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 03 2021 06:08 Lmui wrote: To be honest, vaccine passports are an interim solution/international solution only. Once enough people are vaccinated to hit herd immunity vaccine passports don't matter since the virus will largely die out.
We are at that stage in the UK, and they are planning to do that anyway. Domestically. I've given up hope of ever watching my football team again, even though there is no risk to going to the game tomorrow that is more than what there was in 2019.
What the hell are you on about? The UK has fully vaccinated less than 10% of the population. The herd immunity threshold for the new variant is estimated at 80-90%.
No. The first lockdown we had here I could just about accept given that there was a great deal of uncertainty, even though that went against every single bit of pandemic planning that had been done by any country for decades. But once it was abundantly clear that:
a) Covid was at least an order of magnitude less deadly than first feared b) Covid did not affect people equally and for the vast majority of the population is of no concern whatsoever c) The initial rationale for the lockdown ("protect the NHS") was done once we knew that we had hit peak infections before lockdown
All of which were known last May at the latest, that should have been the complete end of it. But we're twelve months on and we still have fuckwits thinking this is a major issue, if only to try to continue to cover their asses for doing the most damage anyone has done to this country since the 1940's.
Ad A, I'm not sure what you feared exactly, but I can't recall any expert expecting the IFR to be 10% (it is 1%). I'm pretty sure you're just confusing the CFR reported early on with the IFR.
Ad B, as JimmiC pointed out, this is nonsense. Some 10-30% of the infected suffer from long COVID. The IFR for people aged 50+ is quite substantial and there are many adults with underlying conditions (probably higher than 30%).
Ad C, do you even verify the crap you post? The UK introduced the first lockdown in mid March. The number of daily cases peaked from early April to early May and was ten times higher than on the day the lockdown started.
If the government ignored the pandemic, we'd end up with 2-4 million deaths. Sounds like a great plan...
Ad C, do you even verify the crap you post? The UK introduced the first lockdown in mid March. The number of daily cases peaked from early April to early May and was ten times higher than on the day the lockdown started.
Deaths peaked in early April, which if you backdate using typically accepted infection to death timings indicate that peak infections were at least a week before we locked down, but thanks for trying
Ad C, do you even verify the crap you post? The UK introduced the first lockdown in mid March. The number of daily cases peaked from early April to early May and was ten times higher than on the day the lockdown started.
Deaths peaked in early April, which if you backdate using typically accepted infection to death timings indicate that peak infections were at least a week before we locked down, but thanks for trying
Ad C, do you even verify the crap you post? The UK introduced the first lockdown in mid March. The number of daily cases peaked from early April to early May and was ten times higher than on the day the lockdown started.
Deaths peaked in early April, which if you backdate using typically accepted infection to death timings indicate that peak infections were at least a week before we locked down, but thanks for trying
You're delusional. Not gonna waste my time.
Sadly I’ve come to a similar conclusion with responding to posters like sixfour, there’s no real way to break through the self-important nonsense.
Ad C, do you even verify the crap you post? The UK introduced the first lockdown in mid March. The number of daily cases peaked from early April to early May and was ten times higher than on the day the lockdown started.
Deaths peaked in early April, which if you backdate using typically accepted infection to death timings indicate that peak infections were at least a week before we locked down, but thanks for trying
You're delusional. Not gonna waste my time.
Sadly I’ve come to a similar conclusion with responding to posters like sixfour, there’s no real way to break through the self-important nonsense.
Yeah, it's not possible to reason with people like that. With all the evidence in favor of lockdowns working, they still somehow come up with reasons to deny their effectiveness.
We've observed the cases plummet after lockdowns were imposed in numerous places - Wuhan, Bergamo, New York, Madrid, and so on. We've seen Australia bring down the numbers down to manageable level with local lockdowns. We've also seen numerous countries in central Europe outright avoid the first wave thanks to promptly enacted lockdowns and many poorer countries suffering from one long wave throughout 2020 due to being too poor to lock down at all. But somehow that's not enough evidence.
Just want to put out there that using "total cases of blood clots / total vaccinated" to approximate the risk of the severe blood clot events when there's a clear pattern of younger age and a specific gender among the AZ blood clot cases is not really the appropriate thing to do when vaccines are not being allocated randomly. It's still low enough to be less risky than COVID (until they find an additional risk factor-given the regional patterns there's almost guaranteed to be another, imo) but it's just bad math when countries have been focusing on giving it in 65+ individuals and those are the people that appear least likely to have that reaction.
Especially given the UK's hyper-age based rollout as the main AZ users, it's really bad math to directly translate the risk from this selected sample of vaccinated people to the total population (much less the people remaining to be vaccinated). And bad math in the service of public health is a great way to give bad actors ammunition on a silver platter.
On April 04 2021 13:28 xM(Z wrote: what if, about 30-40% of people, had and have preexisting immunity to covid19?.
Doesn't help that much. One of the players on the Vancouver Canucks, Jayce Hawyrluk was confirmed to have gotten covid last year and he's part of the group that caught the Brazil P1 variant this week.
that's consistent with covid being seasonal which is fine by some current data, the argument there being the severity of the symptoms(which is what vaccines suppose to address).
thing is, i was talking about preexisting since the '70s / '80s etc immunity(technically it's not immunity but an adaptation with which ones immune system recognizes covid19 and reacts accordingly). it helps with math on herd immunity data/models.
On April 04 2021 19:37 xM(Z wrote: that's consistent with covid being seasonal which is fine by some current data, the argument there being the severity of the symptoms(which is what vaccines suppose to address).
thing is, i was talking about preexisting since the '70s / '80s etc immunity(technically it's not immunity but an adaptation with which ones immune system recognizes covid19 and reacts accordingly). it helps with math on herd immunity data/models.
It's not clear yet if herd immunity is a realistic target. I can say with a high degree of certainty that at least globally it's very unrealistic. Israel has a chance at getting there and maybe other countries could follow. The problem with herd immunity is that it's a broad concept, so a number of things can go wrong. It's not a targeted effort against individual infections. If we combine the effort towards herd immunity with a system of not only international but also domestic quarantining plus track and trace, we greatly increase our chances of defeating sars-cov-2 and returning to normal. Combining the broad and the specific. Not only would this be a lot more effective domestically, but it would also allow us to battle the virus globally. And that's hugely important, among other reasons because importing and exporting the virus is what has got us into this mess in the first place. Factors like vaccine hesitancy (I believe Israel has started to offer meals and even alcohol to young people as an added incentive) and mutations are a real pain. There's also the phenomenon where vaccines don't work in entire regions. These are a few of the reasons for introducing specific measures and not just broad ones.
On April 04 2021 19:37 xM(Z wrote: that's consistent with covid being seasonal which is fine by some current data, the argument there being the severity of the symptoms(which is what vaccines suppose to address).
thing is, i was talking about preexisting since the '70s / '80s etc immunity(technically it's not immunity but an adaptation with which ones immune system recognizes covid19 and reacts accordingly). it helps with math on herd immunity data/models.
It's not clear yet if herd immunity is a realistic target. I can say with a high degree of certainty that at least globally it's very unrealistic. Israel has a chance at getting there and maybe other countries could follow. The problem with herd immunity is that it's a broad concept, so a number of things can go wrong. It's not a targeted effort against individual infections. If we combine the effort towards herd immunity with a system of not only international but also domestic quarantining plus track and trace, we greatly increase our chances of defeating sars-cov-2 and returning to normal. Combining the broad and the specific. Not only would this be a lot more effective domestically, but it would also allow us to battle the virus globally. And that's hugely important, among other reasons because importing and exporting the virus is what has got us into this mess in the first place. Factors like vaccine hesitancy (I believe Israel has started to offer meals and even alcohol to young people as an added incentive) and mutations are a real pain. There's also the phenomenon where vaccines don't work in entire regions. These are a few of the reasons for introducing specific measures and not just broad ones.
sure but you base everything on us starting from zero immunity. what if we already have a 30-40% sort of immunity/resistance/way to deal with covid19?. ('cause even with vaccines, you either repeat them twice(?) a year(i don't think it's sustainable) or you get covid again next season/year).
having antibodies is only a part of the picture on having immunity. there's 5 ways(from what i read) for a body to identify/recognize covid19 and attack/kill it. i'm interested here in T cell immune response(to SARS-CoV-2 in this case). FDA approved some tests for it(with other tests pending)but there is (inconclusive)research suggesting people who never had covid19 already have T-cells that can be used/are used if/when infected with covid. those people would count as having herd immunity.
People canot count as having herd immunity. Herd immunity is for populations. And no 30%-40% of the localised human population in regards to covid is not herd immunity no matter how you try to spin it.
On April 04 2021 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: Just want to put out there that using "total cases of blood clots / total vaccinated" to approximate the risk of the severe blood clot events when there's a clear pattern of younger age and a specific gender among the AZ blood clot cases is not really the appropriate thing to do when vaccines are not being allocated randomly. It's still low enough to be less risky than COVID (until they find an additional risk factor-given the regional patterns there's almost guaranteed to be another, imo) but it's just bad math when countries have been focusing on giving it in 65+ individuals and those are the people that appear least likely to have that reaction.
Especially given the UK's hyper-age based rollout as the main AZ users, it's really bad math to directly translate the risk from this selected sample of vaccinated people to the total population (much less the people remaining to be vaccinated). And bad math in the service of public health is a great way to give bad actors ammunition on a silver platter.
I dont think that is true, the people who don't want vaccines just litterly make up shit. This abundance of caution approach is what is giving them ammunition. Treating people who ignore logic and facts as logical is pointless. We shouldn't cater to them because it does not work.
I keep hearing people say it is heightened risk, but all the research papers I can find say the data does not support that. I can't post the 50 page ema report, but it's hyper linked in the link below.
Based on the review of clinical and non-clinical data (DLP 7 Dec 2020), there is currently no evidence to suggest an association of thrombotic events with the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.
It goes on to say theh should be cautious and possibly add warnings. From whatI can see even the worst numbers 1 out of 100k is about the same as the general population 1 in 125k. Also for context you have a 2.8 in 100k chance of permanent optic nerve damage from viagra.
If you can post a link that someone says there is a link between thrombosis ad AZ and not that "if" or "abundance of caution" I'd be very interested to read it.
The EMA and AZ is talking about general thrombotic events when they're citing the trials and all those statistics. Not cerebral venus sinus thrombosis. It would be insane to expect trials to give evidence of a complication that occurs in ordinary populations at a one in a million rate.
The EMA review for cerebral venus sinus thrombosis is still ongoing as of Wednesday. There are 31 cerebral venus sinus thrombosis clots in the 2.7 million people in Germany that have been vaccinated compared to a reference rate of about 1 in a million. And, again, that 2.7 million is mostly composed of people at even lower than the referent risk for the clot.
There's even growing consensus about might be going on: the adenovirus vector used for AZ may be able to, in very rare cases, bind to platelets, kind of like heparin.
All of which is to say I don't support the full stop in some countries, because the absolute rates are so low and the outcome is treatable if detected quickly enough. But there is a need to find out why there's so much geographic clustering or if it's all based on vaccine priority in those countries.
Of course AZ will continue to talk about general thrombosis and VTE because there is no evidence they can bring to the table to discount these events.
On April 04 2021 19:37 xM(Z wrote: that's consistent with covid being seasonal which is fine by some current data, the argument there being the severity of the symptoms(which is what vaccines suppose to address).
thing is, i was talking about preexisting since the '70s / '80s etc immunity(technically it's not immunity but an adaptation with which ones immune system recognizes covid19 and reacts accordingly). it helps with math on herd immunity data/models.
It's not clear yet if herd immunity is a realistic target. I can say with a high degree of certainty that at least globally it's very unrealistic. Israel has a chance at getting there and maybe other countries could follow. The problem with herd immunity is that it's a broad concept, so a number of things can go wrong. It's not a targeted effort against individual infections. If we combine the effort towards herd immunity with a system of not only international but also domestic quarantining plus track and trace, we greatly increase our chances of defeating sars-cov-2 and returning to normal. Combining the broad and the specific. Not only would this be a lot more effective domestically, but it would also allow us to battle the virus globally. And that's hugely important, among other reasons because importing and exporting the virus is what has got us into this mess in the first place. Factors like vaccine hesitancy (I believe Israel has started to offer meals and even alcohol to young people as an added incentive) and mutations are a real pain. There's also the phenomenon where vaccines don't work in entire regions. These are a few of the reasons for introducing specific measures and not just broad ones.
sure but you base everything on us starting from zero immunity. what if we already have a 30-40% sort of immunity/resistance/way to deal with covid19?. ('cause even with vaccines, you either repeat them twice(?) a year(i don't think it's sustainable) or you get covid again next season/year).
having antibodies is only a part of the picture on having immunity. there's 5 ways(from what i read) for a body to identify/recognize covid19 and attack/kill it. i'm interested here in T cell immune response(to SARS-CoV-2 in this case). FDA approved some tests for it(with other tests pending)but there is (inconclusive)research suggesting people who never had covid19 already have T-cells that can be used/are used if/when infected with covid. those people would count as having herd immunity.
As Dangermousecatdog correctly states, individual immunity is not herd immunity. Also, it's unknown at this point how much the vaccines against covid-19 drive down the transmission rate, or even if they do so at all (although it's likely that some of them do). 30-40% of people being immune doesn't necessitate a reduction in the transmission rate within the population. Also, it's especially unclear what exactly that rate does for the most vulnerable people who experience severe cases of covid-19, and those are the people we mostly need to worry about as it pertains to herd immunity. There are different types of immunity, and the one we can effectively utilize (besides living a healthy life) to get to herd immunity is achieved by vaccines, which we use to achieve artificially acquired active immunity in individuals. All the other types of immunity can be part of a mathematical model, but we can't meaningfully effect them, and it's also difficult to estimate their prevalence. As things stand right now it makes the most sense to vaccinate as many people as possible.
You are right in saying that covid-19 is likely to return yearly or seasonally even with mass vaccination, which is one of the reasons why I'm against betting everything on vaccines. Despite all the amazing strides that the vaccine industry keeps making, we should look to add other methods to fight a more complete battle against this virus (and honestly all viruses). I sound like a broken record in this regard, but my bets are on the Taiwanese model.
And in regards to that, I'm finally starting to see why exactly other countries haven't copied that model (it's petty politics by China and thus also the UN, which effects participation in the WHO. Link below). Taiwan is barred from joining the WHO despite having continuously offered their help to the global community. They desperately want to help everyone but they're not allowed to effectively communicate their insights on this pandemic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167
Wonder which states will start to lift mask mandates since Texas did it and didn’t see a spike in cases. Hawaii, more or less, has a very soft mask mandate. I could picture end of summer for it to be lifted officially over here.
EPT
