|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety.
While what you are saying is all true, it is important to remember that we developed our current testing standards for vaccines because of experiences. We were shown it is necessary to test rigorously.
|
On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety.
How do you know COVID-19 is more contageous than flu? Deadlier, yes. But you need to prove it is more contageous.
|
On April 29 2020 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety. While what you are saying is all true, it is important to remember that we developed our current testing standards for vaccines because of experiences. We were shown it is necessary to test rigorously.
Are you suggesting that I am advocating for a rushed unsafe vaccine? I'm not!
Test that shit thoroughly, make sure it's safe. But when it is available, when it is labeled as safe, every person even someone like me that is absolutely TERRIFIED of shots (seriously I pass out every time) should be willing and want to stand in line to receive one.
It is the safest way for us to be rid of this horrible inconvenient disease. The sooner the better.
And that's a big IF we can even develop one. I've been reading plenty lately on how difficult it is to even vaccinate against corona viruses. If this virus behaves like others do, it might not even be possible at all, and in that case we are truly fucked.
|
On April 29 2020 01:32 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety. How do you know COVID-19 is more contageous than flu? Deadlier, yes. But you need to prove it is more contageous.
The flu has a R0 of 1. This has an R0 of 2.2 source:https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-contagious-r-naught-average-patient-spread-2020-3
|
On April 28 2020 22:59 Vindicare605 wrote:
So we're officially at 1918 again. It might not kill children outright, but the fact it leaves them so vulnerable, it may as well.
100 year epidemic. The experts have been warning us about if for years. I guess they were just off by 2 years.
The risk for childeren from Covid is still very very low, statistics in a lot of countries prove. The article is sensational. 'A rise' in cases of a rare inflammatory effect related to Kawasaki disease can be as small as a few people. It doesn't have to mean it's a big effect
This is what NHS director said
NHS England’s national medical director Steve Powis said: “We have become aware in the last few days of reports of severe illness in children which might be a Kawasaki-like disease.
“Kawasaki disease is a very rare inflammatory condition that occurs in children. The cause is not often known — it can be related to a number of things.
“It’s only in the last few days that we’ve seen those reports… I’ve asked the national clinical director for children and young people to look into this as a matter of urgency.
“I know the secretary of state is concerned, as he said, [and] I know Public Health England [is] also looking into this.”
Professor Powis said “our experts” had been asked “to see whether they can establish” what was causing the cases. “They’re not sure at the moment. It’s really too early to say whether there is a link, but what I should say — as we said already this afternoon — is our advice to parents is this sort of disease is very, very rare. source
|
On April 29 2020 01:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 22:59 Vindicare605 wrote:
So we're officially at 1918 again. It might not kill children outright, but the fact it leaves them so vulnerable, it may as well.
100 year epidemic. The experts have been warning us about if for years. I guess they were just off by 2 years. The risk for childeren from Covid is still very very low, statistics in a lot of countries prove. The article is sensational. 'A rise' in cases of a rare inflammatory effect related to Kawasaki disease can be as small as a few people. It doesn't have to mean it's a big effect This is what NHS director said Show nested quote +NHS England’s national medical director Steve Powis said: “We have become aware in the last few days of reports of severe illness in children which might be a Kawasaki-like disease.
“Kawasaki disease is a very rare inflammatory condition that occurs in children. The cause is not often known — it can be related to a number of things.
“It’s only in the last few days that we’ve seen those reports… I’ve asked the national clinical director for children and young people to look into this as a matter of urgency.
“I know the secretary of state is concerned, as he said, [and] I know Public Health England [is] also looking into this.”
Professor Powis said “our experts” had been asked “to see whether they can establish” what was causing the cases. “They’re not sure at the moment. It’s really too early to say whether there is a link, but what I should say — as we said already this afternoon — is our advice to parents is this sort of disease is very, very rare. source
At this point I think it's safe to say that it's better to not rule anything out.
Children that contract the disease are still more than capable of carrying it to their parents. Even if it turns out that kids are safe despite what the one study says, it's still better to protect them from getting it in the first place.
|
|
|
On April 29 2020 01:35 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety. While what you are saying is all true, it is important to remember that we developed our current testing standards for vaccines because of experiences. We were shown it is necessary to test rigorously. Are you suggesting that I am advocating for a rushed unsafe vaccine? I'm not! Test that shit thoroughly, make sure it's safe. But when it is available, when it is labeled as safe, every person even someone like me that is absolutely TERRIFIED of shots (seriously I pass out every time) should be willing and want to stand in line to receive one. It is the safest way for us to be rid of this horrible inconvenient disease. The sooner the better. And that's a big IF we can even develop one. I've been reading plenty lately on how difficult it is to even vaccinate against corona viruses. If this virus behaves like others do, it might not even be possible at all, and in that case we are truly fucked.
Given the economic impact you can be pretty sure that it will be rushed and it will be labeled as safe.
I have 0 issues with getting shots and I love vaccines. I always take any recommended vaccines for travel/work and just in general.
I will probably not be taking this vaccine when it comes out. Most vaccines have been taken by (hundreds) of millions of people with extremely long follow ups and are for far more dangerous diseases (for me).
% of deaths (in Sweden) by age group looks like this as of today. Note that there are probably some minor error in the total due to me rounding things.
0-9: 0 %
10-19: 0 %
20-29: 0,2 %
30-39: 0.3 %
40-49: 1 %
50-59: 3 %
60-69: 8 %
70-79: 23 %
80-89: 42 %
90+: 23 %
Statistically speaking the risk of death is very small for younger individuals. I think risk groups and volunteers should take it in large quantities first and then the rest of the population can wait to make sure there are no late term and rare side effects. Then I will happily take it.
|
On April 29 2020 01:51 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 01:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 28 2020 22:59 Vindicare605 wrote:
So we're officially at 1918 again. It might not kill children outright, but the fact it leaves them so vulnerable, it may as well.
100 year epidemic. The experts have been warning us about if for years. I guess they were just off by 2 years. The risk for childeren from Covid is still very very low, statistics in a lot of countries prove. The article is sensational. 'A rise' in cases of a rare inflammatory effect related to Kawasaki disease can be as small as a few people. It doesn't have to mean it's a big effect This is what NHS director said NHS England’s national medical director Steve Powis said: “We have become aware in the last few days of reports of severe illness in children which might be a Kawasaki-like disease.
“Kawasaki disease is a very rare inflammatory condition that occurs in children. The cause is not often known — it can be related to a number of things.
“It’s only in the last few days that we’ve seen those reports… I’ve asked the national clinical director for children and young people to look into this as a matter of urgency.
“I know the secretary of state is concerned, as he said, [and] I know Public Health England [is] also looking into this.”
Professor Powis said “our experts” had been asked “to see whether they can establish” what was causing the cases. “They’re not sure at the moment. It’s really too early to say whether there is a link, but what I should say — as we said already this afternoon — is our advice to parents is this sort of disease is very, very rare. source At this point I think it's safe to say that it's better to not rule anything out. Children that contract the disease are still more than capable of carrying it to their parents. Even if it turns out that kids are safe despite what the one study says, it's still better to protect them from getting it in the first place.
In Iceland, the numbers found it unlikely that children carry the virus to anybody, having kept their kindergartens open. That children are prime transporters of Corona is a myth. Iceland does not have the biggest population, but Finland also kept their kindergartens open and dealt very well with the pandemic. This is the reason why they are opening up in Denmark and Norway.
Closing institutions for the youngest kids seems to be one of most expensive and least effective ways to fight this virus.
|
Lalalaland34495 Posts
Just a reminder to try to link sources when possible.
We always knew that children seem to be relatively asymptomatic and had less severe infections compared to adults. We don't really know why, but it may have to do with a younger more naive immune system. Assumptions up till now were that children were reservoirs for infection, making them high risk vectors of transmission to parents and to elderly.
I'm assuming the source of your statements, Slydie, is this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100. I hadn't come across it before today. Scanning through it now, it is easy to conclude that children are less likely to have the infection, and are less likely to transmit it, as you say:
Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older.
...
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males.
That sounds great, but at the same time, is this because of the method of testing? They only do RNA testing from the oropharynx, and not antibody testing to check for previous infection. What if it's because kids are great at fighting off the virus to the point that overall prevalence is lower? They appear to question this as well:
Young children and females were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults and males. Whether the lower incidence of positive results in these two groups resulted from less exposure to the virus or from biologic resistance is not known. In other studies, investigators have found that infected children and females were less likely to have severe disease than adults and males, respectively.
One of the authors of that paper gives an interview here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/. What does catch my eye is,
Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.
If that's true, as you claim Slydie, then that's fascinating.
|
On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety.
If the risk of a vaccine for this disease to cause serious consequences is higher than 0,5% the logical thing for me would be to not take it. If it instead was for something like smallpox a 0,5% chance of dying should mandate taking the vaccine.
Secondly, I live in an area that has had a large outbreak and I personally had flu like symptoms. This makes me assume I had the disease (though still act as if I havn't). Which would further tip the scale towards not taking the vaccine (I would expect 0,01% or lower risk for major complications) since it would risk the complications with minor benefits. If testing becomes available that says I only had the normal flu (likely) then that would once again tip it towards getting the vaccine, though not at a risk higher than the initial one.
As for your point of lethality, yes it is more lethal. That does not automatically mean a vaccine is better. It needs proper testing, which the first waves of vaccines will (likely) not have.
As I said, if I was 30 years older and thus in a high risk group it would be very logical to take the vaccine since it would have to be one of the worst vaccines ever to not be worth taking. Likely complications would be a lower % compared to the more serious one of dying.
|
On April 29 2020 02:36 Firebolt145 wrote:Just a reminder to try to link sources when possible.We always knew that children seem to be relatively asymptomatic and had less severe infections compared to adults. We don't really know why, but it may have to do with a younger more naive immune system. Assumptions up till now were that children were reservoirs for infection, making them high risk vectors of transmission to parents and to elderly. I'm assuming the source of your statements, Slydie, is this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100. I hadn't come across it before today. Scanning through it now, it is easy to conclude that children are less likely to have the infection, and are less likely to transmit it, as you say: Show nested quote +Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older.
...
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males. That sounds great, but at the same time, is this because of the method of testing? They only do RNA testing from the oropharynx, and not antibody testing to check for previous infection. What if it's because kids are great at fighting off the virus to the point that overall prevalence is lower? They appear to question this as well: Show nested quote +Young children and females were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults and males. Whether the lower incidence of positive results in these two groups resulted from less exposure to the virus or from biologic resistance is not known. In other studies, investigators have found that infected children and females were less likely to have severe disease than adults and males, respectively. One of the authors of that paper gives an interview here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/. What does catch my eye is, Show nested quote +Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents. If that's true, as you claim Slydie, then that's fascinating. The Dutch national health agency also did a basic study into how the spread of Covid works with children, to help determine when schools can re-open, and it indeed also found that children were less likely to get sick and less likely to infect others.
Source in Dutch
www.rivm.nl
|
On April 29 2020 05:07 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 00:48 Vindicare605 wrote:On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question. This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown. This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high. There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety. If the risk of a vaccine for this disease to cause serious consequences is higher than 0,5% the logical thing for me would be to not take it. If it instead was for something like smallpox a 0,5% chance of dying should mandate taking the vaccine.. + Show Spoiler +Secondly, I live in an area that has had a large outbreak and I personally had flu like symptoms. This makes me assume I had the disease (though still act as if I havn't). Which would further tip the scale towards not taking the vaccine (I would expect 0,01% or lower risk for major complications) since it would risk the complications with minor benefits. If testing becomes available that says I only had the normal flu (likely) then that would once again tip it towards getting the vaccine, though not at a risk higher than the initial one.
As for your point of lethality, yes it is more lethal. That does not automatically mean a vaccine is better. It needs proper testing, which the first waves of vaccines will (likely) not have.
As I said, if I was 30 years older and thus in a high risk group it would be very logical to take the vaccine since it would have to be one of the worst vaccines ever to not be worth taking. Likely complications would be a lower % compared to the more serious one of dying.
The risk of the vaccine causing serious consequences will be nowhere near 0.5% by the time you take it.
If you are a healthy, young individual who is not a healthcare worker, there will be many millions of people in front of you for any vaccine. By the time it is being offered to the low-risk general public, we will know what the safety profile is.
Vaccines are very different to normal therapeutics. When vaccines go badly wrong they usually cause acute complications that are obvious within days. There are examples of rare, chronic issues that go undetected for a while, but these are only notable because the bar for vaccines is set so high. An adverse event with an incidence of 1 in 100k is negligible in the current situation. To threaten the general public at a level comparable to the virus itself, the vaccine would need to cause a delayed-onset problem at a high rate, with no other acute complications to raise red flags during the rollout. This has never happened.
This is a bit of an annoying topic to find information on because the communication is all oriented at anti-vaxxers, and the risks for a new vaccine in rapid development are certainly higher than for MMR etc. However, they are not that much higher.
If you are concerned, by all means don't volunteer for the trial. If you are high risk, you might choose to maintain isolation for a couple of extra months rather than get it in the first wave. If you are low risk, the rate of adverse events will be known by the time it is even being offered to you, so the back-of-the-envelope guesswork is not necessary.
|
On April 29 2020 02:36 Firebolt145 wrote:Just a reminder to try to link sources when possible.We always knew that children seem to be relatively asymptomatic and had less severe infections compared to adults. We don't really know why, but it may have to do with a younger more naive immune system. Assumptions up till now were that children were reservoirs for infection, making them high risk vectors of transmission to parents and to elderly. I'm assuming the source of your statements, Slydie, is this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100. I hadn't come across it before today. Scanning through it now, it is easy to conclude that children are less likely to have the infection, and are less likely to transmit it, as you say: Show nested quote +Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older.
...
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males. That sounds great, but at the same time, is this because of the method of testing? They only do RNA testing from the oropharynx, and not antibody testing to check for previous infection. What if it's because kids are great at fighting off the virus to the point that overall prevalence is lower? They appear to question this as well: Show nested quote +Young children and females were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults and males. Whether the lower incidence of positive results in these two groups resulted from less exposure to the virus or from biologic resistance is not known. In other studies, investigators have found that infected children and females were less likely to have severe disease than adults and males, respectively. One of the authors of that paper gives an interview here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/. What does catch my eye is, Show nested quote +Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents. If that's true, as you claim Slydie, then that's fascinating.
This is very confusing that children are believed to be at high risk of infection, hence must be protected as much as possible, yet they beat some viruses easily like coronavirus (allegedly) and measles. Is this true from a specific age only? Or, does it depend on a specific virus?
|
You must have confused measles with something else, it is a big children killer still. With the anti-vax some countries had outbreaks again.
|
Lalalaland34495 Posts
children are believed to be at high risk of infection
Unless you mean something specifically, no not really...
|
On April 29 2020 17:53 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 02:36 Firebolt145 wrote:Just a reminder to try to link sources when possible.We always knew that children seem to be relatively asymptomatic and had less severe infections compared to adults. We don't really know why, but it may have to do with a younger more naive immune system. Assumptions up till now were that children were reservoirs for infection, making them high risk vectors of transmission to parents and to elderly. I'm assuming the source of your statements, Slydie, is this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100. I hadn't come across it before today. Scanning through it now, it is easy to conclude that children are less likely to have the infection, and are less likely to transmit it, as you say: Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older.
...
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males. That sounds great, but at the same time, is this because of the method of testing? They only do RNA testing from the oropharynx, and not antibody testing to check for previous infection. What if it's because kids are great at fighting off the virus to the point that overall prevalence is lower? They appear to question this as well: Young children and females were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults and males. Whether the lower incidence of positive results in these two groups resulted from less exposure to the virus or from biologic resistance is not known. In other studies, investigators have found that infected children and females were less likely to have severe disease than adults and males, respectively. One of the authors of that paper gives an interview here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/. What does catch my eye is, Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents. If that's true, as you claim Slydie, then that's fascinating. This is very confusing that children are believed to be at high risk of infection, hence must be protected as much as possible, yet they beat some viruses easily like coronavirus (allegedly) and measles. Is this true from a specific age only? Or, does it depend on a specific virus?
As people above said: you seem confused.
1) Coronavirus seems particularly low risk for children. There is still some confusion about whether they get infected, just not sick, and thus transmit the disease unknowingly, or whether they are not even infectious. New research appears to indicate the latter, but there appears to be no reason to think children are high risk. Covid19 hits the elderly by far the hardest.
2) Measles is very dangerous to children. Don't let anybody tell you it isn't just because it is mostly not a problem because we vaccinate against it. Measles, unlike smallpox (eradicated) or polio (was on its way, but is stalled because of poverty in developing nations and idiots in developed ones), also cannot be eradicated, as there are a number of animals that carry it, and it can at any point jump into humans if we stop vaccinating (and thus lose herd immunity).
Obviously it depends on the virus (and in general, the disease) who it affects and how dangerous it is. Viruses exist in huge varieties causing all kinds of different diseases. Some of these are more problematic in small children, some in pregnant women, some in regular adults and some in elderly adults. Some of these affect men more than women, or vice versa. Some are airborn, some waterborne, others are transmitted by mosquitos or other animals and others are sexually transmitted. And they all have their preferred organs to live in, multiply and ruin.
|
On April 29 2020 20:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 17:53 SC-Shield wrote:On April 29 2020 02:36 Firebolt145 wrote:Just a reminder to try to link sources when possible.We always knew that children seem to be relatively asymptomatic and had less severe infections compared to adults. We don't really know why, but it may have to do with a younger more naive immune system. Assumptions up till now were that children were reservoirs for infection, making them high risk vectors of transmission to parents and to elderly. I'm assuming the source of your statements, Slydie, is this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100. I hadn't come across it before today. Scanning through it now, it is easy to conclude that children are less likely to have the infection, and are less likely to transmit it, as you say: Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older.
...
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males. That sounds great, but at the same time, is this because of the method of testing? They only do RNA testing from the oropharynx, and not antibody testing to check for previous infection. What if it's because kids are great at fighting off the virus to the point that overall prevalence is lower? They appear to question this as well: Young children and females were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults and males. Whether the lower incidence of positive results in these two groups resulted from less exposure to the virus or from biologic resistance is not known. In other studies, investigators have found that infected children and females were less likely to have severe disease than adults and males, respectively. One of the authors of that paper gives an interview here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/. What does catch my eye is, Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents. If that's true, as you claim Slydie, then that's fascinating. This is very confusing that children are believed to be at high risk of infection, hence must be protected as much as possible, yet they beat some viruses easily like coronavirus (allegedly) and measles. Is this true from a specific age only? Or, does it depend on a specific virus? As people above said: you seem confused. 1) Coronavirus seems particularly low risk for children. There is still some confusion about whether they get infected, just not sick, and thus transmit the disease unknowingly, or whether they are not even infectious. New research appears to indicate the latter, but there appears to be no reason to think children are high risk. Covid19 hits the elderly by far the hardest. 2) Measles is very dangerous to children. Don't let anybody tell you it isn't just because it is mostly not a problem because we vaccinate against it. Measles, unlike smallpox (eradicated) or polio (was on its way, but is stalled because of poverty in developing nations and idiots in developed ones), also cannot be eradicated, as there are a number of animals that carry it, and it can at any point jump into humans if we stop vaccinating (and thus lose herd immunity). Obviously it depends on the virus (and in general, the disease) who it affects and how dangerous it is. Viruses exist in huge varieties causing all kinds of different diseases. Some of these are more problematic in small children, some in pregnant women, some in regular adults and some in elderly adults. Some of these affect men more than women, or vice versa. Some are airborn, some waterborne, others are transmitted by mosquitos or other animals and others are sexually transmitted. And they all have their preferred organs to live in, multiply and ruin.
Maybe it's my mistake, I thought measles is a sinonym of pox/smallpox. That's why I said it's easier for children than for adults. Thanks for clarification.
Edit: Super confusing stuff when I check Wikipedia in my language. Literally "big pox" is called "smallpox" in English, while "small pox" is called "measles" in English. So they're both some sort of pox. There's a probably good explanation for this reverse of names, but maybe doctors know why.
Abstract
Smallpox and measles have ravaged native populations worldwide for centuries. Millions of people have succumbed to smallpox or measles or suffered from their effects. Clinicians wonder how their predecessors confused measles with smallpox. The difficulty was in differentiating smallpox and measles in their early phases, which had important public health implications. The prodromal rash of smallpox sometimes resembled measles. Clinicians through the ages learned to differentiate smallpox and measles in their early stages. Osler's careful clinical description of prodromal smallpox is a classic in infectious diseases. Koplik's appreciation of the diagnostic significance of the spots on the buccal mucosa was another advance in the early diagnosis of measles. The clinical features and effects of measles and smallpox on history are reviewed.
Maybe because of this confusion names are reversed? Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15081506
|
Yeah, those things are translated really weirdly.
In german, we have pox (english smallpox) and windy pox (english chickenpox). Measles are not a pox here, though.
Is there a pox or big pox in english?
|
On April 29 2020 23:01 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, those things are translated really weirdly.
In german, we have pox (english smallpox) and windy pox (english chickenpox). Measles are not a pox here, though.
Is there a pox or big pox in english?
No you basically covered it. In English your pox is called small pox (due to the smaller size of the boils) and chickenpox is just called that. Measles are a bit different because they are a more serious version of chickenpox (doctors correct me if I'm wrong) as far as I know. Measles can be lethal, chickenpox never are, although I've had them and I can attest firsthand to how miserable they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
