|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
mod sassinator posted:https://twitter.com/9Joe9/status/1439068538539499520 Thanks for posting speculation from a random MAGA guy
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:Thanks for posting speculation from a random MAGA guy Gavin Newsom's children are covid positive, are you disputing this fact? Joe Biden was hugging those children 4 days ago, again are you disputing it? Joe Biden was coughing all through his Thursday speeches, enough that reporters asked his press secretary what is the problem. These are facts, the person reporting it does not matter one bit. Are you disputing any of them or just slinging disparagement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Sturgis led to fewer documented cases than Lollapalooza. Err in what way? And what's the source for this? Serious question. This sounds like something Kristi Noem is spouting. I'm a South Dakota resident. The major healthcare provider in Rapid City (Monument Health) just announced this week they were doing emergency conversions of regular hospital beds to ICU because they are overflowing with COVID cases. This is literally the worst the pandemic has ever been in the Black Hills region. Notably, this is not the case east-river in Sioux Falls. (for those unfamiliar, Rapid City is the population and healthcare center in the Black Hills and western half of SD, Sioux Falls is the population and healthcare center in the eastern half) edit: I feel like "documented" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
Thanks for posting your thoughts on the paper, Fritz!Charles 2 of Spain posted:Did they publish this table which was in the original preprint (maybe it's integrated into the figure somewhere)? It looks like the just replaced the explicit VE estimates for vaccination cohorts with "rates per 1000 over the study period". Since each vaccinated cohort (for a single age group) is being compared to the rate in the same unvaccinated cohort it is the same information as the VE table and statistical tests for one dataset are equivalent to statistical tests on the other. E: Or just "used instead of", since both the table and figures were in the original preprint. The tables are more easy to visually digest and the apparent "direction of effect" matches the temporal direction of waning immunity. Stickman fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Thanks for posting your thoughts on the paper, Fritz! Sure! I'm by no means an epidemiologist but writing/reviewing scientific literature and grant proposals is a big part of my job and I do enjoy it. Like I mentioned earlier, it's helpful (and imo fun) to have a lively discussion on the actual scientific literature. Everyone brings a unique background and perspective and it's a good way to critically evaluate science. I'm certain I've missed some important bits or not analyzed some things correctly but that's okay. I'm perfectly fine with being wrong. I'm gonna take a minute as an educator and stand on my soapbox: those of you who are avid readers of COVID threads on SA would get a lot out of skimming through actual scientific literature. Spend a fraction of the time you devote to reading forums posts on evaluating the actual academic writing. It's good practice and our world needs more science- and media-literate people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
rosalind, thorn wishes talon, and ucs hellmaker, a couple of others, thank you for giving good information. i am not a doctor. i can barely tell me leg from my arm. but it’s obvious you know what you’re talking about. you easily distinguish yourselves from the know-it-all armchair epidemiologists in here and on twitter. i hope you continue to post, but i understand if you step away. but before you might do that, i want to know of any other good, simple sources of information about covid you might recommend. i know there are the studies themselves, and the more celebrated sources like the lancet. but i feel they’re too technical for 99% of people. they are certainly too scary for me. so that said, i’m just looking for any casual, accurate, serial podcasts/literature you trust. basically, it’d be lovely to know of anyone who can synthesize the studies and various other information about covid into an accurate view of what’s going on, then distill it into like a fifth grade-level discourse. or at least something somewhat digestible to laypersons like me. i’m just way too stupid to even know where to begin. thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:https://twitter.com/9Joe9/status/1439068538539499520 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Err in what way? And what's the source for this? Serious question. This sounds like something Kristi Noem is spouting. That’s the point. The numbers are totally biased through malice and ineptitude, and anyone who believes that Lollapalooza’s figures are any more credible is suffering from Gell-Mann Amnesia. https://twitter.com/abc13houston/status/1432115904532320257
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s the point. ahhh gotcha sorry, I didn't pick up on the sarcasm
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:rosalind, thorn wishes talon, and ucs hellmaker, a couple of others, thank you for giving good information. i am not a doctor. i can barely tell me leg from my arm. but it’s obvious you know what you’re talking about. you easily distinguish yourselves from the know-it-all armchair epidemiologists in here and on twitter. i hope you continue to post, but i understand if you step away. One thing to be aware of if you're viewing all of this from the outside is to straight up not pursue information about recent studies. The scientific apparatus is supposed to work through critical peer review and interpretation of multiple studies of the same subject over time, and "a recent study" coverage in the general press is never, ever going to give you that, even in a situation where the information environment isn't as contaminated as this one. There is not really a substitute for the level of literacy and individual nuance and expertise that comes with directly reading a study and learning the subject. You need to become somewhat comfortable with uncertainty, because no matter how smart you are, uncertainty is the basic nature of the situation. That said, I did a bunch of effortposts on information and covid for earlier iterations of this thread; they've not been added to the OP yet as I forgot to mention them, so I'll link them here. Here's one post I wrote on some caveats about which sources of science to trust: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104#post503908856 Here's a post on how to read science: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post504891860 Here's a post about unhealthy relationships to information and covid: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3915397&pagenumber=504&perpage=40#post504210939 Detailed, nonexhaustive explanation of conspiracy theories and takedown of one of the earliest sources of the Wuhan lab conspiracy: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104&perpage=40&pagenumber=7#post514737951 Here are some useful basic sources on regulatory and monitoring issues and covid: Here's the public-facing site for FDA on recent regulatory activity relating to COVID: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/counterterrorism-and-emerging-threats/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19 Here's their FAQ page: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions Here's the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is generally an excellent way to stay up to date on US public health issues generally (but requires greater literacy): https://www.cdc.gov/MMWr/ Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Phigs, you straight up do not know anything about the "technocratic bullshit" you are attacking. Just for one example, the FDA lost the ability to directly regulate prescription decisions due to a suit from WLF a long time ago (iirc the first case in the most recent run was 1997), and their ability to regulate related marketing activity has been under continuous attack ever since. It's the basis of the currently widespread practice of offlabeling and probably has an 8-digit deathtoll. If they can't do that minimum I suggested then they should do whatever they can to ensure a person who wants a booster can get one. The FDA deciding if people people do or don't get boosters is technocratic by definition. It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. I disagree with the decision given the pandemic and the evidence of minimal adverse affects. I think it's technocratic bullshit because they should relinquish their hold given the circumstances and I think they are not because they want to preserve the process and their position as technocratic gatekeepers more than they want to help people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:...do they control for familywise error? Are you talking about in the vaccination month cohort comparison? Because FWEA is absolutely not necessary there - the primary comparison of interest is going to be early v late and FWEA is going to be massively overly conservative. Probably would have been better with splines, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Are you talking about in the vaccination month cohort comparison? Because FWEA is absolutely not necessary there - the primary comparison of interest is going to be early v late and FWEA is going to be massively overly conservative. Probably would have been better with splines, though. No, as in they ran tests on several different entire populations and then excluded at least some of them from every part of their final publication. That's a layer above the cohort comparison, because they actually ran the test on a bunch of cohorts and (we know, from the slide deck) buried the ones without the results they wanted. Phigs posted:If they can't do that minimum I suggested then they should do whatever they can to ensure a person who wants a booster can get one. The FDA deciding if people people do or don't get boosters is technocratic by definition. It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. I disagree with the decision given the pandemic and the evidence of minimal adverse affects. I think it's technocratic bullshit because they should relinquish their hold given the circumstances and I think they are not because they want to preserve the process and their position as technocratic gatekeepers more than they want to help people. You appear to also not know what "technocratic" means, since you're using it to describe, simultaneously, "anything regulatory" and "anything I personally disagree with".
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, as in they ran tests on several different entire populations and then excluded at least some of them from every part of their final publication. That's a layer above the cohort comparison, because they actually ran the test on a bunch of cohorts and (we know, from the slide deck) buried the ones without the results they wanted Which papers and which tests are you referring to here? There's several papers / slides and a bunch of tables so it's really not clear to me what you're talking about. E: Fritz has posted the slides (which link to the preprint of for waning effectiveness) and a paper for the booster data, which is a separate analysis from waning effectiveness. Is there a final paper for waning effectiveness that I've missed somewhere? Stickman fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Which papers and which tests are you referring to here? There's several papers / slides and a bunch of tables so it's really not clear to me what you're talking about. I'm referring to the matter discussed in this post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm referring to the matter discussed in this post. Oh come on. That isn't "running tests on several populations and excluding them from the final publication". For starters there isn't a final publication. The waning analysis is just the pre-print. It references the preprints on waning immunity because apparently they don't have those in press yet. The slides don't include the table, but the figures contain all of the data in the table, just presented as rates per 1000 instead of as VE estimates. Like, literally 1-1 in the first two charts that Fitz posted. There are no tests anywhere, just confidence intervals. And again, the comparison of most interest is the earliest vaccinations vs the latest vaccinations so there is no reason to do FWEAs for the cohort errors, and each age cohort is of a priori individual interest. There are no populations being excluded, there are no cohorts being swept under the rug, and there is no final paper that those things are happening in because the paper being discussed is a different analysis (booster analysis vs waning immunity for two-shot vax).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You appear to also not know what "technocratic" means, since you're using it to describe, simultaneously, "anything regulatory" and "anything I personally disagree with". Phigs posted:It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. Hmm. And FDA is a technocratic regulatory body because its staffed based on expertise. It's the very definition. EDIT: Experts making decisions on what the public is allowed is technocratic. It just is. I added the word bullshit specifically because it was a move I disagreed with, so the FDA was maintaining technocracy at a time when I thought it should not. They should have said something along the lines of we don't have the data to render an expert opinion on whether people should get boosters, but given the pandemic and the low adverse outcomes we will allow the population to make their own choice. Phigs fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Hmm. Yes, you are indeed very ignorant about how or why the FDA does things, in a manner motivated by the conclusions you want to reach. Stickman posted:Oh come on. That isn't "running tests on several populations and excluding them from the final publication". For starters there isn't a final publication. The waning analysis is just the pre-print. It references the preprints on waning immunity because apparently they don't have those in press yet. The slides don't include the table, but the figures contain all of the data in the table, just presented as rates per 1000 instead of as VE estimates. Like, literally 1-1 in the first two charts that Fitz posted. There are no tests anywhere, just confidence intervals. And again, the comparison of most interest is the earliest vaccinations vs the latest vaccinations so there is no reason to do FWEAs for the cohort errors, and each age cohort is of a priori individual interest. My apologies, I got confused by the way it was presented because the paper is being cited to argue for cohorts not in the analysis. I still disagree about the lack of importance for FWEA, especially where presentation of data is selective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:14
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Hmm. you're saying they should skip the literally agency defining safety standards and evaluations... in order to keep people safe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:18
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:you're saying they should skip the literally agency defining safety standards and evaluations... in order to keep people safe? In this case, to the extent they would need to in order to give approval, yes. You're free to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
What happens if they bow to pressure and prematurely approve a vaccine as safe and it starts paralyzing people. Do you think that helps get more people vaccinated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What happens if they bow to pressure and prematurely approve a vaccine as safe and it starts paralyzing people. Do you think that helps get more people vaccinated? They really just need to tell them they are being a troop by getting the vaccine
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:32
|
|
|
It's an additional shot of an already approved vaccine that they have plenty of data for on the first and second shots, and even have some third shot data from Israel. There's even people with 4 shots running around, but those numbers are small and not being tracked cause they snuck those doses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:32
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What happens if they bow to pressure and prematurely approve a vaccine as safe and it starts paralyzing people. Do you think that helps get more people vaccinated? What if a deadly virus kills 1 million people? Do you think that might, you know, put a sense of urgency, or maybe somehow inform their process at all or would that just be irrelevant? Like, hypothetically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
Phigs posted:It's an additional shot of an already approved vaccine that they have plenty of data for on the first and second shots, and even have some third shot data from Israel. there's a nonzero chance there are people with much much more than 4 shots given all the incentive offers and lack of checking or centralised database
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
Theres been posts about Israel having compelling data showing that protection against severe disease drops a compelling amount after 6 months, but I cant find it anywhere. Does anyone have a link to this data?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My apologies, I got confused by the way it was presented because the paper is being cited to argue for cohorts not in the analysis. I still disagree about the lack of importance for FWEA, especially where presentation of data is selective. My apologies for getting grumpy here, too. FWEA is a whole debate because it's complicated and subtle (and largely arbitrary) to decide what a "family" should be. My general rule of thumb is that is hypothesis is being asked as part of a larger question that ties it together with other hypotheses then it makes sense to analyze them under the umbrella of a family (for instance "which of these many factors are important for X" or "which of these pairs of categories differ"). If it is of interest in it's own right then attaching it to a family depends arbitrarily on the other questions you happen to be asking at that particular point in time. We certainly can't reasonably expect to do FWEA across separate analyses, so if a hypothesis could reasonably be it's own independent analysis then it makes sense to exclude it from larger "families". In this case, we are not just interested in determining which of the age cohorts have waning effectiveness, we are interested in estimating the degree of waning in each in their own right. It's subtle and definitely open for debate, but it's extremely rare to see FWEA across major strata of interest for this reason. Stickman fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:What if a deadly virus kills 1 million people? Do you think that might, you know, put a sense of urgency, or maybe somehow inform their process at all or would that just be irrelevant? Like, hypothetically. They already accelerated the process significantly to get shots in arms as soon as possible. People were getting vaccinated at basically the exact rate that vaccine was being produced for the first 5-6 months
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
Weasling Weasel posted:Theres been posts about Israel having compelling data showing that protection against severe disease drops a compelling amount after 6 months, but I cant find it anywhere. Does anyone have a link to this data? I spent about an hour earlier this evening dropping an effortpost on this. Please don't take it as authoritative because I am but a dumbshit horse. Protection against severe disease drops after six months for people aged 60+ according to data from Israel. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3979298&pagenumber=15#post517823160 So far there are not good data to conclude that vaccine protection vs. severe disease is dropping for people in younger age cohorts. edit: when I post "I'm but a dumbshit horse" I'm being self-effacing. I have a PhD in a biological science and a lot of my everyday work is reading and reviewing literature and grant proposals. I'm certainly not an epidemiologist, vaccinologist, immunologist, virologist etc but I do have a lot of relevant background so I'm not talking completely out of my equine rear end. Hence why I said way back that I'm an "educated layman." Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
If the committee is not persuaded there is worthwhile effect on persons under sixty years of age, how do they justify recommending a third shot for healthcare workers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
The reasoning I read is that they want to reduce the number of HCWs stopping work if they get mild illness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
1) they likely assume that healthcare workers are at substantially higher risk of encountering covid infections and 2) see the above comments wrt allocating finite supply of vaccine and 3) american healthcare is already far too shortstaffed and burnt out to handle staffing gaps without more people dying
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 08:46
|
|
|
If they advise yes for boosters for anyone that is younger than 60 then they are admitting that there is enough evidence to suggest to them that it would be beneficial for <60s to get the booster. They would not advise it if they felt there was no benefit. Can anyone disagree with this assessment? Given that, the only reason to advise against <60s in general getting the vaccine for health reasons would be the risks involved. Because surely a beneficial treatment with no side effects should always gain approval. But the data we've seen suggest the booster shot has similar adverse affects as the other doses (here's one source for you), and those are pretty small. So, I'm not seeing a compelling case to vote against for health reasons. So why did they vote no? Especially since it's advisory. If there's some logistical problem then that is the problem of the government, no? An FDA advisory committee should be focused on the medical issues, to provide that part of the equation to government. Then if the government decides nah gently caress the advice it would take shots away from the rest of the world (lol) then they can just do that themselves. It's not an issue for the committee I would think. Phigs fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
Phigs posted:An FDA advisory committee should be focused on the medical issues, to provide that part of the equation to government. yes, true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
a lot of this seems to revolve around endpoint (severe disease vs. infection). Based on the data from Israel, 1) Booster shots greatly improve protection against severe disease for those aged 60+ whose immunity is waning 2) Booster shots have not been shown to meaningfully improve protection against severe disease for those under 60 years of age 3) Booster shots improve protection against infection in all populations if I had to try and tl;dr the current science based on the links I posted earlier, that would pretty much be it. To me the major decision appears to be whether we as a society/nation should prioritize preventing infection or preventing severe disease (hospitalization / hospital beds / death etc). The needs of communities will vary tremendously by state/region/locality. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 09:53
|
|
|
Phigs posted:If they advise yes for boosters for anyone that is younger than 60 then they are admitting that there is enough evidence to suggest to them that it would be beneficial for <60s to get the booster. They would not advise it if they felt there was no benefit. Can anyone disagree with this assessment? Any treatment is going to be a balance of risks vs. benefits. It's not a binary thing where they check off yes or no under "Risks" and yes or no under "Benefits". I won't pretend to know enough about COVID boosters specifically, but making the argument that because the benefits outweigh the risks for one group of <60 people, that therefore there are no risks to boosters isn't a valid argument. Every treatment, including COVID vaccines have risks. Whether it's still worth it is definitely something that data is needed for, and can definitely vary, especially as the expected benefits become more marginal. Right now we don't really know how marginal those benefits are for the general population of < 60 people. If for arguments sake, it had literally zero benefit, it absolutely wouldn't make sense to approve, because you're taking on a non-zero risk for no benefit at all, particularly in an environment where any risks will be weaponized to prevent people from getting initial doses, and even the prospect of requiring a 3rd dose is ammunition to anti-vaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 10:02
|
|
|
“Potential vaccine injuries on the order of one in a million will be ammunition to antivaccine elements. Therefore, we will just have to let a hundred million people take their chances with so-called mild breakthrough cases at a rate greater than one in ten.” I’m not sure that that line of reasoning checks out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 10:16
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:Our security forces are politically unreliable and will not typically fire on or otherwise get physical with whites, especially conservative-presenting whites, even to protect high-level nuclear secrets etc. If you are white you can just walk in anywhere and do whatever you want. rich-presenting whites is the important bit, I think. The cops kill minorities at 1.6x the rate they kill whites or something, but last I checked they still kill significantly more whites overall because of relative demographics. To be clear, the point I am trying to make is that unless you're a rich white person you should not assume the cops aren't going to kill you, and should treat any interaction with them as if it's life-and-death. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Sep 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:so that said, i’m just looking for any casual, accurate, serial podcasts/literature you trust. basically, it’d be lovely to know of anyone who can synthesize the studies and various other information about covid into an accurate view of what’s going on, then distill it into like a fifth grade-level discourse. or at least something somewhat digestible to laypersons like me. i’m just way too stupid to even know where to begin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
I guess the argument is that for every booster given to someone under the age of 60 in the US, it's one vaccine that other countries who still have vulnerable people who haven't had any at all. And, I haven't got the sums on it, but the UK's vaccine authority hasn't recommended any vaccines for children under 12 as the potential saving effect from the vaccine is almost equal to the very very rate of serious effects, so you'd imagine that as the third booster has a much more limited benefit, the line where the risk equals the benefits is going to be higher than 12 (but obviously lot lower than 60). Glad to know the only data so far is an increase of severe disease for over 60s, that was all I could see as well and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some my dystopian data somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 13:22
|
|