|
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 29 2021 05:17 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2021 19:50 Slydie wrote:We've tested almost 89% of Americans. I have to arrest you here. Millions have done multiple tests and some athletes etc. are tested every week. You also did not post the numbers for the most common causes of death in the west, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, with smoking contributing to a lion's share of both. After that, the normal number of deaths to lower respiratory diseases is a nice comparison for how a country has dealt with covid-19. For Norway, Covid-19 is not even nearly the most deadly disease in the same category. Well yea, thats obvious. You can be negative 100 times, but then get it and test positive. The test is temporal based. That's kinda the point, testing doesn't really mean anything in terms of control or safety.
But that means that you have NOT tested 89% of the population if you have a total amount of tests equal to 89% of the total people in the US.
|
On January 29 2021 05:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2021 05:17 MarlieChurphy wrote:On January 28 2021 19:50 Slydie wrote:We've tested almost 89% of Americans. I have to arrest you here. Millions have done multiple tests and some athletes etc. are tested every week. You also did not post the numbers for the most common causes of death in the west, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, with smoking contributing to a lion's share of both. After that, the normal number of deaths to lower respiratory diseases is a nice comparison for how a country has dealt with covid-19. For Norway, Covid-19 is not even nearly the most deadly disease in the same category. Well yea, thats obvious. You can be negative 100 times, but then get it and test positive. The test is temporal based. That's kinda the point, testing doesn't really mean anything in terms of control or safety. But that means that you have NOT tested 89% of the population if you have a total amount of tests equal to 89% of the total people in the US.
Its sort of moot, you could argue that I could word it a little better or that its misleading, but the point is that we've been testing like crazy and 100s of millions of people have been tested and we are continuing to test constantly. Like I said, its temporal anyways. Even if we just magically tested 100% of america one day it doesnt even matter, because the next day you would have to test them again, and the next day, and so on.
Topic change, Has anyone from TL died from Covid?
|
No. It is not moot at all. If you are attempting to report on the situation, it is your responsibility to ensure you do it accurately.
That statement is so fundamentally wrong that the only conclusions are: A) you do not understand what you are trying to analyse; or B) you are being deliberately misleading. Either case invalidates the rest of your post.
The spread of online misinformation during the pandemic has greatly worsened the catastrophe. If you are contributing to such misinformation, you are part of the problem, regardless of your intentions.
|
On January 29 2021 06:26 Belisarius wrote:
No. It is not moot at all. If you are attempting to report on the situation, it is your responsibility to ensure you do it accurately.
That statement is so fundamentally wrong that the only conclusions are: A) you do not understand what you are trying to analyse; or B) you are being deliberately misleading. Either case invalidates the rest of your post.
The spread of online misinformation during the pandemic has greatly worsened the catastrophe. If you are contributing to such misinformation, you are part of the problem, regardless of your intentions.
You are cherry picking the least important piece of data and using it to discredit the rest of the information? Ok, so I concede/remove that line. Now what?
|
Lots of vaccine news lately:
- AZ/Oxford vaccine finally approved for Europe. They were supposed to deliver 100M doses in Q1 but are now offering 39M.
- Novavax and J&J published efficacy data. Novavax is almost at the level fo the mRNA vaccines while J&J looks to be more similar to AZ although in only one dose. Both show lower efficacy with the South African strain (uh-oh).
|
Sounds like both France and Germany expressed serious reservations about using AstraZeneca on individuals over 65. Unfortunately that vaccine is probably a bust in its current state, albeit some variations on it may show promise.
|
There are a lot of AZ doses, so why not use them for lower-risk individuals as they are available. If necessary, and once we have a big supply of mRNA, we can then give everyone the high-efficacy ones. In the meantime, the lower efficacy vaccines will help lower cases.
|
If the goal is to provide protection from the virus, Pfizer and Moderna are the gold standard. If you're aged 50+ or at elevated risk, you should be looking to get one of those.
If you're healthy and young (ages 16-50), getting the first available vaccine makes more sense to get society returned to "normal" as soon as possible.
|
Might as well, since it's almost certainly better than nothing. But with its low efficacy and therefore minimal herd immunity, it leaves much to be desired.
|
Norway28738 Posts
is there any real problem associated with taking one vaccine first and then another later?
|
On January 30 2021 02:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
is there any real problem associated with taking one vaccine first and then another later?
Unclear. Though maybe the answer will end up being "take the best vaccine a year from now."
|
|
|
The big worry I have is that the logistical nightmare is going to get even worse if the lower efficacy vaccines are approved for specific groups. Thus far they've counted all their vaccines in one pot (and segregated the second doses) and scheduled accordingly.
Nowhere wants to be in different stages of rollout for each vaccine. And, from a mortality prevention standpoint, we should absolutely be putting all our shots into older individuals-even if they only have 72% efficacy.
|
|
|
Dr. Drew has stated that the vaccine that is out now is not the traditional style of vaccine that we are accustomed to. If you are in a high risk group or job then get the 2 doses in the 2 week method. However, there is a more traditional style vaccine that should be ready in the mar-apr spring time that will arguably be better and safer.
For anyone else outside of immediate risk, just wait for that one.
Also, there have been some anecdotal reports that people who had the virus many moons ago, got it again after like 6 months. Suggesting that the antibodies only last that long.
However, if I had to wager, the people who say they got it and had no/mild symptoms may have just had traces of RNA particles in their nose and not the actual disease. IE; a false positive test. Or the fact that they didnt get a big enough exposure and the body didnt have the time to properly "learn" how to fight the virus and only collected short term atibodies or something along those lines. There are IGG and IGM antibodies (long and short term).
I had it back in july and I had both upon a serology blood test a month later. My ex gf (nurse) had taken multiple swab tests positive, we both had IGG/IGM. And its been over 6 months now and both of us have been exposed (since we are both 'essential') constantly. Not to mention I havent locked down or changed my habits of hanging out in big groups at night at bars or poker games or whatever. The only thing I have done is wore a mask at work, or when required to enter a place, and social distance when required. I got no one sick and no one has got me sick.
PS- It's likely we both got it at our local bar because a dozen or so people also had it around the beginning of summer time, or she brought it back from work when she was working at covid unit hospital that was taking in prisoners who were spitting in cups and sharing them to get covid so they can get out. I doubt the latter though, considering how much PPE and shit they had going on at that hospital and how germaphobic she is to the point that her hand skin is all cracked and scaly from washing so much and using so much hand sanitizer.
|
On January 30 2021 02:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
is there any real problem associated with taking one vaccine first and then another later?
Afaik, its just not very effective. If you get the first dose it's about 50% and 95% after the 2nd.
You want an F or an A ?
edit- I might be misunderstanding actually. The first vaccine comes in 2 doses a week or so apart.
The 2nd vaccine which works entirely differently is not available yet, and will probably be more effective. There shouldnt be any problem with taking a different vaccine later on. It will just make your body more capable of fighting the virus in multiple ways.
My ex was given the first vaccine even though she probably didn't need it, we argued about this since they are limited supply and the govt is completely mishandling it all.
There is decent argument that the nursing home and 80+ people shouldnt be given the vaccines first since they are only living 5mos on average anyway. And that the people who should be getting the first vaccines should be all the young people who are not at risk for dying, but are the ones who are out and about the most and spreading it around working and living. Creating a HIT number that prevent all the at risk people via herd immunity.
There's also the argument that lockdowns are terrible because the virus needs proximity/duration and spreads in the home. And the loss of life in years left is far greater by a lockdown than the virus itself.
eg; 100 80+ yo who would 5 more years on average lose 500 years of life. Meanwhile 1000 65- yo are losing many more years of their productive lives because of lockdowns.
|
If we're throwing around terms like years of life lost (YLL), with this disease we should definitely take DALYs into account as well. Disability adjusted life year.
As far as I'm aware of there is no stat being collected regarding less good years of life, which from my understanding would fit those productive years you reference better than DALY or YLL.
but I can't really see how we have that data yet.
Interestingly I've found a source for proposed calculation methods for covid DALYs.
|
On January 30 2021 07:42 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2021 02:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
is there any real problem associated with taking one vaccine first and then another later? Afaik, its just not very effective. If you get the first dose it's about 50% and 95% after the 2nd. You want an F or an A ? edit- I might be misunderstanding actually. The first vaccine comes in 2 doses a week or so apart. The 2nd vaccine which works entirely differently is not available yet, and will probably be more effective. There shouldnt be any problem with taking a different vaccine later on. It will just make your body more capable of fighting the virus in multiple ways. My ex was given the first vaccine even though she probably didn't need it, we argued about this since they are limited supply and the govt is completely mishandling it all. There is decent argument that the nursing home and 80+ people shouldnt be given the vaccines first since they are only living 5mos on average anyway. And that the people who should be getting the first vaccines should be all the young people who are not at risk for dying, but are the ones who are out and about the most and spreading it around working and living. Creating a HIT number that prevent all the at risk people via herd immunity. There's also the argument that lockdowns are terrible because the virus needs proximity/duration and spreads in the home. And the loss of life in years left is far greater by a lockdown than the virus itself. eg; 100 80+ yo who would 5 more years on average lose 500 years of life. Meanwhile 1000 65- yo are losing many more years of their productive lives because of lockdowns.
I dont think you want to be making such calculations because what you then see would be terifying.
|
We can barely estimate the quality-adjusted life years lost to diabetes after decades of studies with lengthy follow-up. Trying to calculate the societal cost of quality of life lost to infection by a virus that has widely circulated in humans for ~13 months is, at best, guesswork, and at worst an exercise in confirmation bias on a grand scale. It's literally unknowable what a severe COVID infection means for anyone after 18 months, whether you're 18, 25, 50, or 102.
In terms of deaths, we can estimate that infections in 65+ year olds result in ~50 times the deaths of infections in 50-64 year olds and ~500+ times the deaths of infections in even younger people. Do younger people live 500x longer than 65 year olds? Of course not. How many deaths of people with 10-20 years of life expectancy would you accept to have a good economic year? These are not easy questions to answer.
|
Anyone else experience muscle ache/fatigue and migraine after being administered Moderna? The rest of my family was fine but my body felt like I climbed a mountain the day before. Had to call out work and now the only thing I’m craving is fast food -_-
I suppose that means it’s working
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Es5s06lU4AECJKe?format=png&name=small)
