Coronavirus - Page 278 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

That table doesn't make sense the first and second column have the exact parameters 20-29 deaths and estimated annualised deaths versus Last 2 weeks but have the value 2 for one and 9 for the other.

Can you explain why?

Also 20-29 isn't under 30's it's 20-29. It's a subset of under 30's but not the whole set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, phart said:

I've stated why that graph posted doesn't evidence fatalities.

The main reason being it's a graph about 16 week ICU admission versus the undefined concept "serious harm"

It doesn't mention fatalities at all and there is no evidenced formula to calculate fatalities from ICU admissions. It's also hugely simplistic and time-bound as well. Doesn't account for any confounding variables and is generally just an illustrative comparison, it's also part of 3 graphs made for the purpose. The other two at higher rates of exposure "prove the point" the other way.

As the makers of the picture say themselves

It is also important to note that the benefits illustrated are only for ICU admission due to COVID-19. For every 1 person shown as being saved from ICU admission, there are many more who might be being saved from suffering hospitalization and ā€˜long COVIDā€™. We are also not illustrating the benefit of not spreading the virus to others.

However i'm just one person who needs spoonfed the science so what do I know :D

Completely accept the time limitations. All it shows us is that after 4 months more people will have suffered serious harm from the vaccine than would have suffered serious harm has they not taken the vaccine, at current infection rates.Ā We don't yet know (or can estimate) what this might look like after say 12mths, given uncertainty over how long the vaccine will offer immunity.Ā 

I am assuming that more instances of ICU = higher deaths. I don't think this is unreasonable. Also I am considering the judgement in the context of mortality rates (rigged maths above) - meaning that overall I am saying something prettyĀ  uncontroversial and highly likely to be true.Ā 

I made it very clear that I was basing my statement on current infection rates and in the context of young people deaths only, rather than wider societal benefits/costs - which is a much longer debate (and hard to have when we can't even align on the basics!).Ā 

You will also note that other items are excluded such as the fact that the vaccine provides <100% protection (so risk of vaccine side effect + continued smaller risk of covid not allowed for) and other serious side effects (e.g. aliphatic reactions).Ā 

Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, phart said:

That table doesn't make sense the first and second column have the exact parameters 20-29 deaths and estimated annualised deaths versus Last 2 weeks but have the value 2 for one and 9 for the other.

Can you explain why?

Also 20-29 isn't under 30's it's 20-29. It's a subset of under 30's but not the whole set.

Sorry 2nd column is last four weeks (9 deaths) and first column is last two weeks - typo (will see if i can edit).

I didn't include <20s because it would be (on balance) unfair for you - it would make the mortality rates significantly lower. We are not proposing yet to vaccinate <18s, but obviously given covid rate is zero (or as close as you can get)Ā whereas side-effects of vaccineĀ likely toĀ be >0 then there will be noĀ argument that my assertion holds true for that groupĀ (which seems unfair given we are not yet proposing to vaccinate <18s).Ā 

However for info there been 10Ā deaths in last 3 months in <20s. So I would add them to the deaths but add a population of 16,000,000. So you reduce the mortality rates I quoted by about a third.Ā 

Also I forgot to post my source for asserting that blood clot deaths (potential caused by vaccine) exceed covid deaths in the last two weeks. I am comparing the BBC article figures quoted with the ONS covid figures. BBC article here:Ā Covid: Under-30s offered alternative to Oxford-AstraZeneca jab - BBC News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it provides 100% from serious harm just not 100% from symptomatic transmission and serious harm was one of the stated conditions.

I think you mean anaphylaxis or Anaphylactic shock, aliphatic is a type of hydrocarbon which is a very weird coincidence cause I spent all day yesterday converting skeletal formula into full structural formula and trying to find the chiral carbon in each chain, with varying degrees of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just entered the debate to state the picture shown wasn't evidence for the claims on fatalities. I have no claims about anything else i care to make.

I've made my point on it. I feel my case is strong others mileage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phart said:

but it provides 100% from serious harm just not 100% from symptomatic transmission and serious harm was one of the stated conditions.

I think you mean anaphylaxis or Anaphylactic shock, aliphatic is a type of hydrocarbon which is a very weird coincidence cause I spent all day yesterday converting skeletal formula into full structural formula and trying to find the chiral carbon in each chain, with varying degrees of success.

Ha! Yes a very coincidental typo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm happy to have been vaccinated.

This is a particularly horrible illness that I'd rather not have even a mild case of, given the apparent long term health impact on many people.

If being vaccinated also reduces the possibility of me passing the virus on then I'm also willing to have taken the risk of any side effects from the Covid jag.

Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phart said:

I just entered the debate to state the picture shown wasn't evidence for the claims on fatalities. I have no claims about anything else i care to make.

I've made my point on it. I feel my case is strong others mileage may vary.

Yes I take your point, it's not as simple as some of my (slightly provocative) statements makes out. But I also stand by the key argumentĀ I'm making.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Personally I'm happy to have been vaccinated.

This is a particularly horrible illness that I'd rather not have even a mild case of, given the apparent long term health impact on many people.

If being vaccinated also reduces the possibility of me passing the virus on then I'm also willing to have taken the risk of any side effects from the Covid jag.

Ā 

I'm happy as well. I'm early 40's though.

Isn't the point somewhat moot since under 30's are not getting the AZ vaccine anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phart said:

I'm happy as well. I'm early 40's though.

Isn't the point somewhat moot since under 30's are not getting the AZ vaccine anyway?

Yeah I said this ages ago in this thread, that thankfully the government have recognised the relative risks (quoting the exact study that I'm also concerned by)Ā - looked at the overall maths and went....shiiiitt is tight....let's avoid giving thisĀ vaccine to young people.Ā 

So not sure why folk think what I'm saying is that controversial to be honest. I'm just pointing out the world is probably round and every cunt is going all flat-earther - WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!Ā Guess it's just that there is one acceptable position on the internet and if you have any points that contradict that then it's just battered away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON ā€” Federal health agencies on Tuesday called for an immediate pause in use of Johnson & Johnsonā€™s single-dose coronavirus vaccine after six recipients in the United States developed a rare disorder involving blood clots within about two weeks of vaccination.

All six recipients were women between the ages of 18 and 48. One woman died and a second woman in Nebraska has been hospitalized in critical condition.

Nearly seven million people in the United States have received Johnson & Johnson shots so far, and roughly nine million more doses have been shipped out to the states, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

ā€œWe are recommending a pause in the use of this vaccine out of an abundance of caution,ā€ Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Food and Drug Administrationā€™s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the C.D.C., said in a joint statement. ā€œRight now, these adverse events appear to be extremely rare.ā€

Ā 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-blood-clots-fda-cdc.html?referringSource=articleShare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are almost 15 million people in Ontario.

3,310,157 vaccines have been administered here, so far.

OnlyĀ 819,131 Canadians (out of nearly 38 million)Ā have been fully vaccinated.

We haveĀ Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca.Ā 

74% of our total 11,403, 742 doses have been administered nationwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another worrying thing is that due to shortages Canadians are being scheduled to receive their second shot 4 months!!! after their first shot.

The manufacturers are suggesting that the second shot is administered 3 to 4 weeks after the first shot.

The government feels that one shot is better than nothing (and fingers crossed that the second shot will still do its' job).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Another worrying thing is that due to shortages Canadians are being scheduled to receive their second shot 4 months!!! after their first shot.

The manufacturers are suggesting that the second shot is administered 3 to 4 weeks after the first shot.

The government feels that one shot is better than nothing (and fingers crossed that the second shot will still do its' job).

Without getting too political.... the failed drama teacher made a huge mistake putting all his eggs in one basket by striking a vaccination deal with the chinese ( wont even mention the 2 michaels ....) of course the deal went sour ; and we re now at back of the queue

i got my AZ shot last night ; as just hit 55....Ā 

as yet no side effe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is ignoring the science on second doses

Ā 
Levitt Sheikh Chaudhri Swann LLP logo
Ā 
CanadaĀ April 5 2021

A recent editorial publishedĀ in the British Medical JournalĀ makes a good case for why the Canadian governmentā€™s risky dose-delay strategy to compensate for its failure to procure COVID-19 vaccines is a bad idea. It adds to a wealth of emerging scientific data, which clearly demonstrates that elderly people who have gotten their first dose of vaccine should get their second within the recommended 21 or 28 days, not 16 weeks.

ā€œConcerns remain about effectiveness in older adults,ā€ wrote Dominic Pimenta, Christian Yates, Christina Pagel and Deepti Gurdasani in the BMJ on March 18, speaking of the United Kingdomā€™s 12-week dose delay.

The ā€œdeviationā€ from the recommended protocol of 21 days between doses for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was intended to maximize benefit with limited supplies and to minimize hospital admissions and deaths, they noted. ā€œAt the time, Pfizer did not support the decision, stating that high efficacy could not be guaranteed.ā€

And indeed, delaying the second dose creates a new set of problems: ā€œAs many people in priority subgroups have not yet received a second dose, any substantial waning of protection during the 12-week interval will create problems as the U.K. starts to reopen.ā€¦ This is of particular concern for older adults.

The World Health OrganizationĀ also weighed inĀ on the dosage delay strategy by Britain and Canada, ā€œurging the vaccine doses be given 21 to 28 days apart.ā€

The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said months ago that people could wait up to 42 days between doses, if necessary, though the agency still advises individuals to stick to the initial schedule.

ā€œSo what gives? How long can you go on a single shot and still stay safe? And what happens if your second shot isnā€™t available on time?ā€ asked Marla Broadfoot in an article published in Scientific American on March 18.

ā€œThe first dose primes immunological memory, and the second dose solidifies it,ā€ reads the article, citing Thomas Denny, COO of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. The first dose of the Pfizer vaccine reduces infections by about 50 per cent, and Modernaā€™s jab reduces it by around 80 per cent, but both shots offer 95 per cent protection after the second shot, he noted.

The CDC increased the duration up to 42 days to provide scheduling flexibility, and no studies were done as to whether this reduced the vaccineā€™s effectiveness. ā€œWe donā€™t have the greatest science, at this point, to say we are 100 per cent comfortable doing a booster 35, 40 days out,ā€ Denny added. ā€œWe are deferring to the public health concerns and the belief that anything we can do right now is better than nothing.ā€

Would we be accelerating that evolution by creating country-sized populations of individuals with partial immunity?ā€

Some worry that those who are only partially immunized will be susceptible to the more dangerous variants. That isĀ a real concern, according to Paul Bieniasz, a retrovirologist at the Rockefeller University. ā€œThe virus is going to evolve in response to antibodies, irrespective of how we administer vaccines,ā€ he told Scientific American. ā€œThe question is: would we be accelerating that evolution by creating country-sized populations of individuals with partial immunity?ā€

Indications are that the AstraZeneca vaccine can be delayed, but not the Pfizer and Moderna jabs, as mRNA may degrade.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administrationā€™s (FDA) viewĀ on dosing schedulesĀ is quite succinct: ā€œWe want to remind the public about the importance of receiving COVID-19 vaccines according to how theyā€™ve been authorized by the FDA in order to safely receive the level of protection observed in the large randomized trials supporting their effectiveness.ā€¦

ā€œWe know that some of these discussions about changing the dosing schedule or dose are based on a belief that changing the dose or dosing schedule can help get more vaccine to the public faster. However, making such changes that are not supported by adequate scientific evidence may ultimately be counterproductive to public health.ā€

Itā€™s amazing how the Canadian government has bucked the advice of so many other health agencies and medical journals, in its attempt to mitigate the damage done by the Liberalsā€™ failure to procure enough life-saving vaccines for the Canadian public in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another strain of the virus, apparently originating in India, has now been detected in the UK.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-indian-double-mutation-variant-arrives-in-britain-and-has-hallmarks-of-very-dangerous-virus-12276922

Perhaps I am missing something, or just over-simplifying things, but why hasn't the British governmentĀ banned (or at least very strictly limited)Ā all travel into the UK?Ā  Especially now, just as the vaccine programme is rolling out (one of the few things they've actually got right).Ā  Australia and New Zealand did and it has seemingly worked well there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scotlad said:

Another strain of the virus, apparently originating in India, has now been detected in the UK.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-indian-double-mutation-variant-arrives-in-britain-and-has-hallmarks-of-very-dangerous-virus-12276922

Perhaps I am missing something, or just over-simplifying things, but why hasn't the British governmentĀ banned (or at least very strictly limited)Ā all travel into the UK?Ā  Especially now, just as the vaccine programme is rolling out (one of the few things they've actually got right).Ā  Australia and New Zealand did and it has seemingly worked well there.

Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...