|
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 October 25 2021 05:48 BlackJack wrote:New preprint study of 620,000 U.S. Veterans shows the J&J vaccine's protection against infection went from 92% in March to 3% in August. Moderna was still at 64% and Pfizer still at 50%. If you got the J&J vaccine >2 months ago it would be wise to try to get a booster of the pfizer or moderna immediately. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1
It needs to be said that this study doesn't show how much the protection level by any of the vaccines has declined in absolute terms, because it only looks at relative protection levels as compared to the unvaccinated group. For example the 92% to 3% decline for J&J could mean that the unvaccinated group has caught up to J&J, but it certainly does not show that J&J may now only be 3% protective! It can be expected that the unvaccinated group would become increasingly protected over time as more individuals get infected and subsequently develop immunity.
+ Show Spoiler +To illustrate this: comparing item A weighing 10kg to item B weighing 1kg (A = 1000% of B) and then later comparing item A to another item C weighing 10kg (A = 100% of C) doesn't mean item A is no longer at peak weight. A's absolute weight would remain unchanged. Yet, the percentages could be written as the weight difference going from +900% (A vs B) to +0% (A vs C)
As this tweet explains:
"It doesn't look like the authors adjusted or controlled for previous infection in the unvaccinated reference group. Hence this degree of waning is likely an artifact. The relative differences are still meaningful though, but not the absolute differences."
tl;dr this study specifically does not show that absolute protectiveness by any of the vaccines is lower now than it was before. However, it does show that Pfizer and Moderna is significantly more protective than J&J, which would confirm findings from other research.
Research specific to J&J has been done. It indicates that it may've always benefitted from a second dose (results for that conclusion were missing at the time, but we have more data now). Recommending a booster shot (in particular by Moderna or Pfizer) is being considered, but it may still need further research.
"The trial’s preliminary data showed that people who had gotten the J&J vaccine followed by a Moderna booster had a 76-fold rise in antibodies in 15 days; those who got Pfizer saw a 35-fold increase; while those who got the J&J booster had only a four-fold increase."
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/johnson-and-johnson-covid-booster
This poses the question whether the J&J vaccine should perhaps no longer be offered. I'm starting to believe this might be a good idea on a purely technical level, but it might also cause hesitancy in people who want to be able to choose a non-mRNA vaccine.
|
It should be offered because there's essentially no reason you should be unvaccinated. The chances of an allergy to an ingredient in all vaccines is essentially zero, and even if you are allergic, in most cases, you can take the vaccine provided an antihistamine shot? and a prolonged monitoring period.
It opens up options, to give people some protection, even if it's not necessarily protection against infection. There's still reasonable protection against severe illness which is the main driver behind vaccines.
|
On October 25 2021 15:05 Lmui wrote:
It should be offered because there's essentially no reason you should be unvaccinated. The chances of an allergy to an ingredient in all vaccines is essentially zero, and even if you are allergic, in most cases, you can take the vaccine provided an antihistamine shot? and a prolonged monitoring period.
It opens up options, to give people some protection, even if it's not necessarily protection against infection. There's still reasonable protection against severe illness which is the main driver behind vaccines.
Yes vaccines should obviously be offered. I meant only the J&J vaccine because it's consistently shown to be significantly less effective than Pfizer and Moderna.
|
|
|
Hopefully the results are better than remdesivir at least.
|
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines.
|
|
|
On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines.
And of course they should. Being proactive is always going to be better than being reactive, especially when dealing with infectious diseases.
|
On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines.
In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function?
|
On October 25 2021 10:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2021 06:34 BlackJack wrote:It's funny looking at the old acrticles from Politifact and other fact checkers regarding the lab-leak theory and gain-function-research. They all have to post updates/redactions as more information comes in, e.g. When this fact-check was first published in February 2021, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. It's crazy how many people were willing to immediately eat-up whatever narrative was told to them and go so far as to label anyone that disagreed with the narrative as racist or a conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t really help when those stories have the most visible respread and traction amongst racists, conspiracy theorists and racist conspiracy theorists. I guess there’s an understandable human desire to want to jump on things that go against that It’s quite bloody exhausting when even fact checking orgs either let that cloud their judgement, or are unable to properly vet the validity of what researchers are telling them.
I think these fact checker groups are just trying to do too much. I think it's pretty bad that Politifact doesn't even seem to have an option for "Unsubstantiated" or "Undetermined." They basically have to make a decision one way or the other and sometimes it's not always clear-cut. Some things are obvious hoaxes and there should be no problem identifying those things. But for example with the whole "gain-of-function" thing, there is some debate over what exactly constitutes gain-of-function research. I don't think Politifact should be trying to settle that debate.
|
On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again.
eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up.+ Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it
User was warned for this post.
|
On October 27 2021 00:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2021 04:25 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2021 02:58 xM(Z wrote:
it won't matter, they'll still push vaccines. In your eyes, what is a vaccine and how does it function? it's something you take up the ass then go: yes!, now i'm protected ... until you take it up again. eventually, you realize that somehow-somewhere, something gets used up. + Show Spoiler +i mean come on, he asked for it
He asked for it, because it doesn't appear as if you understand what you're talking about.
+ Show Spoiler +There's a long-standing TL meme about Romanians and their sense of humor, too.
|
A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status.
"What is added by this report?
During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.
What are the implications for public health practice?
There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On October 26 2021 07:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2021 10:18 WombaT wrote:On October 25 2021 06:34 BlackJack wrote:It's funny looking at the old acrticles from Politifact and other fact checkers regarding the lab-leak theory and gain-function-research. They all have to post updates/redactions as more information comes in, e.g. When this fact-check was first published in February 2021, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. It's crazy how many people were willing to immediately eat-up whatever narrative was told to them and go so far as to label anyone that disagreed with the narrative as racist or a conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t really help when those stories have the most visible respread and traction amongst racists, conspiracy theorists and racist conspiracy theorists. I guess there’s an understandable human desire to want to jump on things that go against that It’s quite bloody exhausting when even fact checking orgs either let that cloud their judgement, or are unable to properly vet the validity of what researchers are telling them. I think these fact checker groups are just trying to do too much. I think it's pretty bad that Politifact doesn't even seem to have an option for "Unsubstantiated" or "Undetermined." They basically have to make a decision one way or the other and sometimes it's not always clear-cut. Some things are obvious hoaxes and there should be no problem identifying those things. But for example with the whole "gain-of-function" thing, there is some debate over what exactly constitutes gain-of-function research. I don't think Politifact should be trying to settle that debate.
Yeah agreed there entirely, maybe they think a ‘we don’t know’ option would damage the brand, but I don’t think it’s anything too shameful
|
On October 27 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:A recent publication of real world data research spanning 7.5 months (30 weeks) strongly suggests that the covid-19 vaccines are safe (i.e. risk-free). Furthermore there also appears to be a significant positive correlation between people choosing to receive vaccination and their prior health status. " What is added by this report?During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site. What are the implications for public health practice?There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm?s_cid=mm7043e2_w
If the vaccines are risk free then why did scandinavian countries stop giving the Moderna vaccine to males under 30? Also how did that BBC presenter who took the AstraZeneca vaccine die?
|
|
|
When your case hinges on the 1 guy who died, maybe you're not making the case you think you are.
|
Not sure what the vaxx rate in China is, but now parts of China are back in lockdown (At least 4 million people).
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/china/lockdown-in-force-across-china/video/dda28c9c5dc699afb61d28f4c2ea26c5
Chinese authorities have placed at least four million people under lockdown – in an attempt to maintain the nation’s COVID-zero strategy.
The order has been imposed in 11 provinces – including Beijing – after more than 120 COVID cases were reported in the last week.
Apartment blocks with active COVID clusters have been put into strict 21 day lockdowns.
At least one person has been arrested after refusing to scan a heath QR code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
