|
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 | ||
|
Finally got my daughters their first shots this morning, looking forward to them being fully vaccinated by mid-December. Edit: New page, here's a picture of one of my shih tzus barely tolerating her Halloween costume. 
Lager fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 6, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Lager posted:Finally got my daughters their first shots this morning, looking forward to them being fully vaccinated by mid-December. That's awesome! Hearing people talk about vaccinating their kids makes me so happy. That must be an immense load off your shoulders. Here's hoping next year is a really good year for winding down the pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:That's awesome! Hearing people talk about vaccinating their kids makes me so happy. That must be an immense load off your shoulders. It is a massive relief, yes. I'm still angry at the schools for doing full open 'er up earlier this year before the shot was ready, considering we had a couple close calls. At one point half my daughter's science class were out on quarantine protocol. But we've been testing them every week and they have so far avoided a positive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
How are u posted:That's awesome! Hearing people talk about vaccinating their kids makes me so happy. That must be an immense load off your shoulders. I'm legit excited to get my daughter the shot next week, she's 6 and happy as well to be honest. Dealing with absolute shitlords in my social circle who still play the experimental, untested card and high five eachother for misinformation, far less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
It’s sad that Pfizer’s drug is no less expensive than Merck’s. I can’t say I wouldn’t pay it, though. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1457000618686496773 I have to give the team credit for selecting a name that is significantly less bad than “Comirnaty”.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Lol that they’re price fixing and didn’t settle on more than 7 hundo
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
nexous posted:Lol that they’re price fixing and didn’t settle on more than 7 hundo a pill, times 40, per time you get covid (4x yearly)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:a pill, times 40, per time you get covid (4x yearly) the 700 is for the full treatment of 40 pills. can you believe how generous they are? That’s only 17 per pill
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
What is the evidence on "Delta Plus"? I'm seeing lots of news articles about it in Asia, but not much at all from North American and European sources. It wouldn't be the first time out here that there was a panic about some new super-variant that didn't have much basis. I haven't seen it covered in this thread, so sorry if it has been discussed already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
Seems to be about 10% more transmissible than the original Delta strain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:Because a challenge trial is different from an RCT. No one in a drug RCT is deliberately given a disease; they are given an experimental treatment that the best available evidence (typically from animal and extremely small safety studies) says is safe and effective. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah, challenge trials are grossly unethical. In addition, they suffer from other serious issues, such as sampling bias: people who volunteer for them tend to be those who need the extra income, for example, and such people may not necessarily be in good condition in terms of health, nutrition, etc. Discendo Vox posted:I've written up the challenge trial idea previously. I really like Discendo Vox's post and am sensitive to all of the issues + skepticism that this is all just a front for weakening research standards. The thing I can't get out of my head, though, is that we did deliberately expose people to the virus as part of the RCTs. Not only did we deliberately expose people, we exposed more people, including those who weren't in the trial. Like, I'm in the Novavax trial. This entire last year, I've been filling out an app every day to see if I have symptoms. If I have certain symptoms for a particular length of time I have to take a test and have it sent in. And then, the trial reports endpoints when a certain number of people have been infected. RÇTs depend on a certain number of people in the trial (placebo or candidate cohort) getting sick, which strongly implies, in the case of a contagious disease, other people not in the trial getting sick from exposure to people in the trial. An RCT against a contagious disease cannot reach its endpoint unless people not in the trial are getting sick from community transmission, including from people in the trial. And it can take indefinitely long (indeed, the only reason these vaccines finished so quickly is because we had so much community transmission). I'm not a bioethicist and I can't claim to have widely read in the field — part of why I appreciate DV's post — but all of the conventional critiques of challenge trials do not seem to "price in" this externality of RCTs. Now, I don't know how you set up good social guard-rails against challenge trials becoming medical squid games. My point is that the cost of RCTs feels to me analogous to how, before COVID, we just let 200k people a year die of flu and that was "normal." The baseline of RCTs in the case of contagious diseases does not seem to be correctly evaluated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Do you really not see a difference between taking advantage of terrible fact that people are inevitably getting sick during a pandemic to check whether a vaccine reduces that, and deliberately infecting everyone in the study The trial didn't get any of those people or their families sick, they would have gotten sick anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you really not see a difference between taking advantage of terrible fact that people are inevitably getting sick during a pandemic to check whether a vaccine reduces that, and deliberately infecting everyone in the study Anyone who takes part in a challenge trial would very likely be infected by covid at some moment in the future as well. And under worse circumstances then a trial with medical staff looking on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Petey posted:I really like Discendo Vox's post and am sensitive to all of the issues + skepticism that this is all just a front for weakening research standards. This seems like it's based on the premise that medical trials are a silly formality that is done after the drug is already established to work. The outcomes of many trials are that the drug does not work, or has unacceptable side effects for it's level of effectiveness. "the drug saves lives, just give it to everyone!" only makes sense after you have already run the trial to know that the drug does in fact save lives and doesn't just, do nothing and give you a 2% chance of getting hemorrhoids or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Anyone who takes part in a challenge trial would very likely be infected by covid at some moment in the future as well. And under worse circumstances then a trial with medical staff looking on. No, people, including the people who would take part in a trial, are not all automatically "very likely to be infected by covid at some point in the future". This is straight up false.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:a pill, times 40, per time you get covid (4x yearly) I recommend readers of this thread check out what caused this latest probation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, people, including the people who would take part in a trial, are not all automatically "very likely to be infected by covid at some point in the future". This is straight up false. If your time horizon is sufficiently long that kinda seems to be the case, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:If your time horizon is sufficiently long that kinda seems to be the case, no? With a sufficiently long time horizon we all get cancer and die. edit: to be less flip, no, people do not have the same risk exposure over this time horizon versus deliberate exposure in the near term- in no small part because normal trials can gather information to test effective vaccines without such exposure. Deliberate exposure and the weighing of social versus individual benefit is specifically precluded because the institutional incentives involved are so perverse...and that perverse incentive is why there are front groups promoting it. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:If your time horizon is sufficiently long that kinda seems to be the case, no? No, why would it be? Why are folks so drat insistent that *everyone* will get Covid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Hey there, just wanted to throw out the latest Covid Simulator update to you folks! I added some visual indicators of the immediate danger zone with covid carriers. This circle represents the "6ft" that CDC warns about. You can still catch covid, but the odds get lower the further from that circle you are until its zero. I'll likely need to work on air flow mechanics soon if I want to make this even more realistic.  I also had a lot of thoughts on how covid spreads depending on your schedule (not working weekends, only working in shifts, etc...) SO I added a scheduling system  You can adjust the length of the work day. You can now toggle 5 day work weeks, and work in shifts. On shorter days, the day gets divided into 2 shifts. On longer days it gets divided into 3 shifts. GET IT FREE AT: https://coldrice.itch.io/covid-simulator UPDATE LOG: https://coldrice.itch.io/covid-simulator/devlog/312318/variant-10-is-ready-for-transmission MY TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ColdRice_Dev
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Anyone who takes part in a challenge trial would very likely be infected by covid at some moment in the future as well. And under worse circumstances then a trial with medical staff looking on. No they wouldn't, there have been 47 million covid cases in the US (which is a lot!), out of a population of 330 million people. It is still more likely than not that you don't get covid. That's why covid parties where people try to infect themselves to get immunity because "I'll get it anyway so let's get it over with so I know I have it and can go to the hospital" are so bad. Unless you mean that the kind of people who would take part in a challenge trial are risk-takers who are much more likely to get it than the general population, but now your sample isn't representative of the general population,
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:No, why would it be? Why are folks so drat insistent that *everyone* will get Covid? Unless we get lucky with boosters or serious about mandates, nearly everyone will get COVID over the course of their life, just like everyone eventually gets the flu or colds. That's how highly contagious respiratory diseases work unless vaccination (protective against infection) and/or public health measures severely reduce attack rates. That said, saying "everyone gets it eventually" is not an argument for challenge trials. How you get it, and how often, are still extremely important for lifetime morbidity and mortality risk. Intentionally infecting an unvaccinated person is much higher risk than that same person becoming infected some time later after vaccination. It's also higher risk because the challenge infection is an additional infection that will likely have only a minor effect on later infections. That's on top of the perverse incentives mentioned by DV, and it's especially true because challenge trials have very little to offer the science beyond larger rcts and observational studies. I personally think using placebo-controlled trials after effective vaccines or treatments are approved are unethical for the same reason. Novavax's initial trials were in a tricky situation because they started before approval of alternative vaccines, but trials started after approval should absolutely be non-inferiority trials vs. approved vaccines. That also goes exploiting vaccine nationalism and scarcity in poorer countries to run placebo-controlled trials when alternatives are approved in wealthier nations. Trials absolutely must equitably include such counties, but local scarcity should not be an excuse for placebo control rather than best-available-care. E: There's also a degree of fatalism to the "they'll get it eventually" argument, given that it's only true because of policy failure. Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Coldrice posted:Hey there, just wanted to throw out the latest Covid Simulator update to you folks! This fuckin rules still, you really need to start gettin some grants for this stuff from egghead nerd agencies. There's no way this is less useful than whatever garbage they're using and of course it can be customized to other outbreaks now at this point
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Coldrice could unironically get government funding or a contract/job for that, yes. I have no idea how useful it would be for actual simulation (I'd guess at least pieces of it might be useful in a rigorous outbreak simulation, not my area) but definitely for education.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
Wow! Now I can play "see if you catch covid from an anti-vaxxer" on my computer or in real life!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Unless we get lucky with boosters or serious about mandates, nearly everyone will get COVID over the course of their life, just like everyone eventually gets the flu or colds. That's how highly contagious respiratory diseases work unless vaccination (protective against infection) and/or public health measures severely reduce attack rates. Right. If COVID remains endemic and highly contagious, we'll all get our turn in the barrel eventually. But: quote:That said, saying "everyone gets it eventually" is not an argument for challenge trials. Yeah I was not saying that in relation to legitimizing challenge trials. Just that if you accept the global reality of a zero COVID future being impossible, you're very very likely to eventually end up with a SARS-CoV-2 infection at some point in your life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Right. If COVID remains endemic and highly contagious, we'll all get our turn in the barrel eventually. How often have you had tuberculosis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
What's the R0 for TB? For COVID? Are there 100k daily TB cases?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, people, including the people who would take part in a trial, are not all automatically "very likely to be infected by covid at some point in the future". This is straight up false. It’s gotten three‐fifths of the U.S. to date. VitalSigns posted:No they wouldn't, there have been 47 million covid cases in the US (which is a lot!), out of a population of 330 million people. It is still more likely than not that you don't get covid. That's why covid parties where people try to infect themselves to get immunity because "I'll get it anyway so let's get it over with so I know I have it and can go to the hospital" are so bad. For every ten infections reported, thirty‐two go unreported.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:What's the R0 for TB? For COVID? Are there 100k daily TB cases? Whooping cough only has a 70% effective vaccine and an R0 of 5.5. How many cases of that have you had? It seems extremely possible for respiratory diseases to exist that everyone doesn’t simply get over and over forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
If you believe it is ethical to do challenge trials of COVID because getting COVID is almost surely inevitable, do you believe it is ethical to do challenge trials of HIV because in certain risk groups in certain regions getting HIV is almost surely inevitable? Surely if we limit it to those groups, then by the "it's inevitable anyway" logic, it's ethical to do challenge trials on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Whooping cough only has a 70% effective vaccine and an R0 of 5.5. How many cases of that have you had? It's possible, but so far none of the reasons pertussis, measles, or tuberculosis have been effectively controlled in the US apply to SARS-CoV-2. And you know this, so like always I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish with this bit of insufferable trolling. E: TB is especially different from COVID, given that it's caused by bacterial infection. Stickman fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:If you believe it is ethical to do challenge trials of COVID because getting COVID is almost surely inevitable, do you believe it is ethical to do challenge trials of HIV because in certain risk groups in certain regions getting HIV is almost surely inevitable? Surely if we limit it to those groups, then by the "it's inevitable anyway" logic, it's ethical to do challenge trials on them. What would you gain from challenging them if it is inevitable that they will encounter HIV anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What would you gain from challenging them if it is inevitable that they will encounter HIV anyway? The point of the person who started this challenge trial debate was that they wanted to see more data on how COVID spreads so the same thing for HIV: there's still plenty to learn about how HIV spreads and why some people get it and others don't. Challenge trials would help with that. But for some reason I'm guessing the people calling for COVID challenge trials are going to be a bit more squeamish when it comes to HIV challenge trials, despite HIV having like 10 times the death toll of COVID to date and no vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Wait do straight people still think every single gay man has or will definitely get HIV in their lifetime
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What would you gain from challenging them if it is inevitable that they will encounter HIV anyway? Testing an HIV vaccine now via challenge trial, rather than testing an HIV vaccine over years as participants acquire HIV through normal infection routes. The original argument that started this was that everyone was going to get COVID eventually anyways, so what's the issue with challenge trials for something they'll inevitably contract in the future? edit: VitalSigns posted:Wait do straight people still think every single gay man has or will definitely get HIV in their lifetime Rosalind posted "certain risk groups in certain regions." I'm guessing she means specific risk groups in specific regions of Africa. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait do straight people still think every single gay man has or will definitely get HIV in their lifetime Nuh uh don't put awful loving words like that in my mouth. I'm a goddamn HIV researcher. I was thinking specifically of certain groups of truck drivers in Sub-Saharan African that have incredibly and tragically high prevalences of HIV as well as certain groups of IV meth users in the US where many of them seroconvert due to sharing needles. I was also being obviously and clearly sarcastic, let me spell that out for you I guess if you need it. No one in their right mind would say challenge trials of HIV are ethical. And that's the whole point. Despite HIV killing many more than COVID and being very infectious in its own right, there's absolutely no way that a challenge trial of HIV could be remotely conceived as ethical unless your views of bioethics are incredibly fringe. Rosalind fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Testing an HIV vaccine now via challenge trial, rather than testing an HIV vaccine over years as participants acquire HIV through normal infection There’s a difference between a year’s delay in developing a vaccine for a disease that jumped to humans a hundred years ago and has been a pandemic for forty and a year’s delay in developing a vaccine for a virus that jumped to humans late last year and will infect half the population by sometime next year. I don’t know that challenge trials against SARS‐CoV‐2 were a great idea, but it has to be recognized that these are very different pandemics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait do straight people still think every single gay man has or will definitely get HIV in their lifetime Rosalind is talking about very high-risk areas like Africa, but even in the US at current rates (well as of 2016) about half of black men who have sex with men and a quarter of Hispanic MSM will test positive in their lifetime. An added terrible part is that black MSM men tend to have better HIV awareness and adherence to personal protection than white MSM men (who have ~10% lifetime risk), but high current prevalence and greater historic and current marginalization means the epidemic continues at very high rates. E: Too slow! Stickman fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Stickman posted:It's possible, but so far none of the reasons pertussis, measles, or tuberculosis have been effectively controlled in the US apply to SARS-CoV-2. And you know this, so like always I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish with this bit of insufferable trolling. There is multiple respiratory diseases that both have not been eliminated but also aren't an inevitability that you will get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:48
|
|