I swear to god if I hear this 'let it run through the population' shit one more time
I swear to god if I hear this 'let it run through the population' shit one more time
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Did you read the reason why she thinks it should be allowe to run through the population too?
Because apparently it would be wrong for us to vaccinate our own citizens before we vaccinate others across the world. So we should be allowed to catch Covid rather than be vaccinated.
Not a chance on earth that idiocy will be listened to. Nor should it.
https://reason.com/2021/02/11/this-d...pplies-expire/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/u...d-vaccine.html
District Attorneys are bad.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely fantastic news.
Twitter Link
Next phase of British vaccine rollout plan announced.
Priority Groups 5-9 First Doses, plus Priority Groups 1-4 Second Doses due by 30 April.
Starting now with 65-69 year olds (group 5) and vulnerable (but not extremely vulnerable) under 65 year olds (group 6) starting now.
My wife who got her first dose almost straight away gets her second dose next week.
By my maths that's 30-35 million doses needed by 30 April. Approximately 400-450k per day average needed which is what we've been trending last couple of weeks.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
She's not at risk for any medical reason so is not in Gp 6. I suppose it is because she is in school up to 3 days a week (and has been throughout much of lockdown) to teach and help look after the kids of front-line key workers who have no choice but to put their kids in school. That puts her at additional risk, so I suppose further up the line for a jab.
My suppositions, I have not been on the phone to her since she messaged to say she gets her jab this week to ask directly why.
I missed this from months ago, very good.
And todays is very good too but doesn't embed well on the site: https://xkcd.com/2425/
Twitter Link
Dimestore Trump at it again.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
My (much, much) younger brother is getting his vaccine next week.
He had major heart surgery two or three years ago at the age of 19. Has had the all clear last year so I was surprised he's still on the Group 6 priority list, I'm guessing they're not taking their chances.
My kid got sent home today. Quarantined due to a classmate.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Circling back on this, things look better both on the level of my state and the country as a whole. The US is dosing about 0.5/100 a day, which is a substantial improvement from two weeks back. They also have about 16 million doses 'distributed to states', working out to 9-10 days of buffer. They also have about 25 million pending second doses (or about 15 days worth of current consumption), so I'm not shocked that they are keeping some buffer to account for lumpy supply. I obviously don't have detailed data on expected supplies, but it certainly looks like they're getting closer to hitting their supply limitations.
My state (MA) has also substantially improved. There's still all sorts of problems with the appointment system, but shots in arms have gone up substantially, from ~0.35/100 to over 0.6/100 in just two weeks. This has gone from being a below average performer to being near the top per capita. If I do my math right, they have about 8 days slack right now, and about a 15 day backlog of second doses. This is a huge improvement and I'm hopeful they continue to push against supply limitations.
Currently demand for vaccinations is very high among the groups who can access it, which probably helps with the rollout. I look forward to seeing how their rollout plans evolve as they move to populations that are less flexible (e.g. working age) and may have lower demand for a vaccine (due to lower perceived risk, vaccine hesitancy, etc.). Our state just opened up for 65+ and they don't expect to open it to more people for 3-4 weeks. Once it gets to healthy adults in March/April, I hope they can keep up (or even accelerate) this pace.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/18/polit...ine/index.html
Florida prioritizing the rich for vaccination, because.. well, because it's Florida I suppose.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
More pseudoscience/evidence:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...test-uk-cases/ @ 9:44am
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal
The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
No, just very poor reporting.
This is the paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...7/fulltext#%20
Participants were young or middle-aged HCWs, 9/10 of whom were vaccinated on schedule. The 85% figure concerns days 15-28 after the first dose. The same caveats and objections that have been previously raised still apply, and anyone pretending this somehow "vindicates" the UK strategy wrt the Pfizer vaccine is misleading their audience.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The days 15-28 are what matter and do vindicate it.
The objections are garbage primarily, especially those that rely upon averaging days 1 to 28 in order to pretend or claim that one dose alone only gives an ~50 level of protection.
If you're claiming that the days 15-28 claims shouldn't have been made or weren't accurate then anything that vindicates that, vindicates the strategy which is based upon that hypothesis.
This is what you had to say last time we discussed this: If you're claiming that there is not sufficient data to say that, then this is further data to reconfirm it.
Objections about what happens if immunity is lost are a different topic to whether we can confirm that immunity is gained. This is further evidence showing one dose does indeed give immunity claimed. Whether that immunity lasts 12 weeks is another topic of conversation and don't conflate the two issues.
In a debate about a 12 week interval? No, not in the least.
It sucks that I keep having to say this, but you really should read posts carefully so that you don't misrepresent them. The objections concern problems with extrapolating and generalizing from a very short observation period that doesn't even correspond to the question being asked.The objections are garbage primarily, especially those that rely upon averaging days 1 to 28 in order to pretend or claim that one dose alone only gives an ~50 level of protection.
Do you... do you know many days there are in a week?If you're claiming that the days 15-28 claims shouldn't have been made or weren't accurate then anything that vindicates that, vindicates the strategy which is based upon that hypothesis.
Wow, mate, it's just one paragraph... if you're gonna quote it and use it as an argument, the very least you can do is read it.This is what you had to say last time we discussed this: If you're claiming that there is not sufficient data to say that, then this is further data to reconfirm it.
Let me help you:
He's not really misrepresenting it; it's the overall efficacy for the interval between first and second dose, as reported in their December paper on Comirnaty's safety & efficacy. Almost all cases in the treatment group occurred within first couple of weeks. Problem is, the data is not sufficient to state that efficacy of a single dose is extremely high (from a couple of weeks onward) based on observations over the course of a week and change. Few observations, extremely broad confidence interval, and not necessarily generalizable to present circumstances.Hey, maybe you should read the article you posted:Objections about what happens if immunity is lost are a different topic to whether we can confirm that immunity is gained. This is further evidence showing one dose does indeed give immunity claimed. Whether that immunity lasts 12 weeks is another topic of conversation and don't conflate the two issues.
The article—and, indeed, one of the scientists—misleadingly portrays the study's findings as supporting the UK's 12 week interval for the Pfizer vaccine; the study does no such thing. Nobody has disputed that the first dose offers some protection; it is the level and duration of that protection that remains uncertain. In this example, among a cohort of young and healthy subjects, researchers estimated the vaccine's efficacy to be between 71-92% in a two-week period, while noting that 90% of subjects received their second dose in the first half of that period—on schedule. This has no relevance to a discussion about whether or not it's better to wait 12 weeks after the first dose—rather than 3 weeks—when vaccinating very old institutionalized people. The study attempts to answer a completely different question, for a different population.Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal
The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
[...] said the studies vindicated the UK's approach [...]
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision [...]
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes absolutely in a debate about a 12 week interval. The debate about the 12 week interval is whether 1 dose gives protection or not, how many times do you need this explaining to you?
There is no evidence that once gained protection will be lost within 12 weeks so the question to address is whether protection is gained in the first place or not?
But this is about the question asked. The question being asked is does 1 dose alone provide protection? Answer: Yes.It sucks that I keep having to say this, but you really should read posts carefully so that you don't misrepresent them. The objections concern problems with extrapolating and generalizing from a very short observation period that doesn't even correspond to the question being asked.
Yes, why?Do you... do you know many days there are in a week?
Yes I read it. This is even more data to show that the efficacy of a single dose is extremely high (from a couple of weeks onwards) based on observations of thousands of people over the course of a fortnight. More observations, narrowing confidence interval and entirely generalisable to present circumstances.Wow, mate, it's just one paragraph... if you're gonna quote it and use it as an argument, the very least you can do is read it.
Let me help you:
It absolutely and entirely does support the 12 week interval. The premise of the 12 week interval is that dose one gives protection - all evidence that dose one gives protection is evidence for the interval, any evidence that dose one alone does not give protection is evidence against the hypothesis. All evidence points to the former, there is no evidence yet for the latter.Hey, maybe you should read the article you posted:
The article—and, indeed, one of the scientists—misleadingly portrays the study's findings as supporting the UK's 12 week interval for the Pfizer vaccine; the study does no such thing. Nobody has disputed that the first dose offers some protection; it is the level and duration of that protection that remains uncertain. In this example, among a cohort of young and healthy subjects, researchers estimated the vaccine's efficacy to be between 71-92% in a two-week period, while noting that 90% of subjects received their second dose in the first half of that period—on schedule. This has no relevance to a discussion about whether or not it's better to wait 12 weeks after the first dose—rather than 3 weeks—when vaccinating very old institutionalized people. The study attempts to answer a completely different question, for a different population.
Your whinging about duration is ridiculous straw grasping bullshit. Thankfully Prof Arnon Afek actually understands what question needs answering unlike you.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Yes it is. There is an abundance of evidence that protection from viruses almost always lasts longer than 12 weeks. Limited yes, but less than three months there's no evidence for.
Indeed my wife works in a care home and everyone gets tested three times a week to prevent cases and outbreaks. The exception is anyone who has recently been positive, for 90 days (>12 weeks) anyone who has recently been positive is excluded from testing as they're presumed to be immune and any PCR test showing them to be positive is presumed to be a false positive catching lingering dead infection.
Only after 90 days is lapsed does someone resume testing and the vaccine is shown to give better immunity than an actual infection does.
If protection is valid in weeks 3 and 4 then you're querying whether in an 8 rather than 12 week window that protection would be lost and that's an unnaturally short window to lose protection in.
Whether protection is gained is more at stake than whether it's lost in those 8 weeks.
Again, that's for natural transmissions. You can't carry that over to new vaccines, you can't just make that jump in logic with science.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
RB, I find it puzzling that you reported this particular study result. The study size is quite small, the studied cohort is irrelevant to a high risk population, and the results don't tell us anything we didn't already know (that Pfizer's efficacy within a few weeks of the first dose appears to be pretty good). Moreover, there are much larger and more relevant Israeli studies that have looked at higher risk populations and shown broadly similar early efficacy.Originally Posted by RandBlade
In fact, the only reason I can think that you reported this as somehow being new data that might strengthen your argument is because there's a single doctor quoted in the news piece who agrees with you.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Because of the quote in part yes but also because it's more evidence for the very high efficiency before second dose claim.
Can I ask you a few questions please?
1. Last time we discussed this you used the 52% figure rather than higher as efficacy which I said was because of averaging the first fortnight with the latter period. That there was no efficacy in week one, low in week two and high by week three, which averages to the 52%. Do you accept that now?
2. Do you accept that there is now significant evidence that a single dose gives very high levels of protection by the third or fourth week without a booster jab yet?
3. Do you think that if a single dose does give very high levels of protection by the third and fourth weeks that it's a reasonable assumption to believe that would last the following eight weeks? Like how people who've been infected in the past 90 days aren't being asked to take tests at least here?
4. Edit oh and finally we know for a fact don't we that someone not getting their first dose due to limited supply and it's gone to someone else getting their booster instead will have no protection don't we?