Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[PeterAit]

LOL man.  You can't make your point using math or statistics, just admit it—every time you turn to statistics, you make a mess of it.  In essence you just want to show that C-19 is no more deadly than the flu to 0 through 50 year olds for no logical reason.

The math is just not on your side though. Even when compared to a well above average flu season death rate, COVID-19 kills far more people under age 50 and in 2021 COVID-19 was twice as deadly than 2020 for the under-50 population.

You're a serial spreader of misinformation regarding medical science as well as statistics. I don't take any of what you post on those topics seriously, but I use my valued time to hopefully give the gullible better resources for information with links to credible sources.

JK is of course wrong - his stock in trade. Covid deaths the same as the flu? Let's see. According to the CDC, during 2020 and 2021 (to Dec 1) there were, in the 40-49 year old age group, 33,168 covid-related deaths and 514 flu-related deaths. Among 18-29 YO folks it was 4,618 vs 150.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge

And JK thinks these numbers are equal! Well, he's good for a laugh now and then.

[TechTalk]

Cutting through the fluff, a 6 hour old uopdate on the new variant from one Katelyn Jetalina. Highly recommended.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/new-concerning-variant-b11529

Thanks for posting this link. Reading information from an expert epidemiologist like Katelyn Jetelina is certainly a far more worthwhile use of time than reading BS that is posted online. It helps that she writes in an easy to understand style for the general public on her Your Local Epidemiologist blog.

Here is her latest Omicron update from today.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/omicron-update-dec-2

She is also an editor for one of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) publications which prompted me to take a look at their primary website. BMJ is worth exploring.

They have an interesting new article which includes an interactive infographic for visualizing SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and mitigations linked below.

https://www.bmj.com/content/Dec. 1 2021/Visualising SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and mitigations

[LesPalenik]

Do you wear a mask when you dance at home or only when you have sex? 

I thought that you are supposed to wear something else than mask when having sex.

[chez]

COmparing Covid in 2020/2021 should be compared to earlier flu seasons like 2018/2019.  Since everyone was isolated last year in 2020/2021, flu nearly died out.  S0 it would be a unique year to compare Covid to flu.

I believe Tech had some comparisons...but again it would not be an equal to compare flu 2018/2019 to Covid 2020/2021 since with Covid we had some many restrictions in place that not only reduced the flu deaths...but most likely drastically reduced the number of Covid deaths. I'd think we would have at least twice as many Covid deaths if non of the restrictions were applied. In fact, we could get a pretty good approximation of how effective these restriction were on Covid by comparing the flu deaths of 20/21 with the flu deaths of 18/19.

[TechTalk]

I suspect that 2021 flu numbers will be similar to 2020. Or did it get worse?

I just posted on this topic yesterday with links to flu data from 2010 to now. Those posts are here and here.

For those that aren't following along...

U.S. Flu Deaths By Flu Season (52-Weeks from Oct. to Sept.) or  Calendar Year

• Flu Season Deaths 2010-2011 = 36,656  (Ages 0-49 = 5,592 - 15.3% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2011-2012 = 12,447  (Ages 0-49 = 744 - 6.0% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2012-2013 = 42,570  (Ages 0-49 = 3,233 - 7.6% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2013-2014 = 37,930  (Ages 0-49 = 3,552 - 9.4% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2014-2015 = 51,376  (Ages 0-49 = 1,788 - 3.5% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2015-2016 = 22,705  (Ages 0-49 = 1,971 - 8.7% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2016-2017 = 38,230  (Ages 0-49 = 1,616 - 4.2% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2017-2018 = 51,646  (Ages 0-49 = 2,781 - 5.4% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2018-2019 = 27,619  (Ages 0-49 = 1,962 - 7.1% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Season Deaths 2019-2020 = 20,342  (Ages 0-49 = 2,670 - 13.1% of All Flu Deaths)

TOTAL Flu Season Deaths 2010-2011 thru 2019-2020 = 341,521 (Ages 0-49 = 25,909)

AVERAGE Flu Season Deaths 2010-2011 thru 2019-2020 = 34,152 (Ages 0-49 = 2,591 - 7.6% Average of All Flu Deaths)

• Flu Deaths for Calendar Year 2020 = 8,786  (Ages: 0-49 = 1,127 - 12.8% of All Flu Deaths)
• Flu Deaths for Calendar Year 2021 (As of 12/1/2021) = 676  (Ages: 0-49 = 53 - 7.8% of All Flu Deaths)

• COVID-19 Deaths for Calendar Year 2020 = 385,338  (Ages: 0-49 = 17,283 - 4.5% of All COVID-19 Deaths)
• COVID-19 Deaths for Calendar Year 2021 (As of 12/1/2021) = 394,064  (Ages: 0-49 = 34,771 - 8.8% of All COVID-19 Deaths)

This page has links to statistics for all flu seasons from 2010-2011 thru 2019-2020: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2012-2013.html

This page has statistics for Pneumonia/ Influenza/ COVID-19 for 2020 thru 2021 (updated frequently): https://www.cdc.gov/2020-2021/Pnuemonia-Influenza-Covid/weekly/index

I'm done supplying anymore statistics for now. People can and will make of them what they wish.

If anyone looks at these death statistics and still wishes to push the narrative that COVID-19 is no deadlier or of more concern than the flu, for any age group, then in my opinion, you would be a fool spreading dangerous misinformation.

* Modified 12/4/2021 - All data now direct from CDC websites. Added percentages to data. Added Totals and Averages to seasonal flu data. Reorganized data to save space and make it easier to read.

[Peter McLennan]

I'm desperate for a break and vacation.

This from a guy who's retired...

[chez]

This from a guy who's retired...

But us retirees have only limited number of vacations left. My wife has Parkinson’s and deteriorates every year. COVID so far has robbed us of two years of travel…very few left.

[TechTalk]

Why do you keep using 2020 when there was little flu because everyone was isolating? 

Explained yesterday. For those that don't like to read, I've highlighted a few key observations.

If "there was little flu because everyone was isolating" and therefore less transmission and spread, one would expect that also had an impact on transmission and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19 disease.  Given that one similarity of both flu and SARS-CoV-2 is that they are transmitted and spread in the same way, with SARS-CoV-2 being even more easily transmitted, it's certainly possible that the COVID-19 death toll and damage could have been much greater.

Fortunately, we'll never know how much worse it could have been than it was. We only know what death and damage it has caused under the circumstances which have existed. Unfortunately, in the war against the pandemic, there are those that have stupidly chosen to be on the side of the pandemic—the anti-vaccination, anti-mask, anti-expert, anti-public health agencies crowd are currently the ones that will blindly continue to make things worse and prevent faster progress in controlling the pandemic.

As for the value or method of comparing COVID-19 to seasonal flu, no matter how you make the comparison, regardless of what years you choose, regardless of the age group—COVID-19 is far deadlier than seasonal flu. To make matters worse, in addition to being far deadlier it is much more easily transmitted and spread.

If someone wants to compare the COVID-19 pandemic to influenza, then I would think comparing to flu pandemics, like the 1918 flu pandemic, is more appropriate. The preparedness and infrastructure that existed for dealing with COVID-19 was created in anticipation of a possible future deadly flu pandemic. Flu can be extremely deadly, we just haven't seen it in a form as deadly as COVID-19 in a hundred years, but in the future we certainly could.

I have no doubt that you believe that the flu statistics for the past two years are "irrelevant" as they don't fit your narrative. You might wish to consider, however, the relevant fact that those are the only two years we have to compare two communicable diseases (COVID-19 and flu) in which they both coexisted for the same population under identical patterns of behavior for both society and that population. If you wish to compare COVID-19 deaths to flu deaths prior to the existence of COVID-19, it would be helpful to acknowledge and understand that societal interactions and population behaviors were very different in those previous years. Frankly, I don't find comparisons of COVID-19 to seasonal flu very useful, but those that want to minimize the deadly nature of COVID-19 keep grasping at the comparison for some reason.

The assertion that you shouldn't compare flu deaths over the past two years to COVID deaths over the past two years makes no sense. They are are the only two years in which flu viruses have existed under the same conditions as SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Did societal and behavioral changes such as masking, social distancing, reduced travel, gathering restrictions, etc. impact flu deaths? It would be an understatement to say that those mitigation strategies appear to have had an overwhelming impact on the extraordinary reduction in deaths involving flu which measures less than 700 for the U.S. to date in 2021 (*676 U.S. deaths involving flu in 2021 as of 12/1/2021). If someone believes that those same mitigation strategies didn't also keep COVID-19 deaths from being a good deal higher than the hundreds of thousands of deaths recorded during the same period, I'd be interested in a logical explanation of why those behavioral changes and mitigation strategies affected the death toll from one disease and not the other.

[Alan Klein]

Explained yesterday. For those that don't like to read, I've highlighted a few key observations.

If "there was little flu because everyone was isolating" and therefore less transmission and spread, one would expect that also had an impact on transmission and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19 disease.  Given that one similarity of both flu and SARS-CoV-2 is that they are transmitted and spread in the same way, with SARS-CoV-2 being even more easily transmitted, it's certainly possible that the COVID-19 death toll and damage could have been much greater.

Fortunately, we'll never know how much worse it could have been than it was. We only know what death and damage it has caused under the circumstances which have existed. Unfortunately, in the war against the pandemic, there are those that have stupidly chosen to be on the side of the pandemic—the anti-vaccination, anti-mask, anti-expert, anti-public health agencies crowd are currently the ones that will blindly continue to make things worse and prevent faster progress in controlling the pandemic.

As for the value or method of comparing COVID-19 to seasonal flu, no matter how you make the comparison, regardless of what years you choose, regardless of the age group—COVID-19 is far deadlier than seasonal flu. To make matters worse, in addition to being far deadlier it is much more easily transmitted and spread.

If someone wants to compare the COVID-19 pandemic to influenza, then I would think comparing to flu pandemics, like the 1918 flu pandemic, is more appropriate. The preparedness and infrastructure that existed for dealing with COVID-19 was created in anticipation of a possible future deadly flu pandemic. Flu can be extremely deadly, we just haven't seen it in a form as deadly as COVID-19 in a hundred years, but in the future we certainly could.

it's too late to bring in Pre 2020 flu statistics in this post. Your original post left them out and used only the atypical 2020 flu figures. So it appears that you cherry-picked the statistics to make your point and put your thumb on the scale. Your point would have been good enough using pre 2020. You should have used them.

So now, going forward, we won't trust you when you start throwing statistics at us. Your arguments will become less believable.  We'lll question whether you're cherry picking them again.

[TechTalk]

Believe whatever suits your fancy.

[James Clark]

it's too late to bring in Pre 2020 flu statistics in this post. Your original post left them out and used only the atypical 2020 flu figures. So it appears that you cherry-picked the statistics to make your point and put your thumb on the scale. Your point would have been good enough using pre 2020. You should have used them.

So now, going forward, we won't trust you when you start throwing statistics at us. Your arguments will become less believable.  We'lll question whether you're cherry picking them again.

Wait.. what?  Using identical time periods to compare 2 viruses that are both spread in similar ways isn't cherry picking.  It's eliminating a variable.  Are you serious with this???

Let's say I'm comparing, I dunno, sports car tires and I do all my testing in Santa Fe, NM where it's sunny for 304 days out of the year.

From previous testing I know Tire A will generate 1.04g of lateral grip on a dry day at about 75 degrees F.  That's been repeated and confirmed dozens of times.   I get Tire B in to test, and it's a wet day, and cold.  Tire B generates .75g and the tire tester slides off the road.  Then I mount and test Tire A again in the same conditions, on the same day but it only generates .70g

What you (and Joe, LOL) are trying to argue is that, because 90% of days aren't rainy and cold, that the second Tire A test is an "outlier" and should be disregarded, and therefore Tire A must be superior because, hey, after all, on a "typical" day (i.e. 90% of the time, days that AREN't "outliers") Tire A pulls over 1/3 more g than Tire B (which was, of course, never tested on a "typical" day).

I get (sort of) why this might make sense in a bizarre sort of rules-lawyery, goofy sort way, if you're trying hard to argue a basically untenable point and grasping at straws, but it's fundamentally irrational unless you want to make the idiotic claim that you just can't REALLY know what effect weather conditions have on Tire A or B.

[chez]

it's too late to bring in Pre 2020 flu statistics in this post. Your original post left them out and used only the atypical 2020 flu figures. So it appears that you cherry-picked the statistics to make your point and put your thumb on the scale. Your point would have been good enough using pre 2020. You should have used them.

So now, going forward, we won't trust you when you start throwing statistics at us. Your arguments will become less believable.  We'lll question whether you're cherry picking them again.

Alan, are you serious? Stop and think why 20/21 are such lower flu years. Maybe because those measures put in place to help control COVID spread also helped control the spread of the flu. So in years 20/21, both the flu and COVID deaths were reduced by the exact same measures, so looking directly at the deaths during the exact same years both viruses were present is the most realistic way of comparing the two virus deaths.

Think about it for a bit and it’ll come to you. You appear to be an intelligent person.

[PeterAit]

Wait.. what?  Using identical time periods to compare 2 viruses that are both spread in similar ways isn't cherry picking.  It's eliminating a variable.  Are you serious with this???

You and TechTalk are exactly right. You must, if possible, use identical conditions which in this case means the same time period when isolation and other factors were in play equally. And since covid has been with us for only 2 years we must use that time period.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, are you serious? Stop and think why 20/21 are such lower flu years. Maybe because those measures put in place to help control COVID spread also helped control the spread of the flu. So in years 20/21, both the flu and COVID deaths were reduced by the exact same measures, so looking directly at the deaths during the exact same years both viruses were present is the most realistic way of comparing the two virus deaths.

Think about it for a bit and it’ll come to you. You appear to be an intelligent person.

Deaths from airplane accidents went down as well as flu in 2020 due to measures taken by the government.  But you want to compare things to normalcy, at least in addition to current figures for 2020.

The fact is he cherry-picked the statistics to make Covid look worse. We all do that.  We pick articles and statistics to prove our opinion and leave it to the other side to prove theirs.  I'm just pointing out that he's no different than the rest of us.  We have to take his arguments with a grain of salt. 

[Robert Roaldi]

... The fact is he cherry-picked the statistics to make Covid look worse. ...

No, he didn't.

[Alan Klein]

You and TechTalk are exactly right. You must, if possible, use identical conditions which in this case means the same time period when isolation and other factors were in play equally. And since covid has been with us for only 2 years we must use that time period.

Well then, due to measures taken by the government for Covid, auto deaths and accidents are up in 2020. Another example of the incompetency of the government and its mandates.

Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2020 Estimated to be Highest in 13 Years, Despite Dramatic Drops in Miles Driven
A 24% spike in roadway death rates is highest in 96 years; NSC calls on President Biden to commit to zero deaths immediately.
 
Itasca, IL – For the first time since 2007, preliminary data from the National Safety Council show that as many as 42,060 people are estimated to have died in motor vehicle crashes in 2020. That marks an 8% increase over 2019 in a year where people drove significantly less frequently because of the pandemic. The preliminary estimated rate of death on the roads last year spiked 24% over the previous 12-month period, despite miles driven dropping 13%. The increase in the rate of death is the highest estimated year-over-year jump that NSC has calculated since 1924 – 96 years. It underscores the nation’s persistent failure to prioritize safety on the roads, which became emptier but far more deadly. 

An estimated 4.8 million additional roadway users were seriously injured in crashes in 2020, and the estimated cost to society was $474 billion. With the alarming picture painted by these data, NSC is urging President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to commit to zero roadway deaths by 2050 – a call NSC and more than 1,500 other organizations and individuals made in January in a letter to the new administration.
https://www.nsc.org/newsroom/motor-vehicle-deaths-2020-estimated-to-be-highest

[PeterAit]

Deaths from airplane accidents went down as well as flu in 2020 due to measures taken by the government.  But you want to compare things to normalcy, at least in addition to current figures for 2020.

The fact is he cherry-picked the statistics to make Covid look worse. We all do that.  We pick articles and statistics to prove our opinion and leave it to the other side to prove theirs.  I'm just pointing out that he's no different than the rest of us.  We have to take his arguments with a grain of salt.

But you DON'T want to compare things to normalcy--when there was no covid. You want to compare one disease to another.

[Alan Klein]

No, he didn't.

That's your opinion.  Why do you think you only have the facts and the truth?  We all just pick the facts like everyone else to support our viewpoints.  DIfferent facts support different viewpoints, that's why we have opinions.  No one has a monopoly on the truth.  Which is a better camera?  Canon or Nikon?  A better film?  A better way to scan?   

So Tech picked one way of looking at it.  I say a better measure is to compare flu to normal years when the government isn't interfering.  After all, the measures taken in 2020 weren't for the flu but for COvid.  So let's compare to years when normal measures were taken for the flu against Covid when "normal" measures were taken for it. 

[Robert Roaldi]

... when the government isn't interfering ...

Well, at least you're not embarrassed to display your bias, I'll give you that.

It's usually better not to decide the outcome beforehand if you want to truly understand things.

[Alan Klein]

But you DON'T want to compare things to normalcy--when there was no covid. You want to compare one disease to another.

No.  In my opinion, you want to compare each disease's statistics when normal operations are done for that disease.  In the case of Covid that was 2020.  In the case of flu, that was prior years.  Let's say there were no deaths from flu in 2020 because of measures taken for COvid.  How could you even compare deaths if you only use 2020 statistics?  Frankly, the best way to show the figures are to show both sets - 2020 and prior.  Then everyone would have a better handle on what happened during both periods.  Tell the truth but tell all the truth.