|
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 | ||
|
Illuminti posted: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!!? Right, the part you got wrong is where you said that this can no longer happen if you have "too many" cases. That's not how it works, no matter where you start from, the function works there same way. If R0 is below 1, the virus dies out, if it's above 1 cases go up. There's no number of cases where it makes sense to go "oh ok that's too many cases, let's relax and let cases go up even faster" 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. Yes you can, if you devote enough resources you can make workplaces for the safe enough. Liberal democracies made much more radical changes to their workforce and economies to win world war 2. What you mean is that no liberal democracy wants to do that. It would be expensive, it would cut into profits, it would give labor too much power, businesses would complain, it would be a bigger threat to the status quo than covid (unlike in world war 2 where the Axis were a bigger threat to the status quo), etc. You're not making statements about physical or logistical possibility, because it's possible. What you're saying is *sniiiifffff* pure ideology
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
I am getting my third shot of Pfizer today. According to my republican relatives this is the widowmaker dose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you think these things are unrelated? Because the work they're doing is, in fact, essential, and because it's extremely hard to force human beings to maintain safe conditions under a highly contagious pandemic. Yes, I said force. Just look at how there's a noticeable amount of vaccine refusal even among professional healthcare workers. Just look at how many quarantine breaches in Australia and NZ have been caused by quarantine workers themselves getting too intimate with the people they're enforcing quarantine on. Even in fields where the importance of COVID is considered paramount, consistently maintaining compliance with safety measures has been difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, the part you got wrong is where you said that this can no longer happen if you have "too many" cases. That's not how it works, no matter where you start from, the function works there same way. If R0 is below 1, the virus dies out, if it's above 1 cases go up. There's no number of cases where it makes sense to go "oh ok that's too many cases, let's relax and let cases go up even faster" There's definitely interventions that become infeasible with enough community spread, and not just in the "we don't want to spend enough on them" sense. Universal PCR testing of a city in response to an outbreak case doesn't really work when there's no 'city' to test, the U.S. (and any other country that I can think of) literally doesn't have the capacity to PCR test it's entire population within a short period of time. When there's an outbreak case in an otherwise covid-free area, the population you need to test to contain the virus is orders of magnitude smalller. Contact tracing is a similar one - there's just no way to feasibly train enough people in the short term to do effective contact tracing of 100,000+ people every single day, regardless of how much you want to invest in it. Also while you're right that the curves are the same regardless of what the initial level is, it still takes far less time to get to 0 when your starting point is low. It's a lot easier to get high compliance for a 2-4 week lockdown vs one that goes on for months, or even longer. As well, as lockdowns get longer, negative impacts of lockdowns do become more pronounced - on top of just mental health issues, you have career impacts for people who have to abandon jobs or work from home to support kids or due to personal risk, educational impacts if lockdowns get long enough, and a whole host of other things. Finally on top of that you're going to have a constant influx of cases, which is just going to prolong lockdowns. Every country that has had some degree of success with a Covid Zero strategy started early and responded aggressively to new cases. No one as far as I can tell has got to a high level of community spread, and successfully changed course to an eradication strategy. It is much, much harder to go from hundreds of thousands of daily cases to 0 cases, than it is to go from a 5 case outbreak to 0. That doesn't mean that you abandon everything and open everything up by any means, and once again, I don't think anyone here is claiming that or saying that the only possible options are elimination or no restrictions whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 14:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because the work they're doing is, in fact, essential, and because it's extremely hard to force human beings to maintain safe conditions under a highly contagious pandemic. Yes, I said force. Just look at how there's a noticeable amount of vaccine refusal even among professional healthcare workers. Just look at how many quarantine breaches in Australia and NZ have been caused by quarantine workers themselves getting too intimate with the people they're enforcing quarantine on. Even in fields where the importance of COVID is considered paramount, consistently maintaining compliance with safety measures has been difficult. Oh for sure you're right about what you're saying, but I think you're confusing zero transmission (impossible) with keeping workplace transmission low enough that factory workers and their communities don't become vectors of uncontrollable spread (possible) Hospital workers sometimes gently caress patients, sometimes get infected by patients even if they aren't loving them, but there are workplace PPE and safety protocols in place to ensure everyone working at the hospital doesn't get it if one person does, doctors and nurses don't live in poor marginalized communities that lack societal support to stop outbreaks when they occur etc. The same can't be said for workers in say chicken processing plants where management might even bet on how many are going to die. You could apply the protective policies we have in hospitals to meat packing plants etc but nobody is really interested in spending the money, cutting into profits, etc Ultimately it turned out delta is so infectious you can't stop it without treating immigrant and working class communities like human beings, and it appears despite their admirable adherence to lockdowns thus far, not even NZ or Australia have the political will to go so far as to back off the exploitation of the poor enough. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Updates on approval for other boosters/kid shots! The FDA announced that VRBPAC (external scientific advisory committee to the FDA) will meet to discuss the following topics: October 15: Moderna booster October 16: J&J booster; and mixing and matching vaccines Oct 26: 5-11 year old vaccine If VRBPAC votes in favor of these, then the ACIP and CDC will review the data a few days later. Then, if that goes well, approval could be given within 24 hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Updates on approval for other boosters/kid shots! is the 5-11 vaccine there Pfizer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The vaccines did not rewrite the first chapter of epidemiology textbooks. The problem here is that it frequently seems as if you've not read any epidemiology textbook, let alone infectious disease, clinical management, immunology, or pharmacology. I'm still trying to understand Anthony Leonardi. The hard part about doing comparisons of T cells and cytokine storms between severe COVID cases and severe other cases (influenza, mainly) is that a major difference of treatment is the usage of dexamethasone. People who understand pharmacology and clinical management understand that, being a steroid, dex can drop drop lymphocyte counts (including T cells) as well as suppress the immune system. His insistence that the cytokine storm is being inhibited yet I don't see a comment regarding the usage of immunosuppressive steroids is odd. Full disclosure - I'm not looking that hard at his statements, he's a constant doomer who has been zero COVID since the beginning and has never changed, so he's one of those, "needs overwhelming evidence before statements might be considered" kind of people. This is the kind of thing where a significant claim has to have significant evidence behind it. Picking Leonardi's tweets to signal boost concerns of autoimmune conditions and immune inhibition are similar to picking Kory's tweets on ivermectin. Both require significant evidence before consideration because they are a significant deviation to the observations that we've had. Anyway, to continue on the population level evaluation of Denmark's COVID cases, after you've determined the type of tests used and their sensitivity and specificity, the next question is, "clinical outcomes" of breakthrough cases. As of yet, we still do not have good data on what those look like, though Boston Globe threw out this article https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09...us-expert-says/ but I'm having a hard time finding the source announcement/data to look at myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:is the 5-11 vaccine there Pfizer? Yep
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Tartof et al. have some news about Comirnaty. With the power of three million Kaiser members, they claim to have finally partially disentangled the effects of Delta and of the time since vaccination, as those factors concern vaccine efficacy against infection and hospitalization. quote:Findings The rules say I don’t have to disclose this because this isn’t a preprint, but I, like the sponsor of this research, the Pfizer corporation, am feeling charitable today. quote:Declaration of interests  
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:With the power of three million Kaiser members, they claim to have finally partially disentangled the effects of Delta and of the time since vaccination, as those factors concern vaccine efficacy against infection and hospitalization. There is literally 0 reason why you have to act like a jackass about this, especially when your analyses often would be embarrassing for a first year medical/veterinary student. Nobody has been disputing that people can get reinfected, especially with Delta. But, as the study you quoted helpfully pointed out: quote:Our variant- specific analyses suggest that reductions in vaccine effectiveness over time are likely to be primarily due to waning vaccine effectiveness rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection given that vaccine effectiveness against delta infections was more than 90% soon after vaccination, vaccine effectiveness against delta and other variants for hospital admissions was very high over the entire study period, and reductions in vaccine effectiveness against infection by time since being fully vaccinated were observed irrespective of the variant. as well as quote:The age stratified vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 92% (95% CI 88–95) for those aged 16–44 years, and 86% (82–88) for those aged 65 years and older (appendix p 6). You're trying to argue the sterilizing immunity thing, which nobody has been arguing. What's sad is that this study also doesn't go into severity of disease, but at least does note: quote:A higher proportion of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were younger (median age 42 years vs 45 years), Hispanic (57·7% vs 39·5%), and obese (>30 kg/m2; 43·9% vs 32·7%) than those who were not infected. Among those infected with SARS-CoV-2, a higher proportion of those who were admitted to hospital forCOVID-19wereolder,male,hadcomorbidities,and had greater previous health-care utilisation than those not admitted to hospital. You act like this is BREAKING NEWS but it's not, not really. It fits with the evidence that has been around for months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
I’m acting like a jackass? Dude, it’s a study that was published yesterday. I’m posting it in the thread because it’s of high public interest, and that would be so would be no matter has been posted on the last dozen pages. It’s not a “subtweet” or whatever you imagine it to be. I’ll admit that the sentence about the conflicting interest statement was a bit tongue‐in‐cheek because I think it’s a silly rule that doesn’t solve any problems, but you didn’t set that rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Can't you just like, back down and not be constantly sardonic and lovely
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m acting like a jackass? You appear to have a habit of misreading and wildly misinterpreting stuff and then doubling and tripling down on it after people, some of whom are actual experts, correct you. Fallom posted:Can't you just like, back down and not be constantly sardonic and lovely Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
To the extent I am sardonic, I am sardonic about ideas, not people. I haven’t called any here a jackass and I haven’t remarked of anyone that they appear not to have read “any” textbooks, or that their posting would be embarrassing coming from first‐year veterinary students. If others wish to sling such insults, O.K., I’ll shrug and move on, but I must protest the suggestion than I’m the offensive one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:There is literally 0 reason why you have to act like a jackass about this, especially when your analyses often would be embarrassing for a first year medical/veterinary student. There were literally people in the last few pages claiming there wasn't solid evidence for waning VE, I'm glad they shared this new study and you're being snarky over... what? You think people with comorbidities are rare or something? Did you read something into their post that wasn't there? I personally don't want COVID at all, so knowing how effective the vaccines are against that is, to me, of great personal importance. We live in a hell state where people are desperate to pretend everything is normal and I'm not ever guaranteed to have healthcare at any given point in time. 8-14% of vaccinated people needing hospitalization plants this firmly outside of seasonal flu status, regardless of comorbidity correlation. I'm personally interested in whether or not boosters a) restore VE against infection and b) maintain it for a longer period of time. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You appear to have a habit of misreading and wildly misinterpreting stuff and then doubling and tripling down on it after people, some of whom are actual experts, correct you. Explain what they misread here, because I'm not seeing the problem. I'm seeing someone shared a good source of information and then the backseat mod tone police came out because they didn't like the precise way it was shared?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
I get that things have been pretty heated but not out of control or anything since at least last night, but this is bordering on posting about posters so let's all please take a step back and refocus on the actual stuff being posted and discuss/dissect that
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Shere posted:8-14% of vaccinated people needing hospitalization plants this firmly outside of seasonal flu status, regardless of comorbidity correlation. I agree with your larger point here, but to clarify the study does not say that 8-14% of vaccinated people need hospitalization. The 'effectiveness' metric is relative to unvaccinated people, for example 90% effectiveness would correspond to a 10-fold reduction in hospitalization relative to the unvaccinated population (which is likely well under 10% to begin with). It's still certainly not perfect, but it does imply that your individual odds of landing in the hospital while vaccinated are very, very low.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
TheSlutPit posted:I agree with your larger point here, but to clarify the study does not say that 8-14% of vaccinated people need hospitalization. The 'effectiveness' metric is relative to unvaccinated people, for example 90% effectiveness would correspond to a 10-fold reduction in hospitalization relative to the unvaccinated population (which is likely well under 10% to begin with). It's still certainly not perfect, but it does imply that your individual odds of landing in the hospital while vaccinated are very, very low. Yes, you're absolutely right, I'm still thinking relative to protection provided by the flu vaccine and how we treat that, but again I'm a layperson and appreciate people interpreting this mess for me. It would clearly be 8-14% of the normal hospitalization rate for COVID in those populations, I just misread. It's heartening that the protection remains against serious incidence, but again I would greatly prefer not to even have COVID so the VE against infection is of great importance to me. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I get that things have been pretty heated but not out of control or anything since at least last night, but this is bordering on posting about posters so let's all please take a step back and refocus on the actual stuff being posted and discuss/dissect that In the sharing of medical/scientific literature, the messenger and their underlying intent is actually extremely important. If, for example, Ben Shapiro posted a video saying he DESTROYED this LIBERAL professor with LOGIC and selectively quoted bits of the discussion, I would immediately question the entire thing merely by who was posting it. Just because the one specific argument could make sense or could be entirely accurate is part of it, but at times combating that takes significantly more time on the part of the debunker rather than the one who posted in the first place. In this case, it wasn't necessarily that Platystemon misread the paper, but they seemed to omit a few important details within the paper. To Shere's worry (and to mine), COVID is thing people want to put off getting for as long as they reasonably can. What does waning immunity (or immune resistance) look like? What are the clinical outcomes with the breakthrough cases? What are the demographics of the breakthrough cases? How do we use the information to determine our own personal risk, as we understand our own personal situations better than internet randos? With the firehose of information (in general, but particularly with COVID) and with people seeing the sausage of public health and medicine getting made (which is a nasty business), people seek out those who have more expertise or interest in the topic to distill down the firehose into a glass. Determining which momma bird you want to feed you is difficult, and in this case, the issue is there are those who don't take part regularly or at all in this discussion (the lurkers) who are hoping that Something Awful is capable of having a more intelligent and capable discussion about that firehose of information than the average internet. I do think we can, which is why I post (but usually skip over the 100+ posts over the weekend because w/e). So as to that paper, yes, there were more breakthrough infections as time went on, but the important bit to include in the first post made about vaccine efficacy % is about what demographics they were looking at, and at what demographics they saw those changes in primarily. Anyone who has ever made use of medical literature about populations would have that be on their list of things to look at in a study. When that bit is omitted, then I wonder, was it omitted because the poster does not understand how to read and interpret medical literature, or is it because they are seeking to highlight specific findings in order to draw the reader towards particular conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
I feel like we are 18+ months and nearly a billion cases into this, there is still we don't know about this disease but it does seem like people gotta sanity check their readings of studies a little more. Like there is some things that in the world would be obviously true or not true. like, if you read a study and you think it says 20% of covid infected people exploded a week later, think about if that sounds right, are countries dealing with a lot of explosions? Like if you read a study a certain way and it seems like an absolutely massive bombshell kinda look out a window and think about if it matches up with anything. Like if a reading of a study sounds like it means that within 6 months of vaccination 10% are in the hospital just kinda, roll the numbers around in your head a bit and ask "wait, is that real? do I really think that? does that match up with the world around me?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
What's a good gift for someone recovering at home from Covid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
The unfortunate truth is vaccines have not been enough to save the US healthcare system regardless of what could of been, and nor will declining delta cases give enough breathing room for hospitals to recover. At this point saving the system largely relies on dramatically increasing protection from infection before another wave kicks off in the south in the spring. This means the vaccine hesitant getting the shot, boosters being widely available and a lot of hope that booster mediated antibody response does not wane as quickly as without. NPIs are also really loving effective, but lol on all that. edit: I think people should refrain on trying to characterize reinfection as rare especially using that 1% number which is so excessively misleading. Comparing two groups of people one who has already been infected once and another which has never been infected is greatly confounded by a number of factors like risk taking thresholds, living arrangements, npi adherence (my problem with the AZ nurse study) etc. And of course that's not to mention any sized sample of N previously infected includes some X number of people from that same population from the first go round who died and are never really considered in these reinfection studies. pigz fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:What's a good gift for someone recovering at home from Covid? monoclonal antibodies
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Gio posted:monoclonal antibodies Bit too late
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:What's a good gift for someone recovering at home from Covid? Some hot sauce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Just wanted to say as a ~Big Pharma~ QC drone who has been knee-deep in this stuff for the past year that post-dose studies for COVID are annoying to build and validate procedures for and probably some of the conflicting data about efficacy/variants/whatever is due to how much goddamn interference there is in these stupid samples
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
slorb posted: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. With internet technology we really do have the ability to completely control citizens moods. I think this plus extreme coercion would have been enough to eliminate covid and then also make progress towards a further rationalization of the psyche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
pigz posted:before another wave kicks off in the south in the spring. Optimistic!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:With internet technology we really do have the ability to completely control citizens moods. I think this plus extreme coercion would have been enough to eliminate covid and then also make progress towards a further rationalization of the psyche. I agree, internet mind control would be an easy way to enforce lockdowns, vaccination, and NPI usage to end the pandemic. Wonder why we didn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I agree, internet mind control would be an easy way to enforce lockdowns, vaccination, and NPI usage to end the pandemic. Wonder why we didn't do that. I mean one could kind of argue that the CCP has sort of done it, utilizing their intense media control and willingness to back up mandates with military force. That some people look at what's happened over there and say "ah that's the ticket, that's the way!" is their own choice, but I don't think the tradeoff is worth it, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:I mean one could kind of argue that the CCP has sort of done it, utilizing their intense media control and willingness to back up mandates with military force. There was a time when the most a "state" did was enforce tariffs. Now it is a state's job to educate, to raise children, to provide for welfare, to mobilize. The polities which did not become societally deep ceased to exist. There is nothing normative about it. We have just seen that the psyche will be the next domain of state expansion. Those that do not adapt will simply be cast aside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:With internet technology we really do have the ability to completely control citizens moods. I think this plus extreme coercion would have been enough to eliminate covid and then also make progress towards a further rationalization of the psyche. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
How are u posted:I mean one could kind of argue that the CCP has sort of done it, utilizing their intense media control and willingness to back up mandates with military force. Thank god we killed 700,000+ people instead
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:With internet technology we really do have the ability to completely control citizens moods. I think this plus extreme coercion would have been enough to eliminate covid and then also make progress towards a further rationalization of the psyche. This sounds like something the antagonist in a cyberpunk neo-noir says in their villain monologue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Lol if you don't think advertising and propaganda is deployed to control Americans' minds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
The Probability Broach 2 State Expansion: The Psyche Domain
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Vasukhani posted:With internet technology we really do have the ability to completely control citizens moods. I think this plus extreme coercion would have been enough to eliminate covid and then also make progress towards a further rationalization of the psyche. Villainous volcano lair monologue phrasing of the enclosure of the possible aside, even China is having to incentivize people so I wouldn't put money on the capability of a modern media landscape to do good. Maybe just keeping it from being explicitly evil is the best case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 21:40
|
|