|
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. |
If it's a measurable increase in safety, even with just one person wearing a mask, that's positive for me.
Some news from our BC press conference.
The mRNA vaccines are going to continue to be given to elderly, working down age groups from 90+ downwards. The AZ vaccines which was just approved (we're getting around 65k doses in BC) are going to be targeted initially at persistent clusters/outbreaks of the disease. They're aiming to break chains of transmission that have been proving difficult to kill otherwise in smaller communities/group environments that wouldn't meet criteria for vaccination by age. They might change the plan for subsequent shipments over the next two weeks, but if every thousand vaccines stops a cluster producing 5 cases a day, which seems doable for the longer running persistent outbreaks, that's 325 cases a day stopped dead.
|
On March 05 2021 08:14 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2021 05:23 Magic Powers wrote:Collection of the some of the most recent insight into the efficacy of mask mandates. There's still no definitive conclusion, with the most careful estimate saying the mandates have been roughly 18% effective. It's becoming very clear that masks only show a clear effect if they're of high quality, i.e. FFP2 or better, while face shields show no effect at all (unsurprisingly I'd say). I always suspected that surgical masks are not sufficiently protective to show significant results (for general use), but now finally we are starting to have enough data to prove it. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-the-evolving-science-of-face-masks-and-covid-19/ That 18% number isn’t the effectiveness of a mask mandates. It’s, at best, the protection a mask provides for the person wearing a mask in a place where others don’t. As pointed out in the discussion of the paper, there’s no measurement of the effect of mask wearing on the rate of infecting others, and there’s no measurement on the rate of spread between groups where everyone wore masks vs groups where no one wore masks. Those would both be impactful on determining the actual impact of mask mandates. That said, if I’m 18% safer just by wearing a mask, seems like a no brainer for me...
It all depends on a lot of factors. Initially, correctly worn masks in high-risk situations, such as a choire rehersal, indicated a 70% reduction. 18% over all might very well be accurate, as a lot of times, they will not be worn correctly, and people tend to be more relaxed on distancing and don't care enough about hand hygiene while handeling the masks.
In other situations, the risk of getting infected is so low to begin with, they are not worth bothering with at all imo. How much communty spread there is also factors in. If there is a one in a million chance of being infected while shopping, a 18% reduction is irrelevant.
One of the things I learned looking up these things was that the only person I fool if I am sloppy with my masks is myself. If they are dirty and worn too much, the germs in them can make me sick. There is every reason to be very careful with them!
|
On March 05 2021 01:03 zatic wrote:
Germany is surely developing from exemplary success story in handling the pandemic to cautionary tale.
As of today, Germany has essentially given up, and will now live with Covid and I suppose hope for the best and a warm Spring.
Starting this week Germany will be gradually opening up after a 4 month lockdown. This comes as infections number have been steadily climbing for the past 2 weeks, after a hard lockdown had brought them down from a high in December. Germany is opening up now on a level of infections that is still higher than the original outbreak in March 2020, and rising. Only the very very old have been vaccinated so far, otherwise vaccination is a complete disaster, with large groups of vulnerable and essential people looking at months until more vaccines are shipped.
But reality is simply that society can't endure this lockdown any longer, and the administration has finally capitulated. We can only hope that warm weather, more vaccinations, and sensible personal behavior will keep infections on a level that society can live with.
The rise over the last two weeks is because people are tired of the rules and ignore at least some of them. The first opening step is actually nothing more than legalize what most people do anyway so I don't expect a big drawback. After that, we'll see
Vaccination is a clusterfuck for sure but even here we finally see an upwards trend.
I do hope they close the borders again completely though. Our eastern neighbours are exploding right now 
|
In good news for Canada, we've managed to secure another 1.5M Pfizer doses in March(good for a rather sizable chunk of our population)
https://globalnews.ca/news/7679351/cda-covid-pfizer7679351/
They've also approved J&J, weeks ahead of schedule. While no deliveries are expected before Q2, we can probably expect another large source in Q2.
With the pushback of vaccination schedules to longer delays before the booster shots, it's looking like everybody in Canada who wants one will have a shot by the end of June, possibly even sooner.
Summer is saved for sure!
|
|
|
On March 05 2021 01:03 zatic wrote:
Only the very very old have been vaccinated so far, otherwise vaccination is a complete disaster, with large groups of vulnerable and essential people looking at months until more vaccines are shipped.
Incredible that the EU vaccine program has been a total disaster yet the UK vaccine program has been a massive success.Who could have foreseen that?
What was more surprising was the amount in some EU countries but especially France that say they will not take the vaccine.France, 40% said they would take it if available.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/18/why-do-so-few-people-in-france-want-to-take-the-covid-19-vaccine
So with such low numbers willing to take it availability isn't the only problem authorities have.
|
On March 06 2021 17:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2021 01:03 zatic wrote:
Only the very very old have been vaccinated so far, otherwise vaccination is a complete disaster, with large groups of vulnerable and essential people looking at months until more vaccines are shipped.
Incredible that the EU vaccine program has been a total disaster yet the UK vaccine program has been a massive success.Who could have foreseen that? What was more surprising was the amount in some EU countries but especially France that say they will not take the vaccine.France, 40% said they would take it if available. https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/18/why-do-so-few-people-in-france-want-to-take-the-covid-19-vaccine So with such low numbers willing to take it availability isn't the only problem authorities have.
The EU has good negotiating power, but proved to be too slow and sluggish in this matter. Maybe they were naive expecting that the money they poured into research would automatically put them first in line? The problem was that so did others, and they signed their contracts and approved vaccines faster...
US, UK and Israel got much better deals negotiating themselves.
|
What the EU pays for a vaccine dose:
Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61).
Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30).
Sanofi/GSK: €7.56.
Pfizer/BioNTech: €12.
CureVac: €10.
Moderna: $18.
The US will pay $4 a dose for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine under development, compared with the EU price of €1.78, which is 45% cheaper, according to Bernstein.
At the other end of the scale, Moderna’s vaccine, developed in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with $2.5bn of funding and orders from Operation Warp Speed, will cost 20% more on the European market – $18 a dose compared with $15 in the US.
Source
South Africa’s government found itself on the defensive this week after a senior health official revealed that 1.5 million doses of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine just purchased for use among health workers would cost $5.25 (£3.84; €4.32) a dose, more than twice what the European Union is paying at $2.15.
That principle has also been applied to the biggest players. The EU financially supported the development of the BioNTech and Pfizer vaccine and has obtained a lower price per dose ($14.70 than the US ($19.50). The Moderna vaccine’s development was subsidised by the US government, and it will cost the US about $15 a dose, while the EU is paying $18.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is much cheaper, although neither the UK nor the US can match the EU’s $2.15 deal: they are expecting to pay about $3 and $4, respectively, per dose.
Israel, which is on course to vaccinate all its citizens before any other country—having denied responsibility for vaccinating the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories—this month acknowledged paying $23.50 per dose on average to Pfizer and Moderna to obtain early shipments. Even at this high price, vaccinating the entire population of Israel costs the economy only as much as two days of lockdown. Uniquely, Israel agreed to give Pfizer anonymised health data from all of its citizens as part of the deal.
Source
The bolded part is striking.
Speeding up the lifting of restricions by paying a bit more - I really want to know whether that is stragety or coincidence.
|
The big problem here is that paying more only shifts doses around. While it may be good for your country if your country gets the doses first, for the world as a whole it would be much better to simply have more doses around.
What i do not understand is why the EU, and other countries, did not start constructing production lines for vaccines on their own last year. Do not just leave this stuff to private companies, because the goals don't align here. For the country, getting the vaccine fast is a lot more important than getting it cheap. So instead of having one production line which produces enough vaccine over 2 years, having 10 lines producing the vaccines in a few months is vastly superior for the country. For a private company, this does not apply. Running one line over 2 years is a lot cheaper than building up 10 lines and running those only for a few months. This is a spot where i would have wanted for countries, or the EU, to step in.
However, what is currently going on in Germany has pretty much destroyed any confidence i have in our politics. While we did manage the first wave well, our politicians fucked up the aftercare, and completely missed the ball on the second wave. Now, we still have high numbers, the numbers are no longer falling, and the british Mutant strain is very quickly taking over. And what do these morons do? They open up. It is utterly inexplicable to me where this decision comes from. And not even some smart opening up with other measures to offset the increased contacts. Basically they are just giving up now. I have no clue why. In a month most, we will once again have massive incidence numbers.
|
On March 06 2021 21:39 Simberto wrote:
The big problem here is that paying more only shifts doses around.
I think this is the most widespread wrong assumption people have. Even after having countless examples of industries growing on a free market where the newest shiniest things always go to the premium market first, most of the people still assume the production is something static, and those damn capitalists will just take the money for themselves. It's wrong.
What happens when the business gets more money in a sector with competition and where demand exceeds supply, is a lot of investment goes into new production. This is so simple, and yet most of the people are too busy watching for damn companies to not get richer than they deserve.
The fastest way to vaccinate world population is through free market and letting the rich compete for first doses. This will help investment in production and will allow the poor nations get cheaper vaccines, even though later.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Someone should have told Von Der Leyen that billions < trillions. Can't believe price was ever a priority. But, well, she was always known for a bunch of things, but competence chiefly not among them.
|
On March 06 2021 23:38 arbiter_md wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 21:39 Simberto wrote:
The big problem here is that paying more only shifts doses around. I think this is the most widespread wrong assumption people have. Even after having countless examples of industries growing on a free market where the newest shiniest things always go to the premium market first, most of the people still assume the production is something static, and those damn capitalists will just take the money for themselves. It's wrong. What happens when the business gets more money in a sector with competition and where demand exceeds supply, is a lot of investment goes into new production. This is so simple, and yet most of the people are too busy watching for damn companies to not get richer than they deserve. The fastest way to vaccinate world population is through free market and letting the rich compete for first doses. This will help investment in production and will allow the poor nations get cheaper vaccines, even though later.
I think there is more to it. If a capitalist can make more money producing less but selling at a much higher price, they will. Flooding the market might be for the common good, but it is not necessary the most profitable. I also see concerns with sports teams and millionaires paying insane overprices for the first dosis, leaving everybody else behind, and maybe even hampering good distribution.
I don't know enough about vaccine production, but it takes a long time to build a factory or a new production line. One of the criticisms lately has been delayed supply caused by the pharma companies ramping up production...
|
On March 06 2021 23:38 arbiter_md wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 21:39 Simberto wrote:
The big problem here is that paying more only shifts doses around. I think this is the most widespread wrong assumption people have. Even after having countless examples of industries growing on a free market where the newest shiniest things always go to the premium market first, most of the people still assume the production is something static, and those damn capitalists will just take the money for themselves. It's wrong. What happens when the business gets more money in a sector with competition and where demand exceeds supply, is a lot of investment goes into new production. This is so simple, and yet most of the people are too busy watching for damn companies to not get richer than they deserve. The fastest way to vaccinate world population is through free market and letting the rich compete for first doses. This will help investment in production and will allow the poor nations get cheaper vaccines, even though later.
Assuming away issues like the relative inflexibility of production capacity ceilings and distributive inequality as a cause of preventable further spread of illness doesn’t make them go away, it turns your analysis from one of data to one of belief.
|
Oregon was one of the few places I thought I'd be able to travel to soon and it turns out it likely has community spread of not just the UK variant, but its own locally evolved version.
SCIENTISTS IN OREGON have discovered a mutated version of the highly transmissible variant of COVID-19 first discovered in Britain.
Researchers have identified just one case of the variant in Oregon, but genetic analysis suggests it was contracted from the community and did not originate in the patient. They also warned that this variant has a mutation that may make it less susceptible to vaccines.
...this version of that variant appears to be more contagious and more deadly than the original version and could account for most of the infections in America in the near future. .
www.usnews.com
So there goes those plans
|
On March 07 2021 00:02 zatic wrote:
Someone should have told Von Der Leyen that billions < trillions. Can't believe price was ever a priority. But, well, she was always known for a bunch of things, but competence chiefly not among them.
that she is in this position is an outrage in itself, only topped by how they put her there... just horrible leadership.
with all of our resources we lag badly behind in the inoculation process compared to the US and the UK... Israel is in another league entirely but they also gave a sweetheart patient data deal to Pfizer on top.
|
|
|
Italy has done a deal with Russia to produce the Russian Sputnik vaccine in Italy but that vaccine still needs approval from EU regulators before production can begin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-italy-sputnik-vaccine-europe/2021/03/09/aa979e12-80d6-11eb-be22-32d331d87530_story.html
MOSCOW — The backers of Russia's Sputnik V vaccine signed a deal Tuesday that could pave the way for production in Italy, a potential major step in Moscow's efforts to expand its vaccine reach in the West.
The deal was announced by the Italian-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Russia's sovereign wealth fund, known as the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which supported Sputnik V's development.
But the vaccine still has to win regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Italian regulatory authorities before production can go ahead.
Few details of the potential Russia-E.U. deal have been made public. But European governments have been under pressure over their slow rollout of vaccines, including glitches over supply. The European Union has registered three vaccines: the ones developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca and Oxford.
The deal to manufacture Sputnik V in Italy comes after the E.U. medical regulators last week began a rolling review of Sputnik V, following the publication of interim results on the Russian vaccine in the medical journal the Lancet in February that suggested the vaccine was safe and had an efficacy rate of 91.6 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
So my family is pretty far down the list to get the vaccine in the future (wife and I in early 30s, 3 kids and none of us have health issues). But I do have some vaccine hesitancy. Do any of you feel unsure about the vaccines? And why get one of the vaccines if these variants are popping up like daisies making them obsolete?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
