|
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 July 07 2021 17:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2021 16:42 Amui wrote:On July 07 2021 15:00 Geisterkarle wrote:Nope, why should it? Also: While Israel is hailed as "very vaxxed", if those numbers (sorry German, but scroll to the lists or there is a plot) are correct, only about 65% of Israel is vaccinated. That is not "that" impressive, as the country propagades! Average age of Israel is relatively young at 30.5, so I think part of it is that a large portion of the country can't get vaccinated due to age. Canada is almost 10 years older on average and is struggling to hit the 70% overall mark. Delta is apparently very capable of spreading among the younger demographic, even if it doesn't kill many of them. Israel showed efficacy of 2 doses is down to 64% and they have 85% adult population fully vaccinated. Delta accounts for 90% of new infections as well, I’d say they’re a much better example of what happens when delta comes to town.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-confirms-vaccine-less-effective-against-delta-variant-eyes-third-dose/Found a source. Not a lot of fun if that is the case, as places with lots of less effective vaccines (hi sinovac) have had some struggles in controlling covid even with higher vaccination rates. Seems like a booster shot later this year or early next year is probably in the cards for most richer countries. Yeah, Israel very recently approved Pfizer for use in the age group 10+, and have started ramping up vaccinations again, but it stalled for a while because everybody eligibile was either vaccinated, or belonged to some segments of the population who were very resistant to vaccination.
I imagine covid is running rampant in those communities. I wonder how their government will tackle this issue. Will they force vaccinations against religious belief?
|
|
|
Refusing mask or vaccine, same outcome. People die. People refusing to wear masks or taking the vaccine simply out of ignorance or spite has real life consequences.
Yes, this is complete bullshit. You can be perfecly responsable without ever putting your mask on if you stay out of situations where it makes a difference. Masks save extremely few lives, and there are numerous communication and health disadvanages with them.
About Taiwan, tho of the main things they did was very quick mass testing/tracking and an extremely harsh quarentine regimen for entering the country at a very early stage. Remarkably, they also seem to have gotten their recent outbreak under control already.
I am not sure how irresponsable and responsable people really are when it comes down to it, you have everything everywhere. Islands and countries which dealt with Sars have an advantage, though, and Taiwan is both.
|
On July 09 2021 00:49 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Refusing mask or vaccine, same outcome. People die. People refusing to wear masks or taking the vaccine simply out of ignorance or spite has real life consequences. Yes, this is complete bullshit. You can be perfecly responsable without ever putting your mask on if you stay out of situations where it makes a difference. Masks save extremely few lives, and there are numerous communication and health disadvanages with them. About Taiwan, tho of the main things they did was very quick mass testing/tracking and an extremely harsh quarentine regimen for entering the country at a very early stage. Remarkably, they also seem to have gotten their recent outbreak under control already. I am not sure how irresponsable and responsable people really are when it comes down to it, you have everything everywhere. Islands and countries which dealt with Sars have an advantage, though, and Taiwan is both.
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.
But being more definitive about how well they work or when to use them gets complicated. There are many types of mask, worn in a variety of environments. There are questions about people’s willingness to wear them, or wear them properly. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer.
“How good does the evidence need to be?” asks Fischhoff. “It’s a vital question.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.
and
The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection.
source
|
On July 09 2021 01:36 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2021 00:49 Slydie wrote:Refusing mask or vaccine, same outcome. People die. People refusing to wear masks or taking the vaccine simply out of ignorance or spite has real life consequences. Yes, this is complete bullshit. You can be perfecly responsable without ever putting your mask on if you stay out of situations where it makes a difference. Masks save extremely few lives, and there are numerous communication and health disadvanages with them. About Taiwan, tho of the main things they did was very quick mass testing/tracking and an extremely harsh quarentine regimen for entering the country at a very early stage. Remarkably, they also seem to have gotten their recent outbreak under control already. I am not sure how irresponsable and responsable people really are when it comes down to it, you have everything everywhere. Islands and countries which dealt with Sars have an advantage, though, and Taiwan is both. Show nested quote +
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.
But being more definitive about how well they work or when to use them gets complicated. There are many types of mask, worn in a variety of environments. There are questions about people’s willingness to wear them, or wear them properly. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer.
“How good does the evidence need to be?” asks Fischhoff. “It’s a vital question.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8Show nested quote +
The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.
and Show nested quote +
The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection.
source
I don't usually agree with Slydie when it comes to mask issues, but in this case he's just right. He qualified his statement with the condition that you stay out of situations where they make a difference. Basically social distancing is much much much better than masks. Masks save lives in situations where social distancing isn't an option (e.g. inside a shop). But if you avoid such situations and abide by social distancing then masks will harm more than help.
|
On July 09 2021 05:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2021 01:36 Artisreal wrote:On July 09 2021 00:49 Slydie wrote:Refusing mask or vaccine, same outcome. People die. People refusing to wear masks or taking the vaccine simply out of ignorance or spite has real life consequences. Yes, this is complete bullshit. You can be perfecly responsable without ever putting your mask on if you stay out of situations where it makes a difference. Masks save extremely few lives, and there are numerous communication and health disadvanages with them. About Taiwan, tho of the main things they did was very quick mass testing/tracking and an extremely harsh quarentine regimen for entering the country at a very early stage. Remarkably, they also seem to have gotten their recent outbreak under control already. I am not sure how irresponsable and responsable people really are when it comes down to it, you have everything everywhere. Islands and countries which dealt with Sars have an advantage, though, and Taiwan is both.
Face masks: what the data say
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.
But being more definitive about how well they work or when to use them gets complicated. There are many types of mask, worn in a variety of environments. There are questions about people’s willingness to wear them, or wear them properly. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer.
“How good does the evidence need to be?” asks Fischhoff. “It’s a vital question.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.
and
The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection.
source I don't usually agree with Slydie when it comes to mask issues, but in this case he's just right. He qualified his statement with the condition that you stay out of situations where they make a difference. Basically social distancing is much much much better than masks. Masks save lives in situations where social distancing isn't an option (e.g. inside a shop). But if you avoid such situations and abide by social distancing then masks will harm more than help.
I disagree insofar as the bolded statment is pretty blanket and to my understanding not linked to the previous limitation.
On July 09 2021 00:49 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Refusing mask or vaccine, same outcome. People die. People refusing to wear masks or taking the vaccine simply out of ignorance or spite has real life consequences. Yes, this is complete bullshit. You can be perfecly responsable without ever putting your mask on if you stay out of situations where it makes a difference. Masks save extremely few lives, and there are numerous communication and health disadvanages with them.[...]
|
Yes, when you qualify your statement to such extremes that the following claim must always be true, then you can claim whatever you want. For instance, you can claim it always makes sense to bet the maximum amount of money on a hand of poker if you are certain you will win. You can claim that it's safe to be in a building that's rotted with black mold as long as you avoid completely the parts that happen to be moldy. It's a basic principle of probability too: the probability of a set of outcomes becomes more certain as more things are taken as given. So of course, if you take as given that you will always be in situations where masks don't make a difference, of course a mask won't make a difference. But it's qualified with such convolution as to make it a tautological statement. Okay, he's right. But is that particular statement being right surprising? Is it helpful? No and no.
I could make a similar claim about the Delta variant not actually being that big of a deal, as long as we ostracize the clusters where it's proliferating. Technically true, not useful. When you qualify a statement, the qualification should not be a point of debate in and of itself. Whether we can practice perfect distancing and keep safely quarantined is a much bigger point of contention than whether masks are obviated in such a scenario. Masks make a difference because we can't force such conditions to happen consistently in practice.
|
|
|
It is not really confusing. Their reasoning is "I don't want to be living in a pandemic, thus i am not living in a pandemic, thus i am being lied to by the people claiming so, thus there must be a sinister reason for everything."
It is stupid, but not confusing.
|
On July 09 2021 06:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think the biggest issue is that the "anti masker" for the most part is actually a anti every covid measure person. Whether it's social distancing, not doing indoor gatherings and so on. Masking is the easiest to see and perhaps the "least" important given the exact circumstance.
But the bigger issue is that most of the people rejecting the mask are rejecting everything and using their reasoning on the masks as if it applies to everything else.
It is as confusing as a large contingent of people who were most angry at the lock downs were the people least following the voluntary measures and then now after never being anti vaxx, getting their kids vaccinated and so on, have some how transformed to anti covid vaxx which is BY FAR the best way to avoid future lockdowns.
I don't think it is that easy to group people!
Take me:
I don't like masks! Do you know, how I walked around in the first Wave? Without a mask!
And do you know how 9/10 people I saw anywhere walked around during that time? Without a mask!
What happened? Infection cases dropped down!
Masks got mandatory when all the numbers were down. That is a very confusing way of telling people "masks are important!"
Also I could go into that "we" even got FFP2 masks mandatory and I'm open to any proof from anywhere but I don't see that they made any difference to "simple" cloth masks!
Believe me: the day, mandatory masks is lifted, I will not wear them anymore!
Indoor gatherings though... here it get's interesting! Many people getting together is a serious reason for infections - we don't even need to look at Corona! Which one of you in the US heard the "jokes" about the "PAX-flu" or even got it the last years?
Just to clarify with the above: Walking into a supermarket to buy a box of milk is _not_ a indoor gathering! (or if you think so, you should really rethink your "buying style"). We are talking partys, concerts, conventions, ... as a dancer that sucks to admit! On the other hand, I never noticed that the flu or similar got rampant in our dance-parties. Probably because people with a cold seldom go dancing - they go to convention; not that physically challenging.
But also I meet with like 80 people for a dance party this weekend anyway. But we all were tested by a doctor beforehand. And "all", I mean "all"; vaccination didn't get you out from the test!
oh, btw. my arm is not hurting anymore after my first shot of Moderna on Monday!
Yeah yeah, I'm probably not this "most part" you write. But don't mash everything together! That makes it much too easy!
|
Pfizer is developing a booster shot to target the delta variant since the vaccine is less effective against it.
They also claim there will likely be yearly injections needed.Personally I’m regretting not putting money into Pfizer shares as this seems like a huge, reliable revenue stream for them (Variant boosters/yearly jabs).Anyway clinical trials for the Delta variant booster are set to start next month.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/07/08/pfizer-says-it-is-developing-a-covid-booster-shot-to-target-the-highly-transmissible-delta-variant.html
Pfizer says it is developing a Covid booster shot to target the highly transmissible delta variant
Pfizer and BioNTech announced Thursday they are developing a Covid-19 booster shot intended to target the delta variant as concerns rise about the highly transmissible strain that is already the dominant form of the disease in the United States.
The companies said although they believe a third shot of their current two-dose vaccine has the potential to preserve the "highest levels" of protection against all currently known variants, including delta, they are "remaining vigilant" and developing an updated version of the vaccine.
Executives from Pfizer and BioNtech have repeatedly said people will likely need a booster shot, or third dose, within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated because they expect vaccine-induced immunity to wane over time. They also said it's likely people will need to get additional shots each year.
|
I'm not surprised that a booster has been developed and they're trying to sell it, but it seems like there's a good chance that the reduced interval is somewhat to blame for the reduced efficacy of the shot. In Israel, they're reporting mid 60s efficacy for pfizer while Canada (with 6+ week intervals) is reporting mid 80s efficacy with the same vaccines.
The longer interval increases the immune response and likely increases the longevity of the protection. A 3rd shot of an MRNA vaccine for anyone who's older, or has a compromised immune response, or even anyone who got it on the 3 week interval instead of a longer 6+ week interval is probably cheaper and easier than a booster shot at this point in time.
|
On July 10 2021 01:13 Lmui wrote:
I'm not surprised that a booster has been developed and they're trying to sell it, but it seems like there's a good chance that the reduced interval is somewhat to blame for the reduced efficacy of the shot. In Israel, they're reporting mid 60s efficacy for pfizer while Canada (with 6+ week intervals) is reporting mid 80s efficacy with the same vaccines.
The longer interval increases the immune response and likely increases the longevity of the protection. A 3rd shot of an MRNA vaccine for anyone who's older, or has a compromised immune response, or even anyone who got it on the 3 week interval instead of a longer 6+ week interval is probably cheaper and easier than a booster shot at this point in time.
Reports from BioNTech seem to indicate that the 60s efficacy in Israel is causes by a drop-off in antibodies about 6 months after vaccination. As Israel started vaccinating super early, most of them are already due a booster shot. Which is good news I guess, I was getting a bit worried that delta might cause big problems globally. 93% protection against severe infections does sound a lot, but if unchecked that would still mean 70.000 in a million people might need to be hospitalized.
|
On July 10 2021 04:23 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2021 01:13 Lmui wrote:
I'm not surprised that a booster has been developed and they're trying to sell it, but it seems like there's a good chance that the reduced interval is somewhat to blame for the reduced efficacy of the shot. In Israel, they're reporting mid 60s efficacy for pfizer while Canada (with 6+ week intervals) is reporting mid 80s efficacy with the same vaccines.
The longer interval increases the immune response and likely increases the longevity of the protection. A 3rd shot of an MRNA vaccine for anyone who's older, or has a compromised immune response, or even anyone who got it on the 3 week interval instead of a longer 6+ week interval is probably cheaper and easier than a booster shot at this point in time. Reports from BioNTech seem to indicate that the 60s efficacy in Israel is causes by a drop-off in antibodies about 6 months after vaccination. As Israel started vaccinating super early, most of them are already due a booster shot. Which is good news I guess, I was getting a bit worried that delta might cause big problems globally. 93% protection against severe infections does sound a lot, but if unchecked that would still mean 70.000 in a million people might need to be hospitalized.
Yeah that's in line with what I've seen. Not too worried about Delta though.
CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 35.5 million illnesses, more than 16.5 million medical visits, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season. This burden was similar to estimated burden during the 2012–2013 influenza season1.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
The flu has a ~14k/m hospitalization rate from the most recent season, with infection rates skyrocketing compared to where covid is/can be with good vaccination rates. The covid vaccine is significantly more protective than any flu vaccine has ever been, and breakthrough infections are rare. Once the covid vaccine is available to younger people ages 5-11 or even 6mo-11, and you get 80+% of your population vaccinated, covid cannot possibly infect enough people to cause hospitalization issues. The main issue is vaccination availability and outreach, not really the remaining risk after vaccination.
I'm hoping that we don't need boosters in Canada, but with Moderna (and probably a couple others) developing a flu shot, getting a combined flu+covid shot in December/Jan next year seems like a good way to cover all bases. We'll have to see in probably a year or so how the vaccine efficacy holds up for countries using longer intervals to really make a determination as to how much a booster is needed.
|
On July 10 2021 01:13 Lmui wrote:
I'm not surprised that a booster has been developed and they're trying to sell it, but it seems like there's a good chance that the reduced interval is somewhat to blame for the reduced efficacy of the shot. In Israel, they're reporting mid 60s efficacy for pfizer while Canada (with 6+ week intervals) is reporting mid 80s efficacy with the same vaccines.
The longer interval increases the immune response and likely increases the longevity of the protection. A 3rd shot of an MRNA vaccine for anyone who's older, or has a compromised immune response, or even anyone who got it on the 3 week interval instead of a longer 6+ week interval is probably cheaper and easier than a booster shot at this point in time.
Could easily theorize that the protection degrades over time and the Israelis got their shots long before the Canadians got theirs.
Edit: nevermind, infinity already said this
|
I went to Las Vegas last night to see Dave Chappelle and it was lit. Among the busiest I had ever seen it. It's also a fight weekend, and there's a Garth Brooks concert. Pretty much nonexistent mask usage. Almost no difference between Vegas now vs Vegas pre-pandemic other than some stray hand sanitizing stations or remnants of some social distancing signage that's no longer in use. I honestly thought Vegas would recover very slowly, not because people were afraid of COVID but because people wouldn't have as much expendable income with so much unemployment in 2020.
|
On July 10 2021 17:45 BlackJack wrote:
I went to Las Vegas last night to see Dave Chappelle and it was lit. Among the busiest I had ever seen it. It's also a fight weekend, and there's a Garth Brooks concert. Pretty much nonexistent mask usage. Almost no difference between Vegas now vs Vegas pre-pandemic other than some stray hand sanitizing stations or remnants of some social distancing signage that's no longer in use. I honestly thought Vegas would recover very slowly, not because people were afraid of COVID but because people wouldn't have as much expendable income with so much unemployment in 2020.
A lot of people have increased their savings during Covid due to having less to spend on. It is one of the reasons the housing market have become more expensive in almost all western countries during covid.
|
Governments all over the world helped that people still had income during covid
|
On July 10 2021 19:26 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2021 17:45 BlackJack wrote:
I went to Las Vegas last night to see Dave Chappelle and it was lit. Among the busiest I had ever seen it. It's also a fight weekend, and there's a Garth Brooks concert. Pretty much nonexistent mask usage. Almost no difference between Vegas now vs Vegas pre-pandemic other than some stray hand sanitizing stations or remnants of some social distancing signage that's no longer in use. I honestly thought Vegas would recover very slowly, not because people were afraid of COVID but because people wouldn't have as much expendable income with so much unemployment in 2020. A lot of people have increased their savings during Covid due to having less to spend on. It is one of the reasons the housing market have become more expensive in almost all western countries during covid.
True. Good point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
