fatality rate of COVID-19 is nothing like seasonal flu.

[Alan Klein]

Your photography or advice on photography is not a serious health liability to others—so, far as I know.

Well, my point is we're all photographers.  Who's making serious health decisions on what posters you don't really know say here?  In any case we hear all sorts of stuff on the news and from friends and family and strangers as well.  We all have to sort through the chatter.  If you only limit posts by people with degrees in the subject, there would be few posts.  And what we've seen from the medical community has not given me much application what many of them recommend in any case. 

[Alan Klein]

I was referring to comments made less than two months ago like, "For those under 45, the fatality rate is comparable to the flu". The fatality rate of COVID-19 is nothing like seasonal flu.

Everyone here makes mistakes or present things out of context regarding certain facts and figures or reads things that might not be clear and repeats them here. We all have been selective in the figures we present.  How is that killing anyone?  Who operated differently based on what they read on LuLa?  How many people did Fauci kill when he told everyone masks aren't required?  I think there's a little bit of blaming the victims who are only trying to live and get on with their lives.  Blame China. They started it.

[TechTalk]

...Who's making serious health decisions on what posters you don't really know say here?  In any case we hear all sorts of stuff on the news and from friends and family and strangers as well.  We all have to sort through the chatter.  If you only limit posts by people with degrees in the subject, there would be few posts...

Misinformation posted in one place online is routinely picked up and spread around other places online and thru social media with gusto and reckless abandon. That's why many members have given some of their time and energy to correct misinformation with information from knowledgeable and reliable sources. No degree is required to do that.

No one has ever suggested the need to "limit posts by people with degrees in the subject". Such drama! I'm moving on.

[digitaldog]

Your photography or advice on photography is not a serious health liability to others—so, far as I know.

Only a serious health liability of pixels from highlights clipping from a misunderstanding of basic photographic exposure. 😝

[James Clark]

If I've done it then I was wrong and I apologize.  But the personal attacks on me have been vicious and continuous.

Honestly, Im forced to agree with Alan here.  I understand that he moves goalposts and is next to impossible to pin down (sorry, Alan), but as far as direct insults to other forum members?  Alan takes far more than he gives out.  As frustrating as it may be to argue here, we would all do well to chill out a little, and cut down on the contempt, myself included.

[digitaldog]

"We avenge intellect when we dupe a fool, and it is a victory not to be despised." -Giacomo Girolamo Casanova

[TechTalk]

but as far as direct insults to other forum members?

Well documented with other forum members on multiple occasions, myself included. They range from calling other members liars, a coward, attributing ugly racist thoughts to others, and a false attribution of a racist statement that was never made. Any sympathy has been eroded by these acts.

[James Clark]

Well documented with other forum members on multiple occasions, myself included. They range from calling other members liars, a coward, attributing ugly racist thoughts to others, and a false attribution of a racist statement that was never made. Any sympathy has been eroded by these acts.

I'm not saying anyone is free of blame.  I'm asking if a reset might be in order

[digitaldog]

I'm not saying anyone is free of blame.  I'm asking if a reset might be in order

Based on the hundreds of comments well summarized by TechTalk, impossible and pointless. Attempted without any degree of success nearly a year ago. Go to the “bear pit” and examples of empty-headedness, massive confirmation bias, mistruths, posting hijacks and racial dog whistles are there for anyone who can slog through it to witness.

[Manoli]

I'm not saying anyone is free of blame.  I'm asking if a reset might be in order

Perhaps you should address that suggestion to the, now ex-members, egregiously and erroneously insulted by der Kleine’s antics.

All the 'little one' had to do was retract and proffer, at the very least, a desultory apology and the matter would have probably faded away. Instead, he took to taking a leaf out of the Trump playbook and persist in abject foolishness.

Well documented with other forum members on multiple occasions, myself included. They range from calling other members liars, a coward, attributing ugly racist thoughts to others, and a false attribution of a racist statement that was never made. Any sympathy has been eroded by these acts.

Based on the hundreds of comments well summarized by TechTalk, impossible and pointless. Attempted without any degree of success nearly a year ago. Go to the “bear pit” and examples of empty-headedness, massive confirmation bias, mistruths, posting hijacks and racial dog whistles are there for anyone who can slog through it to witness.

[Alan Klein]

Honestly, Im forced to agree with Alan here.  I understand that he moves goalposts and is next to impossible to pin down (sorry, Alan), but as far as direct insults to other forum members?  Alan takes far more than he gives out.  As frustrating as it may be to argue here, we would all do well to chill out a little, and cut down on the contempt, myself included.

That was nice of you to say James. I appreciate it. The thing is I'm kind of a contrarian. I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. It's challenging and makes me and you think. Plus if everybody thought the same here and had the same opinion, there really wouldn't be anything to discuss.  How boring that would be. It would be like 6 photographers lining up on Inspiration Point to get the same shot of Yosemite.

[Alan Klein]

I'm not saying anyone is free of blame.  I'm asking if a reset might be in order

I'm for a reset. That's a good idea.