|
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 January 09 2021 09:29 BlackJack wrote:
The news story from a few days ago where the hospital freezer broke down and they had hours to give out vaccines before the doses expired and they were able to give out as many doses in a matter of 2 hours that they had given out in the previous 2 weeks just shows how quickly the vaccination can be done. I really can't find much information on the allocation of doses, for example how many doses Pfizer has on hand, how many they will allocate, how many they can produce in a day, etc. I really hope that that's the bottleneck that's keeping a mass vaccination from happening and it's not just so slow because they want to make sure every single dose is given in the exact order of prioritization from A to Z
So long as this process ramps up and hits appropriate rates soon, I’m fine with it. They will presumably eventually catch up to their supply and be waiting on more. This is a failure and people will die because of it, since every vaccination can prevent more and more infections, but I’ll be less mad if they eventually catches up
|
Poland started vaccinating but there are so many people spewing conspiracy thoeries ("it's rushed, untested and dangerous" "it'll change my DNA" "it's a big pharma/EU/government conspiracy to make us sick" etc. etc.) and/or saying they won't get vaccinated that I just want to go into a forest and scream for days and days.
|
Same here. I have those people in my job, in my own project, in my own team. Crazy and scary.
|
|
|
On January 10 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:
We have a fair bit of it going around here as well. What boggles my mind is there is a huge crossover between the do nothing and no masks because of the economy crowd, who are also anti vax. Vax is like the silver bullet (not quite but for effect) for the economy being unhindered so it is clear it was an excuse and not the real reason they were against it. You could use their facebook feed from like 3 months ago to argue with their facebook feed now!
(this is not a shot at people on this thread, many here have had a more nuanced position than I am describing)
I think the major effect here is people who want to not be in a pandemic, and who notice the pandemic mostly through the effects to stop/reduce it. So they convince themselves that the pandemic isn't actually a problem, but the stuff done about the pandemic is.
And the vax stuff is apparently really hard to deal with for traditional media. There are/were some legitimate concerns, and a lot of crazy concerns. And the more the media talks about possible concerns, even if just to debunk them, the more the idea that there is a problem with the vaccinations sticks with some people. But you can also not just not talk about it.
|
On January 10 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:
We have a fair bit of it going around here as well. What boggles my mind is there is a huge crossover between the do nothing and no masks because of the economy crowd, who are also anti vax. Vax is like the silver bullet (not quite but for effect) for the economy being unhindered so it is clear it was an excuse and not the real reason they were against it. You could use their facebook feed from like 3 months ago to argue with their facebook feed now!
(this is not a shot at people on this thread, many here have had a more nuanced position than I am describing)
funnily the australian pm made a statement a few days ago about how the vaccine wont be a silver bullet and our current "covid-safe" practices will have to stay even after vaccinations are rolled out.
thats was pretty fucking disappointing to hear to be honest
|
I think it depends on how much proportion of population you manage to vaccinate. If you get to a point where 80% is vaccinated, then you can probably remove all the restrictions. But I don't expect you to get to that point anytime soon, considering how many people don't want to get the vaccine.
|
On January 10 2021 15:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:
We have a fair bit of it going around here as well. What boggles my mind is there is a huge crossover between the do nothing and no masks because of the economy crowd, who are also anti vax. Vax is like the silver bullet (not quite but for effect) for the economy being unhindered so it is clear it was an excuse and not the real reason they were against it. You could use their facebook feed from like 3 months ago to argue with their facebook feed now!
(this is not a shot at people on this thread, many here have had a more nuanced position than I am describing)
funnily the australian pm made a statement a few days ago about how the vaccine wont be a silver bullet and our current "covid-safe" practices will have to stay even after vaccinations are rolled out. thats was pretty fucking disappointing to hear to be honest You need a % of population to be vaccinated before you see real effects in cutting down on transmission and its not feasible to have one set of rules for those who have been vaccinated and one set for those who have not yet.
So it makes complete sense to keep the current measures in place until a large portion of the population has received their vaccine.
|
While Taiwan probably was the world champion of early covid-19 response, Israel is the best at vaccination, already having reached 18% of the population through a good healthcare system and stellar planning. That is despite that both orthodox jews and muslims communities have been sceptical, but targeted by information campaigns.
I actually think having Israel as a test country is good. If they succeed, it will be a good model for others to follow.
https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/01/08/netanyahu-everyone-israel-will-be-vaccinated-by-end-of-march/
|
On January 10 2021 17:14 arbiter_md wrote:
I think it depends on how much proportion of population you manage to vaccinate. If you get to a point where 80% is vaccinated, then you can probably remove all the restrictions. But I don't expect you to get to that point anytime soon, considering how many people don't want to get the vaccine.
Depends. With the initial strain of covid, 75% vaccination, and 10% of the population having had covid before(these are multiplicative) would probably approach herd immunity even with no restrictions. There would be flareups for sure. It would still exist, but it'd be far more controllable. IIRC the intial strains' innate R0 was estimated to be something like 3-5, so that's going to be enough to have it burn itself out very slowly.
The UK strain on the other hand, needs somewhere closer to 85-90% for herd immunity, at 50+% more infectivity. It's scary AF because even with the lockdowns and so on it's still spreading like wildfire. It's a race to just vaccinate people against it. Short of a China style lockdown, I don't think you could stop a virus with a R0 in the 7-10 region before it ravaged through vast swathes of the population. My understanding is that it's most likely almost everywhere in Europe, and it'll slowly outcompete the existing strain everywhere over the next year, or at least until it burns itself out. I do think this will be the last big wave of Covid, but it's going to dwarf every one before it.
Side note: US had a chain of days over 4k deaths now, and hit over 300k cases per day. Was lost in the shitshow, but it's a rather terrifying number. Pretty much means that the dip was just holidays, and not any meaningful dip in covid.
|
Lalalaland34504 Posts
Haven't visited this thread in a long time so apologies if I'm interrupting something or if this has been covered already. I've been observing debates between doctors in my region of the UK with regards to keeping to the schedule of giving a booster at 3-4 weeks after the first dose as per the various studies, versus giving first vaccines and delaying the second much longer, up to 12 weeks, and therefore offering some immunity to as many persons as possible. There are some very passionate people on both sides.
I found these interesting:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XVlXU7X.png)
https://www.nbmedical.com/blog/covid-vaccination-how-effective-is-the-single-dose
My own opinion is that this decision is essentially about hedging our bets on what is better for society. Giving second boosters on time is more 'defensible' since it's what all the studies say, but covering as many people as possible will result in less deaths.
On another note, I just received the Pfizer vaccine on Friday. All I've noticed is my arm aching all of yesterday, but no superpowers yet. No idea yet as to when I will get the booster.
|
There's definitely some different shades to it.
Elderly (70+) almost definitely need the second shot because of how deadly it is if they catch covid.
Younger people can probably get away with mitigation of severity which happens with one shot.
BC took the middle ground in delaying the second dose to 5 weeks from 3/4 with pfizer/moderna to give more time for production ramps and allows a larger number of partially immunized people.
Without a single dose vaccine, you're going to have a ton of these dilemmas, and with limited trials, everyone is going through this with only prior vaccine results to guess off of.
|
On January 11 2021 03:30 Firebolt145 wrote:Haven't visited this thread in a long time so apologies if I'm interrupting something or if this has been covered already. I've been observing debates between doctors in my region of the UK with regards to keeping to the schedule of giving a booster at 3-4 weeks after the first dose as per the various studies, versus giving first vaccines and delaying the second much longer, up to 12 weeks, and therefore offering some immunity to as many persons as possible. There are some very passionate people on both sides. I found these interesting: https://www.nbmedical.com/blog/covid-vaccination-how-effective-is-the-single-doseMy own opinion is that this decision is essentially about hedging our bets on what is better for society. Giving second boosters on time is more 'defensible' since it's what all the studies say, but covering as many people as possible will result in less deaths. On another note, I just received the Pfizer vaccine on Friday. All I've noticed is my arm aching all of yesterday, but no superpowers yet. No idea yet as to when I will get the booster.
Also the only side effect that my sister noted ("somewhat worse than a flu vaccine" was her comment). She will get the booster in a couple weeks.
I'm a proponent of the double shot because people who have the vaccine are going to act like they're immune and will not spread it, based on past history. The massively higher chance of getting it and spreading it with 1 shot as opposed to two (iirc, it's 500% more likely? 26 vs 5/6%? depending somewhat on the vaccine).
|
On January 11 2021 04:19 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2021 03:30 Firebolt145 wrote:Haven't visited this thread in a long time so apologies if I'm interrupting something or if this has been covered already. I've been observing debates between doctors in my region of the UK with regards to keeping to the schedule of giving a booster at 3-4 weeks after the first dose as per the various studies, versus giving first vaccines and delaying the second much longer, up to 12 weeks, and therefore offering some immunity to as many persons as possible. There are some very passionate people on both sides. I found these interesting: https://www.nbmedical.com/blog/covid-vaccination-how-effective-is-the-single-doseMy own opinion is that this decision is essentially about hedging our bets on what is better for society. Giving second boosters on time is more 'defensible' since it's what all the studies say, but covering as many people as possible will result in less deaths. On another note, I just received the Pfizer vaccine on Friday. All I've noticed is my arm aching all of yesterday, but no superpowers yet. No idea yet as to when I will get the booster. Also the only side effect that my sister noted ("somewhat worse than a flu vaccine" was her comment). She will get the booster in a couple weeks. I'm a proponent of the double shot because people who have the vaccine are going to act like they're immune and will not spread it, based on past history. The massively higher chance of getting it and spreading it with 1 shot as opposed to two (iirc, it's 500% more likely? 26 vs 5/6%? depending somewhat on the vaccine).
Yeah that is definitely a good argument for double dosing people.
If people know they're getting a second shot in a month, they probably will wait it out. If there is no second shot coming, and they act like idiots, it could very well be worse than no shot at all, especially since one dose probably doesn't stop you from spreading it.
|
On January 11 2021 03:30 Firebolt145 wrote:Haven't visited this thread in a long time so apologies if I'm interrupting something or if this has been covered already. I've been observing debates between doctors in my region of the UK with regards to keeping to the schedule of giving a booster at 3-4 weeks after the first dose as per the various studies, versus giving first vaccines and delaying the second much longer, up to 12 weeks, and therefore offering some immunity to as many persons as possible. There are some very passionate people on both sides. I found these interesting: https://www.nbmedical.com/blog/covid-vaccination-how-effective-is-the-single-doseMy own opinion is that this decision is essentially about hedging our bets on what is better for society. Giving second boosters on time is more 'defensible' since it's what all the studies say, but covering as many people as possible will result in less deaths. On another note, I just received the Pfizer vaccine on Friday. All I've noticed is my arm aching all of yesterday, but no superpowers yet. No idea yet as to when I will get the booster.
This table makes no sense to me. It implies all people have an equal chance of severe disease which is only the case if all vaccinated people are in the same risk group. So lets asume that this table goes for vaccinating the elderly only,and then the choice between vaccinating the elderly with 1 dose or 2 dose.
There should be enough vaccins to fully vaccinate the high risk group,in the end its only a matter of time till there are enough vaccins and it should not be that long for the high risk population.
You could also further differentiate the risk and start with the 500 people who have the highest risk which would also make this table invalid.
5% vs 25% is a huge difference (and i dont understand why it would be 25% as the articles that i have seen indicate a 55% efficacy with 1 dose which would make it 5% vs 45%) and imo its worth it to stick with the 2 dose strategy since the waiting time to fully vaccinate the group of vulnerable people should not be that long. There is also aditional risks to a 1 dose strategy when it comes to the virus mutating and adapting to the vaccins.
Another thing i dont understand about the current situation is that still nothing seems to be known about the clinical prospects when it comes to the new variations.
There has been data for these variations for over 2 months now and it is claimed that the vaccins apear to be working against these variations but they still cant say if these variations are more dangerous for a persons health then the older variations. This makes little sense to me,there should be more then enough data by now to have some indication.
If these new variations are not more harmful and have the same risk profile when it comes to age distribution then imo a 1 dose strategy makes no sense.
If these variations are more harmful and have a different risk profile when it comes to age distribution (for example slightly more harmfull for younger people) then i think it could be worth at least considering a 1 dose strategy since the shortage to vaccinate all the vulnerable people would be larger which would result in more time needed as well as a higher risk for the group who has not yet been vaccinated
|
So is the plan with the proponents of '1-shot for everyone' to just never give the 2nd shot or to give it at some later time after everyone gets their 1st shot? Seems like there is a problem with either option - either you significantly reduce the overall efficacy of everyone that gets the vaccine by only giving 1 shot or you are just "winging it" by giving a 2nd shot at a timeline that hasn't been studied. Both options seem really bad.
|
At the very least, the plan should be "use all currently available doses as first shots, give second shots out of the newly available inventory three weeks from now." Keeping half the inventory in reserve is definitely problematic in and of itself, and in theory we should be able to get more doses over time.
|
On January 11 2021 08:37 LegalLord wrote:
At the very least, the plan should be "use all currently available doses as first shots, give second shots out of the newly available inventory three weeks from now." Keeping half the inventory in reserve is definitely problematic in and of itself, and in theory we should be able to get more doses over time.
Agreed.
At worst, your supply isn't increasing and you give out only second doses for a while, and very limited numbers of first doses, but provided your supply doesn't decrease, there's no reason to hold any in reserve, beyond 1-2k to handle unexpected shipment losses, errors etc.
|
On January 10 2021 19:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2021 15:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 10 2021 01:33 JimmiC wrote:
We have a fair bit of it going around here as well. What boggles my mind is there is a huge crossover between the do nothing and no masks because of the economy crowd, who are also anti vax. Vax is like the silver bullet (not quite but for effect) for the economy being unhindered so it is clear it was an excuse and not the real reason they were against it. You could use their facebook feed from like 3 months ago to argue with their facebook feed now!
(this is not a shot at people on this thread, many here have had a more nuanced position than I am describing)
funnily the australian pm made a statement a few days ago about how the vaccine wont be a silver bullet and our current "covid-safe" practices will have to stay even after vaccinations are rolled out. thats was pretty fucking disappointing to hear to be honest You need a % of population to be vaccinated before you see real effects in cutting down on transmission and its not feasible to have one set of rules for those who have been vaccinated and one set for those who have not yet. So it makes complete sense to keep the current measures in place until a large portion of the population has received their vaccine.
yeah but keep in mind australia has a small population of only ~20m. it really doesnt take long to get a massive proportion vaccinated. on top of that our daily figures for infections and deaths are among the lowest in the world. to say that the country continues to need restrictions even after vaccine rollout is a huge exaggeration; some would argue the restrictions were an overreaction even before the vaccines
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 11 2021 03:30 Firebolt145 wrote:Haven't visited this thread in a long time so apologies if I'm interrupting something or if this has been covered already. I've been observing debates between doctors in my region of the UK with regards to keeping to the schedule of giving a booster at 3-4 weeks after the first dose as per the various studies, versus giving first vaccines and delaying the second much longer, up to 12 weeks, and therefore offering some immunity to as many persons as possible. There are some very passionate people on both sides. I found these interesting: https://www.nbmedical.com/blog/covid-vaccination-how-effective-is-the-single-doseMy own opinion is that this decision is essentially about hedging our bets on what is better for society. Giving second boosters on time is more 'defensible' since it's what all the studies say, but covering as many people as possible will result in less deaths. On another note, I just received the Pfizer vaccine on Friday. All I've noticed is my arm aching all of yesterday, but no superpowers yet. No idea yet as to when I will get the booster.
Isn't the chance for a "severe" infection at ~ 14 % or something?
double shot vaccinated people have 5% chance of infection and from those 5 % only 14% have a severe infection?
500 vaccinated -> 25 people chance of infection -> 3,5 people chance of severe infection
Or maybe I am totally wrong
EDIT: I thought the second dose has to be done exactly 28 days later than the first to be fully effective. Or does it not matter at all when?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
