|
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 | ||
|
freebooter posted:It should be noted that neither Australia nor New Zealand have written off lockdowns as policy - they've just conceded that lockdowns are no longer achieving the original goal of elimination and have thus abandoned the goal of elimination as no longer possible. Yeah exactly, it was announced that we're no longer aiming for zero-covid a couple of months ago.....but the level of restrictions in place didn't change at all from when we were going for zero-covid. It was more like announcing a change of tactics.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
Are we going to engage in sniping about what phrasing the authors of one particular study happened to choose for their conclusion, or are we going to engage with numbers for relative risk reduction?quote:During the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]). Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5). The alternative cohort analysis gave similar estimates (adjusted RR 0·212 [0·179–0·251], estimated protection 78·8% [74·9–82·1]). In the alternative cohort analysis, among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8). We found no difference in estimated protection against repeat infection by sex (male 78·4% [72·1–83·2] vs female 79·1% [73·9–83·3]) or evidence of waning protection over time (3–6 months of follow-up 79·3% [74·4–83·3] vs ≥7 months of follow-up 77·7% [70·9–82·9]). Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study For what it’s worth, that’s before Delta dominated. If you want to argue that this study’s estimates are far too low, go ahead, but don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. Twenty percent events are not very rare. At any given moment, there is a less than ten percent chance that rain is falling on any particular point in Seattle. 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Sure and that's why I posted you need to look at multiple studies to get a fuller picture. We haven't discussed here any Delta data yet but that's quite recent. Don't forget to highlight in your quote above that they didn't find a waning of protection over time, that's significant. Though also, pre-Delta.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Are we going to engage in sniping about what phrasing the authors of one particular study happened to choose for their conclusion, or are we going to engage with numbers for relative risk reduction? That study also literally says reinfection is rare. “ Our estimates for overall protection after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 of 77–83% are in line with several other cohort studies from the UK, Qatar, and the USA that reported reinfection to be rare and occurring in fewer than 1% of all COVID-19 cases”
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
Yeah that's comparing people who previously tested positive vs. people negative, it's not a 20% of reinfection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
Back in August, Public Health England, which is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK, published their 19th technical report containing detailed variant surveillance analyses. News coverage: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/delta-raises-covid-reinfection-risk-by-46-study quote:Delta raises COVID reinfection risk by 46%: Study The technical briefing is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf Page 35 covers the topic of reinfections. It contains this table: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If you want to argue that this study’s estimates are far too low, go ahead, but don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. Twenty percent events are not very rare. What is the next question that you should ask when looking at an article like this? What test are they using and what's the sensitivity/specificity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Don't forget to highlight in your quote above that they didn't find a waning of protection over time, that's significant. It was a notable finding early this year when the study was submitted and published. It is less notable in October, now that it has been found that the extreme endpoint of followup (six months) is when protection may start to wane for vaccine‐induced immunity. We would like to know what a few months beyond that, but that’s just where the data stops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Yeah that's comparing people who previously tested positive vs. people negative, it's not a 20% of reinfection. Yeah, if a vaccine was 50% effective against cancer it wouldn’t mean half of people that took it got cancer, it would mean half as many people got cancer in the vaccinated group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Yeah that's comparing people who previously tested positive vs. people negative, it's not a 20% of reinfection. Yes and?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
Because then your weather analogy is flawed. In any case I think this discussion is kinda moot, since this was all done pre-vaccine and no one sane is seriously suggesting to prevent reinfection by getting infected. Charles 2 of Spain fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
“Deaths from COVID‐19 are very rare”, the wise man proclaims, noting that the infection fatality rate does not exceed twenty percent even at ninety years of age, and most people aren’t exposed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“Deaths from COVID‐19 are very rare”, the wise man proclaims, noting that the infection fatality rate does not exceed twenty percent even at ninety years of age, and most people aren’t exposed anyway. Seems like you read something wrong and that whole Seattle thing was you not understanding what you read and now you are doing this weird post to try and pretend you meant something else
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I'm not really sure it's possible without reworking society from the ground up. Lockdown is fairly simple. The only real way to stop spread, especially before we had a vaccine and after delta, was to dramatically restrict movement and contact with as few exceptions as possible. You have to essentially cut off all vectors for the virus until it literally doesn't exist in your area. Yeah this is the standard propaganda line crafted to take advantage of people's poor understanding of exponential functions (no doubt where you heard it from), but actually the way you eliminate covid is hold R0 below 1.0, then exponential decay makes the virus burn out, the lower you get R0 the faster it works. And exponentials decay (or grow) much faster than you'd expect, that's why most people kept getting taken totally by surprise by the explosions in case numbers every time R0 went up, even though it was obvious what would happen and we were warned by epidemiologists. Also why China's success against the virus even though it started there and spread undetected for much longer was such a surprise to many people, exponentials are rather unintuitive to meat computers that evolved to count predators on the savannah etc. Illuminti posted:Vectors are people so you have to stop them contacting other vectors and there's no other way than lockdown. I'm sure no one in this thread is unaware that this hits poorer people the worst so 100% they should have been given so much more support. Illuminti posted:But when a lockdown is hitting 200+ days it's starting to become untenable even if they were getting the appropriate support. Jeff Bezos is on his way to being a trillionaire, there's plenty of resources available to support the working class. Hell most work is totally unecessary, just bullshit jobs to keep alive the idea that anyone who didn't inherit a fortune has to justify their existence by slaving away. But if you mean ideologically untenable for you, yeah obviously
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
There is also The Lancet study PPV linked:quote:Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 under endemic conditions would likely occur between 3 and 63 months after peak antibody response, with a median of 16 months. This protection is of less than half the duration revealed for the endemic coronaviruses circulating among humans. I think categorizing reinfection as “very rare” is a useless, highly qualitative statement that makes it seem as though immunity via infection is a possible strategy. It certainly suggests that to laypersons and morons like myself, and I think that’s why the authors of this study felt a need to mention it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
I do agree with their main point that even something as rare as 1% chance is not nearly low enough when there's thousands of chances happening every day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Reminder that this was the post people took objection to:poll plane variant posted:And we know that very specifically with covid, it suppresses and damages the immune system such that there is no meaningful long-term natural immunity. The only meaningful immunity to covid is from the active circulation of vaccine-induced antibodies (boosters at ~4mo intervals) and not some equivocation about reinfection stats. There are lots of productive discussions to be had about natural immunity as a useful component of herd immunity, but arguing over whether 80.5+/-5% protection constitutes “uncommon” rates of reinfection belies the fact that the OP in question isn’t anywhere near accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Because then your weather analogy is flawed. Not so. You may notice that ten percent is half of twenty percent.  source There have been as of the present date over forty‐three million confirmed infections in the United States. If the ascertainment ratio is even close to holding in the time time since, that implies a true total of approximately half the U.S. population. If one in five infections are reinfections, ten percent is a credible estimate for the absolute prevalence of reinfection in the U.S. population. If rain is not rare in Seattle, neither is reinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2 in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:[citation needed] You do realise you are talking to people who have spent more time under lockdown than any other people on the planet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:32
|
|
|
freebooter posted:You do realise you are talking to people who have spent more time under lockdown than any other people on the planet? I don't see what that has to do about the assertion that the resources don't exist to support poor people. That just seems like a statement of physcial fact that has nothing to do with how much time any individual spent under lockdown. Also I wasn't talking to you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Seems like you read something wrong and that whole Seattle thing was you not understanding what you read and now you are doing this weird post to try and pretend you meant something else You accuse me of misreading something, yet you cannot even read this very thread. I am not Gio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You accuse me of misreading something, yet you cannot even read this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Gio posted:What have I misread? What have I said in this thread that is wrong? A lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:A lot. Well, now that we’re throwing punches… quote:Most of [the thousands of people dying daily] are unvaxxed. Boosters won't help them. quote:Have there been studies done specifically for health care worker immunity over time? I'm not an expert but I'd assume that regular exposure to the virus over the course of their work would allow them to maintain a high level of immunity even without boosters. quote:I have mixed feelings on large events. If most people attending them are vaccinated, then it seems okay? Yeah, a small number of them may end up testing positive but there is a risk with everything, isn't there? This was, I believe, right after your passive aggressive temper tantrum complaining that the quality of the thread was going down because people just didn’t have the intelligence you have. Or how about that time you accused anyone with a pessimistic outlook as being mentally deranged, and this thread sat by idly and said “yeah I see nothing outrageous about this statement?”
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see what that has to do about the assertion that the resources don't exist to support poor people. That just seems like a statement of physcial fact that has nothing to do with how much time any individual spent under lockdown. Supporting poor people doesn't prevent Delta from spreading through essential workers
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Supporting poor people doesn't prevent Delta from spreading through essential workers Do you think these things are unrelated? Why are essential workers forced to work under unsafe conditions during a pandemic where they're getting sick and dying? Hospital staff have to work with covid patients all day and while some of them die and the risk isn't even zero, why aren't they a nucleus of infection making zero covid impossible? Because enough precaution and safety is implemented to ensure that they aren't all spreading it to each other and their families and kicking off new clusters of infection everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
Gio posted:Well, now that we’re throwing punches… What is your issue with the posts you quoted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:What is your issue with the posts you quoted? A lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Gio posted:A lot. Harsh but fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you think these things are unrelated? There have been plenty of medical transmission sites in Australia over the past few months. When they happen, they do spread it to their families - the health authorities here have stressed that the difference between OG COVID and Delta is that Delta results in near-100% household transmission. Delta has proven ineradicable in four separate jurisdictions. (Six, if you include Vietnam and Thailand). If throwing a bit of hospital-grade PPE at supermarket shelf stackers was all it took for lockdowns to work again I daresay the New Zealand cabinet or the Victorian chief health officer might've figured that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
freebooter posted:There have been plenty of medical transmission sites in Australia over the past few months. When they happen, they do spread it to their families - the health authorities here have stressed that the difference between OG COVID and Delta is that Delta results in near-100% household transmission. I didn't say it didn't ever happen, I said they aren't the reason why the government is unable to eliminate it. We could make workplaces for poor people just as safe, safe enough to keep it from spreading through marginalized groups anyway. But nobody wants to spend resources on that, even though we're all in the same boat, we can't atomize ourselves out of a pandemic, letting poor people get sick and die is dangerous to us too, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 06:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is the real reason stopping covid was always impossible under our system. The only way to keep it from spreading through marginalized groups is to back off the exploitation so much that it interferes with the system (the system, of course, by design to exploit and extract labor and wealth from the bottom and funnel it up to the top). Obviously the cost-benefit isn't there, the cost is according to most serious people absolutely absurd (ie, interfere with profit for the 1% by a negligible amount), and since the benefit is approximately zero (saving the lives of poor people that again all serious people rate as next to worthless) the calculus is clear. This passage from a century and a half ago seems relevant. quote:Apart from their wording, which makes it easy for the capitalist to evade them, the sanitary clauses are extremely meagre, and, in fact, limited to provisions for whitewashing the walls, for insuring cleanliness in some other matters, for ventilation, and for protection against dangerous machinery. quote:What could possibly show better the character of the capitalist mode of production, than the necessity that exists for forcing upon it, by Acts of Parliament, the simplest appliances for maintaining cleanliness and health? In the potteries the Factory Act of 1864 “has whitewashed and cleansed upwards of 200 workshops, after a period of abstinence from any such cleaning, in many cases of 20 years, and in some, entirely,” (this is the “abstinence” of the capitalist!) “in which were employed 27,800 artisans, hitherto breathing through protracted days and often nights of labour, a mephitic atmosphere, and which rendered an otherwise comparatively innocuous occupation, pregnant with disease and death. The Act has improved the ventilation very much.” Das Kapital, chapter 15 § 9
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah not how it works. I feel like that's exactly what I just described....I know how R0 and exponential decay works, and you might be surprised that lesser meat computers like myself can struggle to that level. So what you're saying is we just need to get the R0 below zero. Why didn't we just do that then, seems simple and then we wouldn't have had to lock down, right!!? You seem to have missed a step. The holding R0 below 1.0 bit.......which you do by stopping people spreading it to each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 07:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We could make workplaces for poor people just as safe, safe enough to keep it from spreading through marginalized groups anyway. You can certainly make it safer but you can't make it safe enough for a lockdown to drive Delta down to elimination. This isn't hypothetical, it's what's playing out right now in real world jurisdictions to the point where those jurisdictions have officially abandoned their COVID-zero policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
The chief problem with the idea that “COVID‐zero doesn’t work. Let’s fall back to the second line of COVID ‘somewhere under hospital capacity’ ” is that that the second line puts you in no better position against the virus than the first. There is no good source of negative feedback. It’s not like a bike with failing brakes where you will reach terminal velocity or trench warfare where your enemy will find it harder to reinforce across no man’s land than you do in counterattacking from your support trenches. It’s like a wildfire that only gets harder to control as it grows. The exponential function doesn’t flinch. What does happen is that fixed resources are spread thinner—whether they are firefighters and water bombers or nurses and contact tracers. As I said in May of 2020, quote:Trying to ride the line of filling hospitals but not overfilling them is death for dying’s sake. All we would get out of it is a few weeks of lousy beach days and lousy business. I didn’t have unique insight then or now. I don’t quote myself in pretense that I do, but to illustrate that the scenario is fundamentally unchanged sixteen months later. Only wishful thinking has ever made anyone believe that the virus could be brought under control by loosening controls. In May of 2020, most everyone was patting themselves on the back for perceived success in Operation #Flattenthecurve. Now, looking back, many people will concede that we should have pursued COVID‐zero back then, but aww shucks, now we have Delta. We are so dismayed that we cannot bring the smouldering fire to stone‐cold death that we decide decide that the only sane course of action is to call off the water bombers and reopen the forest to recreation, because if we’re living with the fire either way, we might as well enjoy a tranquil time in nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I didn’t have unique insight then or now. I don’t quote myself in pretense that I do, but to illustrate that the scenario is fundamentally unchanged sixteen months later. Is this a joke? You can't think of any particular major change that's occurred between then and now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
The vaccines did not rewrite the first chapter of epidemiology textbooks. Either they are powerful tools that make zero COVID possible even in the face of a more transmissible virus, or they are not so powerful and it’s ruinous to found a reopening plan upon them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 10:05
|
|
|
Or they're tools which vastly reduce the hospitalisation and mortality rate to the point that society can safely reopen without overloading its healthcare providers. This is not my ideal outcome - I'm not thrilled about catching the novel virus whether I'm vaccinated or not, let alone catching it on the reg - but it's what we have. Platystemon posted:The chief problem with the idea that “COVID‐zero doesn’t work. Let’s fall back to the second line of COVID ‘somewhere under hospital capacity’ ” is that that the second line puts you in no better position against the virus than the first. Like, this only matters if COVID is the singular issue you care about. Nothing irks me more than the pro-COVID ghouls in the northern hemisphere who scoffed at Australia and New Zealand with the straw man of "you can't stay locked down forever" (we've spent less time in lockdown than most Europeans have, let alone way fewer deaths) but once we reach the status quo of permanent lockdown, which previously only existed in their imaginations, than yeah I'll concede that now it actually is time to learn to live with the virus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 10:56
|
|
|
freebooter posted:You can certainly make it safer but you can't make it safe enough for a lockdown to drive Delta down to elimination. This isn't hypothetical, it's what's playing out right now in real world jurisdictions to the point where those jurisdictions have officially abandoned their COVID-zero policies. The sample size of countries that genuinely tried COVID lockdown is very small. And they all did fairly similar things and there was very little experimentation. Don't forget a lot of countries had given up or not even tried before Delta even hit. Literally the only country to try China's strategy was China, and it worked. There's probably different strategies that could have/could still work if tried but nobody did them, they all did the same thing that failed everywhere else and basically flipped a coin every few days with "change nothing" and "give up" faces until the coin landed "give up" face-up. I'm curious to see what NZ is actually going to do if they're still claiming they're pursuing a COVID zero strategy. Maybe they've decided they need a slightly different approach. Maybe they're just deluding themselves that giving up is not giving up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
What people from countries that haven't tried elimination via lockdown in this thread don't seem to understand is that Covid elimination is not primarily a technical or financial problem. Any rich country that wants to has the technical and financial means to start a lockdown today that will eventually drive delta cases to zero. The reason places that succeeded against earlier strains are failing against delta in winter is that by far the biggest problem with a sustained lockdown is maintaining compliance. There is a limited public appetite for lockdown and you burn through it faster the more severe the restrictions are. Delta requires restrictions that will burn through your entire public compliance budget in months. Public morale doesn't seem to regenerate super fast either (Melbourne residents were still fatigued by the 2020 lockdown at the start of the 2021 lockdowns). In a non police state you do not have enough police to forcefully ensure 100% compliance. Even calling the army into the streets is unlikely to be enough to force everyone to follow the rules. With delta, a small minority of the population ignoring the rules is enough to gently caress everything up. If after a few months of lockdown you have no clear end point in view you will have a small minority of people ignoring the rules. Giving out money to people who have to stay home helps, but isn't enough. Providing free telehealth therapy sessions helps, but isn't enough. Its a pity New Zealand didn't manage to reach elimination, but somewhat relaxing the restrictions until summer and the vaccination rollout bring cases back under control is understandable if the public has had enough. The alternative where they maintain the current restrictions is more likely to lead to cases exploding as the number of people ignoring the restrictions entirely increases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 12:43
|
|
