Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 70684 times)

Puget

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
  • Always tries to use Sound judgment
  • CHE Posts: 447
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1395 on: January 08, 2021, 07:13:36 PM »
Quote
but do you seriously think "faith" means they just prayed on it?
Now who is " being extremely literal minded here--"


IF you have the second dose reserved when the first is delivered, then there is CERTAINTY that the second dose can be administered AS DESIGNED.

IF the new administration decides to release that second dose, then there is a probability (ie the introduction of 'hope/faith') that there will be some failure that will mean that the second dose IS UNAVAILABLE, for whatever reason/failure when the prescribed time arrives for the follow-up shot... the part of the shot that provides the rest of the immunity  (the part that ensures CERTAINTY)!

I prefer to deal, as much as I can, with Certainty - especially when related to health!

There are enough idiots and assholes who have declared that their personal freedom to infect others surpasses their need to wear a mask.  (and enough grocery stores/walmarts that, though they have stated a policy to require masks, wont enforce/follow it! to make it dangerous for everyone else.)


So you'd rather have the certainty that more people will die waiting for the first dose than the relatively small risk that for some reason production will fall off a cliff preventing the expected manufacturing of enough second doses? I'm sorry, but that simply makes no scientific sense to me in terms of thinking about the probabilities and risk/benefit analysis.

And I don't see what bearing idiots who won't wear masks have on manufacturing schedules.
"Never get separated from your lunch. Never get separated from your friends. Never climb up anything you can't climb down."
–Best Colorado Peak Hikes

clean

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • CHE Posts: 5416
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1396 on: January 09, 2021, 09:49:11 AM »
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

Cheerful

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1397 on: January 09, 2021, 10:34:33 AM »
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 

+1

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine pending would require only one dose, though they are studying two doses.  It is stable under more typical refrigeration for about 3 months, special freezers not needed.  It is cheaper. "Unlike the two mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is based on a modified adenovirus, the virus that causes the common cold."

Fingers crossed that this one proves effective.  Approval could come as early as February.

https://sanduskyregister.com/news/297606/other-vaccines-on-the-way/

Wish I could share Puget's enthusiastic confidence in the vaccine process going forward.  So far, it's been chaotic and seriously flawed at state and local levels in U.S.  Some doses thrown away due to poor planning and implementation.  Hope Puget is right.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 11:12:23 AM by Cheerful »

apl68

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1398 on: January 11, 2021, 07:44:30 AM »
Spoke yesterday at church with a nurse of my acquaintance whom I hadn't seen in a while.  She's bearing up well.  Although our county's proportionate losses from COVID are not good, we're a rural area that has not had the overwhelming masses of sick and dying that have created such a horrifying situation for urban hospitals.  She has been working with COVID patients quite recently.  She said that having to get into and out of the "space suit" gear is a challenge.  She's actually glad at being reassigned to surgery.
Don't lay up treasures for yourselves on Earth, where they can decay or be stolen.  Lay up treasures for yourselves in Heaven, where there is no decay or theft.  Where your treasure is, you heart will be also.


You can't take it with you.  You can only send it on ahead.

spork

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
  • CHE Posts: 18449
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1399 on: January 11, 2021, 07:57:47 AM »
It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

Parasaurolophus

  • near crested lizard
  • Senior Moderator
  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2307
  • CHE Posts: 1640
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1400 on: January 13, 2021, 05:39:49 PM »
My friend has tested positive. She just moved from one state to another. She took the test a little while ago and they called her up to say it was negative five days ago. Then Medicaid in her original state called her up today to do contact tracing, because despite what she was told she actually tested positive.

I know it's a genus.

dismalist

  • Hardly a
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Often wrong, never in doubt.
  • CHE Posts: 1513
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1401 on: January 13, 2021, 06:02:08 PM »
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid.

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
--Pogo

Stockmann

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 180
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1402 on: January 13, 2021, 06:54:41 PM »
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid.

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(

Actually, Taiwan (the only place in East Asia included) had a negative number of excess deaths, including among the elderly, for the last date available, and while on other dates it's sometimes gone positive, it's actually reached negative double digits on occasion, even among the elderly. Since the same precautions protect against the flu, perhaps those negative excess deaths are due to fewer flu cases. The huge April peak in Spain makes the scale make all the other data look comparable if you look at all dates available, but if you switch to looking only at data from June onwards, Belgian excess deaths among the elderly clearly stand out above everyone else, including deaths among the elderly in England & Wales, although very recently excess deaths among the elderly have fallen in Belgium and have shot up in England & Wales. The US and Sweden may have comparable excess deaths, but I would argue their policies have not been all that different.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 07:02:37 PM by Stockmann »

bacardiandlime

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1403 on: January 14, 2021, 02:42:37 AM »
As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

I've been assuming that when the dust settles and we can assess it all in a couple of years, we will see most Western countries had the same death rate.

I'd assume some of the periods that there were excess deaths dropping into negative (which seems to have happened in a few European nations over the summer), that might be a reduction in car accident/workplace deaths?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 02:44:55 AM by bacardiandlime »

Kron3007

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1404 on: January 14, 2021, 04:01:32 AM »
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.

This is an interesting decision.  Where I am in Canada they have decided to sole out the first shot to as many as possible without holding the second in reserve (some provinces have gone the other route).This is based on the preliminary results showing the first shot provides 50-90% protection, and that it is better from a public health perspective to have twice as many people with this level of protection than half of that with 95%.

Of course, this has its critics based on the fact that the clinical trials were based on two shots and the thought that people will assume they are safe and take fewer precautions.

I don't know which approach is best since both arguments are logical and there is disagreement among people working in this field.  The problem is that we don't actually have all the information we would need to make a properly informed decision.  Personally, I think a combination might make the most sense, where we would make sure the most vulnerable receive both, but for the general population the other approach could make more sense based on the consequences for either group being infected.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 04:05:52 AM by Kron3007 »

spork

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
  • CHE Posts: 18449
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1405 on: January 14, 2021, 06:41:19 AM »
Excess mortality: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid.

Excellent!

I played around with a couple of countries, the good, the bad and the ugly. They all seem to be hovering around 20% excess mortality, i.e. Germany, Sweden, and the United States, and even Spain. England and Wales are indeed through the roof. As I've said many times before, different polices all, or virtually all, lead to the same result.

New law of motion: Excess deaths = 20%, except in England. :-(

Actually, Taiwan (the only place in East Asia included) had a negative number of excess deaths, including among the elderly, for the last date available, and while on other dates it's sometimes gone positive, it's actually reached negative double digits on occasion, even among the elderly. Since the same precautions protect against the flu, perhaps those negative excess deaths are due to fewer flu cases. The huge April peak in Spain makes the scale make all the other data look comparable if you look at all dates available, but if you switch to looking only at data from June onwards, Belgian excess deaths among the elderly clearly stand out above everyone else, including deaths among the elderly in England & Wales, although very recently excess deaths among the elderly have fallen in Belgium and have shot up in England & Wales. The US and Sweden may have comparable excess deaths, but I would argue their policies have not been all that different.

I suspect that in three years there will be a general consensus that in many countries, especially the USA where the population is generally very unhealthy, a significant portion of excess deaths were of people who avoided medical treatment for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. during the pandemic.
It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

Caracal

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1406 on: January 14, 2021, 06:44:25 AM »
I prefer that the vaccine be delivered AS Designed. 
I fear that people will drop their guard after getting the first/only shot and that things will be even worse.

I dont know that this mixes apples and oranges, but people who take antibiotics, but not finish the course allow the surviving germs to be resistant to the treatment. 

So, I would prefer that we do what we are doing... We can still increase production, attempt to vaccinate all that can be vaccinated.

The problem, as Spork mentioned above, seems to currently be that there are bottlenecks in the ABILITY to vaccinate large amounts of people.  Flooding more vaccine would not get more needles in arms as that is not where the bottleneck may actually lie. 

Those waiting on the vaccine to be administered can remain at home and self isolate.  The Biden folks re hoping that the second dose will be available as needed, when the problem may not actually be the shortage of vaccine (as the bottleneck may well be elsewhere).  Once the shot is taken, especially if/when the second dose is questionable, the isolation will break and EVEN MORE will get sick.

I really have a problem with this kind of logic. We've seen throughout this pandemic, a pernicious idea that people can't be trusted with correct information and our policies should and guidance should reflect what we fear people will do with information. Remember how part of the reason it took so long to advise people about the benefits of mask wearing was because there was lots of fear among experts that people would think if they were wearing a mask they didn't need to take any other precautions? We still haven't incorporated all the evidence about the hugely reduced risk if you socialize outdoors vs indoors into the guidance people are given. There's this fear that if you tell people some things are safer, they will use that information in an irresponsible way. The results of this kind of thinking have been disastrous.

Same thing here. Basically this is a logistical problem. If you can be pretty sure, that supplies will allow you to give second doses to people on the scheduled timeline even if you don't reserve them, it would make a lot of sense to give more first doses out. The first dose seems to provide pretty substantial protection, and might keep people from getting seriously ill even if they do get COVID. We shouldn't be worrying that if we give more people this thing that will save lives, they will "use it irresponsibly." People are fully capable of understanding that while their risk is reduced somewhat, the protection isn't near as good till the second dose. People who are trying to be careful will continue to try to be careful with that information. If people aren't taking precautions, it won't make any difference anyway. Regardless they will be less likely to get COVID and we could potentially speed up vaccination overall, saving lots of lives.

Harlow2

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1407 on: January 14, 2021, 07:23:33 AM »
Vaccine appointments widened to all older than 65 in my state, with the not unexpected frustration of crashed websites and promised phone scheduling inoperable.  Wasted 2 hours this morning as 1.5 million of us chased the small supply.  I can wait if I have to, but I worry about others for whom waiting could be more problematic.  The effectiveness figures on the AstraZeneca vaccine hover around 60-70 percent. The J&J vaccine is a similar type. Hope it will be better and that those who have to wait won’t be penalized with a less effective vaccine.

apl68

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1408 on: January 14, 2021, 09:04:31 AM »
I advised our oldest staff member today to go ahead and get her and her husband's name on the list for vaccination, now that eligibility has been widened.  I'm also going to make sure Mom and Dad have done the same.  I think they're probably going to be on top of it already.

Spoke to a vendor that we deal with in another state today who said that she already has her appointment.  She's younger, but is in a high-risk category for medical reasons.  She'll be having to drive an hour to get vaccinated.  It's worth it.
Don't lay up treasures for yourselves on Earth, where they can decay or be stolen.  Lay up treasures for yourselves in Heaven, where there is no decay or theft.  Where your treasure is, you heart will be also.


You can't take it with you.  You can only send it on ahead.

Morden

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1409 on: January 14, 2021, 09:30:19 AM »
In my area of Canada, we don't expect vaccine available to the general population until summer at the earliest. They started with long term care residents and workers and medical staff, and then they will go by age.