|
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 17 2021 18:51 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2021 16:37 r00ty wrote:
Does anyone know, why it takes well over a year to make a definitive statement on the risk of infection via surfaces? We had 5 vaccines ready, but didn't even know that? I can't wrap my head around this. This is continuously being researched. The risk of transmission from various surfaces varies heavily (a few hours or less, up to more than a week) depending on the surface and environmental conditions. Among the most infectious environments are hospitals. Heat is one of the best disinfectants. Exact information is difficult to come by due to the various different virus types and strains being studied under many different conditions. The paper notes this difficulty. Another problem is that it is difficult to know how infective the detected virus particles are on various surfaces. A virus particle can be effectively inactivated (the paper tries to address this issue), making it no longer infectious. Also, the viral load can be too small to cause an infection, meaning the detection of active virus particles doesn't always necessitate a significant threat (relatively speaking). Within the following spoiler I'm quoting a wall of text directly from the paper. All of that information is relevant, so I'm not going to try to summarize it into a tl;dr + Show Spoiler +SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel (estimated median half-life of this coronavirus was approximately 5.6 h on stainless steel and 6.8 h on plastic) than on copper (1 h) and cardboard (3 h). Viable virus was detected up to 72 h after application to these surfaces. The stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental conditions tested. The conclusion was that fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is certainly plausible. In turn, Ren et al. (2020) corroborated that the majority of viruses from the respiratory tract, such as coronaviruses, influenza, SARS-CoV-1, or rhinovirus, could persist on inanimate surfaces for a few days. It was noted that absorbent materials like cotton were safer than unabsorbent materials for protection from virus infection, while the risk of transmission via touching contaminated paper was low. Anyhow, because of the lack of information when that review was published, the authors recommended using preventive strategies such as washing hands and wearing masks for containing COVID-19. The importance of surface-mediated transmission, particularly in light of the current outbreak, was also demonstrated by Rawlinson et al. (2020), who used a DNA oligonucleotide surrogate for contaminated bodily fluid based on the cauliflower mosaic virus (AB863139.1) to determine how SARS-CoV-2 would spread within a clinical surface environment. The results showed that within 10 h, the surrogate moved from the isolation room and transferred to 41% of all surfaces sampled. That study highlighted the role of surfaces as a reservoir of pathogens and the need to address requirements for surface cleaning. In relation to this, since SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus, according to the authors, it should be very susceptible to most cleaning agents. In another review on the persistence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 on inert surfaces, Gerlier and Martin-Latil (2020) corroborated the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 based on the results of the two studies that were available at that time: van Doremalen et al. (2020), which has already been discussed above, and Chin et al. (2020). The later measured the stability of SARS-CoV-2 at different temperatures and on different surfaces. No infectious virus was recovered from printing and tissue papers after a 3-h incubation. Also, no infectious virus was detected from treated wood and cloth on day 2. SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on smooth surfaces, but no infectious virus was found from treated smooth surfaces on day 4 (glass and banknotes), or on day 7 (stainless steel and plastic). Once again, SARS-CoV-2 was susceptible to regular disinfection methods. Carraturo et al. (2020), who stated that besides the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, its transmission might be contained applying appropriate preventive measures such as personal protection equipment, and disinfecting agents, drew similar conclusions. I guess I could also add the following article, but there appears to be some level of speculation contained within it, so I'm not sure of its validity. The tl;dr is that the virus' main pathway is not from (most) surfaces. It spreads mainly from the mouth and nose through the air, and is being inhaled. Breathing, talking, singing, shouting, spitting, sneezing, those are the behaviors that lead to most infections. Either way, as I understand it, sars-cov-2 can certainly be transmitted by hand, as that is one of the surfaces on which virus particles survive for several hours and people touch various things throughout the day. So the most important surface to clean regularly, in my opinion, is the hand. Can use moisturizer to combat resulting dryness. Also probably a good idea to frequently wash arms and elbows with soap as well. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4
Thanks man. To be clear, i'm not doubting any of the measures, I'll even keep disinfecting when this is over, maybe also wear a mask when not feeling well. Most infectious diseases were way down in numbers last year.
What i'm really bugged about is the speed of the vaccination process in my area and Germany overall. Now, because the country wide process is too chaotic and ineffective, you can register with the local government too as well as your doctor, so there's 3 channels. But you should stick with one, which of course no one does.
I go 2 ways too, for my mother who is 77 atm, but i completely lost faith in the country wide system, so i'll cancel that and hope for the local doctor. At least she can tell you what's your place in line, so you're not completely in the dark. That being said, we're number 300 and at the moment she gets 20 doses per week.
Not expecting the vaccine for myself till maybe late fall? Meanwhile they vaccinate 16 year olds in New York. There's a new Pfizer vaccine production facility 50km away from me...
|
On April 17 2021 22:12 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 18:51 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2021 16:37 r00ty wrote:
Does anyone know, why it takes well over a year to make a definitive statement on the risk of infection via surfaces? We had 5 vaccines ready, but didn't even know that? I can't wrap my head around this. This is continuously being researched. The risk of transmission from various surfaces varies heavily (a few hours or less, up to more than a week) depending on the surface and environmental conditions. Among the most infectious environments are hospitals. Heat is one of the best disinfectants. Exact information is difficult to come by due to the various different virus types and strains being studied under many different conditions. The paper notes this difficulty. Another problem is that it is difficult to know how infective the detected virus particles are on various surfaces. A virus particle can be effectively inactivated (the paper tries to address this issue), making it no longer infectious. Also, the viral load can be too small to cause an infection, meaning the detection of active virus particles doesn't always necessitate a significant threat (relatively speaking). Within the following spoiler I'm quoting a wall of text directly from the paper. All of that information is relevant, so I'm not going to try to summarize it into a tl;dr + Show Spoiler +SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel (estimated median half-life of this coronavirus was approximately 5.6 h on stainless steel and 6.8 h on plastic) than on copper (1 h) and cardboard (3 h). Viable virus was detected up to 72 h after application to these surfaces. The stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental conditions tested. The conclusion was that fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is certainly plausible. In turn, Ren et al. (2020) corroborated that the majority of viruses from the respiratory tract, such as coronaviruses, influenza, SARS-CoV-1, or rhinovirus, could persist on inanimate surfaces for a few days. It was noted that absorbent materials like cotton were safer than unabsorbent materials for protection from virus infection, while the risk of transmission via touching contaminated paper was low. Anyhow, because of the lack of information when that review was published, the authors recommended using preventive strategies such as washing hands and wearing masks for containing COVID-19. The importance of surface-mediated transmission, particularly in light of the current outbreak, was also demonstrated by Rawlinson et al. (2020), who used a DNA oligonucleotide surrogate for contaminated bodily fluid based on the cauliflower mosaic virus (AB863139.1) to determine how SARS-CoV-2 would spread within a clinical surface environment. The results showed that within 10 h, the surrogate moved from the isolation room and transferred to 41% of all surfaces sampled. That study highlighted the role of surfaces as a reservoir of pathogens and the need to address requirements for surface cleaning. In relation to this, since SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus, according to the authors, it should be very susceptible to most cleaning agents. In another review on the persistence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 on inert surfaces, Gerlier and Martin-Latil (2020) corroborated the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 based on the results of the two studies that were available at that time: van Doremalen et al. (2020), which has already been discussed above, and Chin et al. (2020). The later measured the stability of SARS-CoV-2 at different temperatures and on different surfaces. No infectious virus was recovered from printing and tissue papers after a 3-h incubation. Also, no infectious virus was detected from treated wood and cloth on day 2. SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on smooth surfaces, but no infectious virus was found from treated smooth surfaces on day 4 (glass and banknotes), or on day 7 (stainless steel and plastic). Once again, SARS-CoV-2 was susceptible to regular disinfection methods. Carraturo et al. (2020), who stated that besides the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, its transmission might be contained applying appropriate preventive measures such as personal protection equipment, and disinfecting agents, drew similar conclusions. I guess I could also add the following article, but there appears to be some level of speculation contained within it, so I'm not sure of its validity. The tl;dr is that the virus' main pathway is not from (most) surfaces. It spreads mainly from the mouth and nose through the air, and is being inhaled. Breathing, talking, singing, shouting, spitting, sneezing, those are the behaviors that lead to most infections. Either way, as I understand it, sars-cov-2 can certainly be transmitted by hand, as that is one of the surfaces on which virus particles survive for several hours and people touch various things throughout the day. So the most important surface to clean regularly, in my opinion, is the hand. Can use moisturizer to combat resulting dryness. Also probably a good idea to frequently wash arms and elbows with soap as well. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 Thanks man. To be clear, i'm not doubting any of the measures, I'll even keep disinfecting when this is over, maybe also wear a mask when not feeling well. Most infectious diseases were way down in numbers last year. What i'm really bugged about is the speed of the vaccination process in my area and Germany overall. Now, because the country wide process is too chaotic and ineffective, you can register with the local government too as well as your doctor, so there's 3 channels. But you should stick with one, which of course no one does. I go 2 ways too, for my mother who is 77 atm, but i completely lost faith in the country wide system, so i'll cancel that and hope for the local doctor. At least she can tell you what's your place in line, so you're not completely in the dark. That being said, we're number 300 and at the moment she gets 20 doses per week. Not expecting the vaccine for myself till maybe late fall? Meanwhile they vaccinate 16 year olds in New York. There's a new Pfizer vaccine production facility 50km away from me...
Yeah I've been hearing of organizational problems like that from an increasing number of people. Can't wait until I also get to experience it when I get my first jab.
I think one of the issues is the lack of doses. For example in Austria we still have many deaths relatively speaking (and rising again) despite vaccinating the high-risk groups first, because we lack the number of doses required to take a more indiscriminate approach, unlike for example Israel, UAE, US and the UK, to name a few. The only clear outlier I know of is Chile, which is still seeing rising infections and deaths despite reaching 69 vaccinations per 100 people as of today. In Austria we've been sitting at 25/100 for maybe a week or so.
The math says if there are enough doses for the whole population, it's best to vaccinate indiscriminately. With limited doses it's necessary to distribute to high-risk groups first. However, the conclusion changes if the vaccines have >60% efficacy and there are enough doses for at least half the population, then it becomes better to vaccinate a little more indiscriminately.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/doing-the-touchy-math-on-who-should-get-a-covid-vaccine-first/
One problem that models have trouble accounting for are mutations (which is sort of being addressed in the above article). If the mass vaccination process takes too long, a new native or imported mutation could mess things up (as is the case with the SA variant). This is why border control is so crucial and travellers between states within a country should also be traced.
New mutations could also target demographics differently than older ones and that could require an adjustment in the optimal strategy. That's why I believe policy must consider not only the current situation but also potential future ones.
The study, and others like it, inspired a change in CDC policy to prioritize vaccinating children. “It was a revolution in how we think about vaccines,” says Larremore. Vaccination models now routinely consider the power of indirect protection of the most vulnerable by vaccinating those most responsible for spread.
Another problem is that demographics don't interact the same way everywhere. In some communities old people interact more frequently with young people, so it makes sense to vaccinate more indiscriminately in those regions. That's also being addressed in the article.
I guess I could talk endlessly about this, lets leave it at that. In some countries the virus has been (all but) defeated, in others the situation is dire. I guess I live in a privileged country in many regards.
|
|
|
So, on a somewhat different note: have there been any studies as to how having had the corvid disease impacts the reaction to the vaccine? Seeing some very varied reactions within groups of similar individuals and anecdotally, having had a previous case of the coronavirus seems to have an effect.
|
On April 17 2021 19:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're more likely to die from a blood clot due to covid than you are from the AZ vaccine...
Just something to bear in mind when talking about the clotting issues. There is a risk for sure, but the risk from covid is just so much higher that if there's a choice between the AZ vaccine and no vaccine taking the vaccine is just better.
Very much aware of this but it's still slowing the uptake of AZ here in Canada.
We have administered 123k doses of AZ here in BC, and we have 191k doses in inventory. We're administering them at a rate of around 8-9k a day because they're restricted to ages 55-65 (which is an age group that will get pfizer in the next 2 weeks). It's enough doses to vaccinate 4% of the population here and it'll sit in inventory because no one wants a tainted vaccine despite how effective it is.
We were originally going to use AZ as a occupational/targeted vaccination for things like schools, workplaces, etc because of the easier storage requirements, but we've had to pivot away from it because our national vaccine guidance was to restrict usage in anyone below age 55.
I'd book and take it tomorrow if they let me, same with most people I know. At our current consumption rate, we're going to likely have 100k+ doses sitting idle unless new guidelines come out.
|
It does take a rather elevated level of confidence for people as a whole to be willing to take a very recently developed and unapproved vaccine being administered under emergency use authorization. That's on top of the (IMO, misguided but not baseless) standard fare of vaccine skepticism that exists in the world.
A good vaccine with >90% efficacy and consistently positive results has proven to be a relatively easy sell. A vaccine with much lower efficacy, several high-profile setbacks during trials and distribution, and rare but real and deadly adverse affects does not so easily inspire similar levels of confidence. When you have it be "not for the elderly" during one phase of the distribution but then "only for the elderly" once they find a deadly complication in younger people, you probably lost many potential vaccinations in both groups. When heads of state express their skepticism but then have to do a giant 180 and take the vaccine themselves in a desperate attempt to promote the beleaguered-but-available doses, that's also trouble. The message of "yes, it's a problematic vaccine, but please take it because it's still better than the disease for most people!" - is not a good one and will cause many people to rightfully turn it down.
|
|
|
It's tough, because all signs really do point to Pfizer and Moderna being better choices for young women from 18-50. The fact that they (appear) to have better efficacy than AZ in two doses and don't come with a 1 in ~200-300,000 chance (the one in a million stat is borderline disinformation at this point) to have an ultra-severe cerebral sinus thrombosis should factor into who they are used in and why.
The efficacy argument adds to this; based on the real-world data we're seeing and the original trials, Pfizer and Moderna are also better at dealing with infections, just because 95% efficacy is twice as good as 90% and four times as good as 80%.
That said, in any country or community where Pfizer and Moderna are not available and COVID risk is high, both J&J and AZ can and should be deployed, and it definitely makes sense to use them in populations outside that risk zone regardless of where you are.
The problem is that the ultra connected world is not equipped to parse and absorb this information. The fact that the FDA paused J&J and hasn't approved AZ is in large part because the US's Pfizer and Moderna supply already drastically outstrip demand (though, personally, after listening to the advisory committee meeting I think they should have unpaused J&J in those over 65). The reason Denmark stopped AZ is that their infection numbers are incredibly low, and they also have others on hand. These are contextual choices, not certainties, but the US's and Germany's decisions are being treated as relevant to e.g. Canada and South Africa and Madagascar.
|
There is to much bullshit going around about vaccines. AZ is a great vaccine. 2500 infections/day and ~25 deaths/day in UK with a population of 60 million and just a handful of serious complications is proof of that. If anyone wants to doubt that just try to explain the graphs.
The fact is that for everyone (but especially if you are older) simply taking the first vaccine you are offered ASAP is the logical choice.
Normally I don't particularly care what other people do with their own life/health (smoking, taking meds with side effect profiles that are several times worse than vaccines for convenience, having risky hobbies etc).
But this anti vax or "I want to choose" nonsense affects me personally in so many ways.
* It increase the risk that my family (mostly toddler who can't get vaccinated) gets covid.
* It uses my tax money for unnecessary treatments of unvaccinated people
* It forces me to endure restrictions in my life longer than I have to.
* It prolongs the time of negative economic impact on the society I live in.
* It increases the risk of getting mutated variants.
IMHO as soon as a certain age group is done vaccinating just move to the next and just let the people who declined vaccination because they got offered the "wrong" vaccine fend for themselves.
I don't want to see any additional ICU staffing this summer, I don't want to hear about additional restrictions, I don't want the government to bend over backwards to appease 65+ people who want to have their way based on completely shit personal risk assessments.
I just want society to get on with it and anyone who doesn't want to get on that train can spend another 6 months in voluntary isolation waiting for their dose or take their chances in going out, knowing that the care they get is likely oxygen only in a converted school or something while the real ICU patients get preferred treatment.
Of course the above is not going to happen because politicians are cowards...
|
|
|
Looks like Austria is finally moving ahead again after a long pause. From 25/100 yesterday to 28/100 today, I hope this keeps up. The Netherlands have also mostly caught up after lagging behind initially. I'm still quite unhappy with the overall pace, but at least we're getting things done. Also, the UAE has hit 100/100, so it'll be interesting to see what develops there.
|
as long as I don't have to take Sputnik V without EMA approval just so that our chancellor can do a photo up and one of his victory laps... I am halfway happy. even if I have to wait just abit longer. like fall even.
|
|
|
On April 19 2021 07:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2021 06:03 Magic Powers wrote:
Looks like Austria is finally moving ahead again after a long pause. From 25/100 yesterday to 28/100 today, I hope this keeps up. The Netherlands have also mostly caught up after lagging behind initially. I'm still quite unhappy with the overall pace, but at least we're getting things done. Also, the UAE has hit 100/100, so it'll be interesting to see what develops there. What site do you check for the vaccinations and how does it deal with the 1 shot compared to the two? Like in Canada they have decided to try to get everyone 1 shot before they move onto the second (4 month delay between) whereas other places are doing it 2 weeks after. And the sites I have checked have not really differentiated between the two strategy's.
This site shows the vaccination progress. The map shows the number of total injections per 100 population.
Below the map there's a side by side of total vaccinations vs full vaccinations.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html
Canada is at 24% total injections with 2.5% full vaccinations.
|
|
|
the economist has excellent data as well on vaccination progress. also paywalled unfortunately.
|
in stark contrast to Canada... infection rates plummeting in Israel.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/israel-to-scrap-outdoor-mask-mandate-from-sunday-1.5389139
Israel's leadership got the job done. Canada's leadership failed badly. Doug Ford and his leadership team do not have what it takes to lead a major 21st century 1st world economy. Same with Justin Trudeau and his team.
Both Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau are very good local level politicians. As city councillers or MPs they are very solid. Anything more than that.. and they are in over their heads. I don't think either person has enough intelligence and street smarts to handle being a Finance Minister or Justice Minister or even Health Minister.
Canada has some good leaders, however, they've been squeezed out of Canada's top political spots or have lost the motivation to lead the country.
Any how, the working poor and lower middle class in Canada are getting crushed... this is a debacle.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On April 18 2021 20:29 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
There is to much bullshit going around about vaccines. AZ is a great vaccine. 2500 infections/day and ~25 deaths/day in UK with a population of 60 million and just a handful of serious complications is proof of that. If anyone wants to doubt that just try to explain the graphs.
The fact is that for everyone (but especially if you are older) simply taking the first vaccine you are offered ASAP is the logical choice.
Normally I don't particularly care what other people do with their own life/health (smoking, taking meds with side effect profiles that are several times worse than vaccines for convenience, having risky hobbies etc).
But this anti vax or "I want to choose" nonsense affects me personally in so many ways.
* It increase the risk that my family (mostly toddler who can't get vaccinated) gets covid.
* It uses my tax money for unnecessary treatments of unvaccinated people
* It forces me to endure restrictions in my life longer than I have to.
* It prolongs the time of negative economic impact on the society I live in.
* It increases the risk of getting mutated variants.
IMHO as soon as a certain age group is done vaccinating just move to the next and just let the people who declined vaccination because they got offered the "wrong" vaccine fend for themselves.
I don't want to see any additional ICU staffing this summer, I don't want to hear about additional restrictions, I don't want the government to bend over backwards to appease 65+ people who want to have their way based on completely shit personal risk assessments.
I just want society to get on with it and anyone who doesn't want to get on that train can spend another 6 months in voluntary isolation waiting for their dose or take their chances in going out, knowing that the care they get is likely oxygen only in a converted school or something while the real ICU patients get preferred treatment.
Of course the above is not going to happen because politicians are cowards...
Here here.
That said politicians are just a convenient whipping boy, despite their many failings in this crisis.
You have populations who want to be protected from Covid, but live their lives as normal, but not take x vaccine, people who won’t do much as wear a mask etc. I mean good luck navigating that
Fucking idiots spouting errant nonsense, if this pandemic has taught us anything it’s that the individual’s rights may be sacrosanct, but a collection of individuals makes for a terrible set of conditions to deal with a pandemic.
I wouldn’t generally be in favour of a ‘vaccine passport’ to do various things outside of foreign travel for various reasons, but at this stage I really am purely to inconvenience that segment of the population.
Through no choice of our own many of us have suffered and done the right thing for what feels like forever, some have not. Now we’re on the cusp of at least managing this some people want to voluntarily opt out and yet still be afforded the privileges of society opening up again?
Nah. With the caveat that I witnessed a woman and subsequently her husband beating the shit out of a guy for merely telling them they were trying to enter an exit only door in work, so this opinion may be informed by additional grumpiness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
