|
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 | ||
|
Xombie posted:We do know, given the available evidence, that Covid is not even remotely as dangerous to the vaccinated and previously infected. These are two cohorts that cannot decrease, only increase as a percentage of the populace. Hence, Covid will necessarily become less deadly over time. This bit isn't necessarily true on the individual or population level. On the individual level, if protection against severe disease wanes (which some studies have found and others have not) then "vaccinated or previously infected" can mean less and less over time. On a larger time scale and the population level, you have new births, immigration/emigration from regions, deaths etc. than can change infected/vaccinated percentages. There's also a question of whether we care about risk conditional on infection, or absolute risk (which depends on transmission rates). In the latter case, waning protection against infection will mean large yearly attack rates if no additional precautions are taken to decrease transmission (mandated boosters, seasonal masking, etc). Larger attack rates mean more absolute risk, even if the risk for any particular infection is lower (which again, isn't necessarily a given). Like all diseases, the best protection is to not get the disease, or at least get it less frequently. E: Vaccinated breakthrough Delta is more deadly than unvaccinated seasonal influenza if you're over ~40 or so. Influenza is a terrible disease and COVID moreso, even with vaccination. Stickman fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Nov 11, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Xombie posted:In 2020, the Flu killed 24,000-53,000 Americans. Kidney disease killed 52,000. 44,000 died from suicide. 133,000 people died from Alzheimer's. Even if? The vaccine fairy could boost everyone on the regular, the virus could change nothing about itself, and breakthroughs may still clear that bar. The U.S. has had about a million deaths in this pandemic*. Cutting that by 98.5% still leaves fifteen thousand. Ninety‐eight point five percent may be achievable in some age groups with boosters, but the elderly will pull that up with their higher naive death rates and muted response to inoculation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 08:12
|
|
|
My fully vaccinated 32yr old sister had had Covid for a week now in the UK. Doc has said if she doesn't start improving in 2 days she will be hospitalized. They think she has sinusitis as well as covid so she's also on antibiotics for that and she's described the pain as unbearable. Very hard, she has taken all possible precautions and still been dealt a lovely hand. Just have to hope that her immune system is up to it and she starts to improve soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
Tomberforce posted:My fully vaccinated 32yr old sister had had Covid for a week now in the UK. Doc has said if she doesn't start improving in 2 days she will be hospitalized. They think she has sinusitis as well as covid so she's also on antibiotics for that and she's described the pain as unbearable. Very hard, she has taken all possible precautions and still been dealt a lovely hand. Just have to hope that her immune system is up to it and she starts to improve soon. Hope she gets better soon! According to relatively new studies the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months, people who got those might want to look for a MRNA booster. Just thought of this because you mentioned UK, obviouse not blaming your sister in any case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
pidan posted:Hope she gets better soon! Yeah I think she had double pfizer maybe 3 or 4 months ago. Wouldn't have been eligible for booster yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1458748570908168197 A long Twitter thread, which is of course just the best way of presenting this sort of data, but a *suggestion* that the UK policy of prioritising boosters for vulnerable groups over first jabs for 12-16-year-olds is paying off - but I've got a number of concerns and caveats about that conclusion. The main one is that the vast majority of this fall is coming in London, which really should be treated as a completely separate entity here (in fact two separate entities - inner London being almost twice as densely-populated and much, much younger than outer London, which is about as densely-populated and similar in age range to other UK cities but also with much, much higher public transport use). Literally nobody has been talking about the fact that case numbers in inner London have been falling for quite a while now, and it's not an artifact of testing numbers, which have stayed constant, with a waning positivity rate. Some of this is that younger population - the UK vaccine rollout was done in age bands and a 33-year-old (the median age in inner London) would most likely have received their second dose at some point in September, so will still be in max immunity right now. In case anyone's wondering by the way, usage of the Underground is back to 95ish percent of pre-pandemic levels and mask usage is *at best* 50%. However I don't think age is the only factor here - in particular because regional towns and cities are now also starting to see a fall at the same kind of rate as London was in September, while numbers are still going up in the least densely-populated areas (population density and age don't really track that closely once you take London out of the equation again). My other Big Idea about this fall is that there's been a particularly vicious cold virus circulating since at least early October (I caught it in mid-October and it's still lurking a bit for me now) which will have taken a lot of people out of circulation - it is in effect a big, albeit weak, NPI against those most likely to be catching and circulating respiratory diseases. I don't have any data whatsoever to back this up of course, but I genuinely think this might be part of whatever X factor it is that's causing this fall. The other possibility is of course The Idea That Dare Not Speak It's Name - that the combination of vaccination and almost complete lack of NPIs since summer is actually getting us close to herd immunity. Of course we've had a lot of false dawns like this in the past but this *is* the first time we've seen a sustained decline in cases and deaths without massive NPIs. If it carries on through until December we might be able to start celebrating, just in time for the coming EU trade war to kill us all when the fuel and food supplies all get cut off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
pidan posted:Hope she gets better soon! Single-dose J&J yes, AZ very definitely no - in fact it drops more slowly than the mRNA vaccines: https://www.ft.com/content/49641651-e10a-45f6-a7cc-8b8c7b7a9710  Obviously take the extrapolations with a pinch of salt and it starts from a lower level. Also someone in their 30s in the UK would have been given mRNA unless they were in an extremely vulnerable group and got one of the early AZ doses - anyone in those groups is now eligible for a booster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:29
|
|
|
pidan posted:
That is not remotely true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That is not remotely true. Yes it is, here's the study E: IN ENGLISH https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 Here's a graphic (German but you get the gist)  I mean, maybe the study is wrong, but it's definitely a real study that came to these results. pidan fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Nov 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
pidan posted:Yes it is, here's the study I mean, nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things, but that paper doesn't even say " the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" and shows protection from death and hospitalization right to the end of the study period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things, but that paper doesn't even say " the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" and shows protection from death and hospitalization right to the end of the study period. The paper is in English... But yeah, it's specifically about symptomatic infection, nothing else, I never said anything about deaths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things (..) I don't think you have any grounds for this statement and as a non-native English speaker this comes off as extremely offensive and anglocentric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Pingui posted:I don't think you have any grounds for this statement and as a non-native English speaker this comes off as extremely offensive and anglocentric. Like that graph literally doesn’t say what he is claiming it says. He’s using the fact the title is obscured to claim it says the “effects are negligible”, when that isn’t what that graph even is
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like that graph literally doesn’t say what he is claiming it says. He’s using the fact the title is obscured to claim it says the “effects are negligible”, when that isn’t what that graph even is Then criticize the article, instead of insinuating that articles in other languages than English are not to be trusted. Your casual dismissal of other language articles as implicitly less worthy of consideration, is not far from a whole lot of bad -isms. So cough up a source on that statement or consider why you thought that this was a cool way to criticize a source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
The article is English!!!!! Just the graphic isn't E: obviously I don't agree that articles in non English languages are automatically bad, but it is admittedly easier to make wild claims that goons can't easily verify, but in this case it doesn't matter because it is in fact an article in English pidan fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Nov 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
pidan posted:The article is English!!!!! I get that, which is why it is pretty clear that OOCC's critique is purely founded in bias, as he didn't even look at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
You know what this page is missing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
pidan posted:The paper is in English... quote:the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Jesus christ, the problem isn't that nonenglish language stuff isn't reliable, it's that that graph literally isn't a graph saying what the guy is claiming it says. That is not a graph that shows " the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" (but people seem to be thinking it is? because everyone seems to think my objection is that it not being in english is the issue)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Well ok then, feel free to get boosted the hard way I guess 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Jesus christ, the problem isn't that nonenglish language stuff isn't reliable, it's that that graph literally isn't a graph saying what the guy is claiming it says. That is not a graph that shows " the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" (but people seem to be thinking it is? because everyone seems to think my objection is that it not being in english is the issue) This is what you said: Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things (..) Now source it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
Pingui posted:This is what you said: Source what? Click the link posted, it lists extremely non negligible effects of vaccines. The pre-print literally doesn't say what he's claiming, unless you take a graph out of it, say it says something different then hope the fact it's not in english can fool english speakers to thinking it's what you claim it says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:06
|
|
|
People need to wise up about pre-prints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
Kaal posted:People need to wise up about pre-prints. Doesn’t even matter if it’s a preprint or a respected study if you just pull graphs and pretend they are something else
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Source what? (..) That should be pretty obvious. Source that "nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things". You are sticking to this single article (that isn't even non-english), as if you didn't just declare large swaths of science suspect by their sole attribute of not being in English. Maybe I am being unclear? - sorry, but like most of humanity English isn't my first language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Doesn’t even matter if it’s a preprint or a respected study if you just pull graphs and pretend they are something else That's a fair point as well. The pre-print is talking about detectable infection, the graph is talking about symptomatic disease, and the poster is talking about "any effect" (aka hospitalization and death).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Pingui posted:That should be pretty obvious. Source that "nonenglish preprint is a new tactic for trying to fake things". You are sticking to this single article (that isn't even non-english), as if you didn't just declare large swaths of science suspect by their sole attribute of not being in English. If someone makes an extreme claim, like "the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" that is suspect, if they then show you "proof" and that proof is a graph in a language neither the poster or the intended audience presumably read, yes, you should be suspect you are being scammed. Which is exactly the case in this situation, neither the linked study nor the posted graph are making the claim "the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months". If I said "dragons are real, and I have proof" then just post a random hindi article saying oat prices have risen, it's not a problem that hindi makes things unreliable, it's that I am being unreliable and guessing that you can't read hindi and will not know that I have used an article on oat prices to trick you into assuming it says dragons are real. a graph that does not say "the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" is being presented as if it is saying that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If someone makes an extreme claim, like "the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months" that is suspect, if they then show you "proof" and that proof is a graph in a language neither the poster or the intended audience presumably read, yes, you should be suspect you are being scammed. . I know German you dumbass, how do you think I found the graph? It's also from a respected magazine and not some random tweeter. That said, I should probably have been clearer that I was referring to protection from symptomatic infection specifically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
The paper literally saysquote:effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), Now, that clause is in the context of “against infection”, but Pidan’s statement was ambiguous is pretty much the same way. pidan posted:the effect of AZ and JJ vaccinations becomes pretty negligible after six months Which effect? It’s unclear, but clarified later pidan posted:The paper is in English... Maybe you feel this is a motte & bailey argument, but at least it’s more intellectually honest that quoting words that aren’t there (“any”).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
Everyone's getting bogged down in language arguments and ignoring that this graph and the accompanying paper are making a claim that is so outrageously outside the results of other research and the easily-observable reality on the ground that it has to cast some serious doubts on their methodology. quote:In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), No wonder they didn't bother with error bars on that graph, that's a margin of error of 125 percentage points. No, there's no decimal point missing. One Hundred And Twenty Five. It's also saying that 4 months on from vaccination there is a 95% chance that you are actually *almost twice as likely to have symptomatic COVID than if you hadn't been vaccinated at all*. Now of course vaccines that make disease worse are a thing - hi there Dengue Fever! - but I strongly suspect that we'd have probably noticed in the UK if the vast majority of our over-40s, our clinically extremely vulnerable, and our frontline medical staff - who all received AZ in the first half of the year - were now twice as likely to catch COVID. Now I'm not an expert in clinical trials (well no more so than every other bugger on the planet who's been locked up with access to wikipedia for the last 2 years) but it seems to me that the problem is that they've chosen an almost comedically unsuitable method to get these numbers, a matched pair trial, where you take person A, who gets the jab, and then search for a person B who is as close as possible to them demographically and medically and compare their outcomes. Except Sweden has an >80% vaccination rate, so the pool from which you can draw your Bs is at best a quarter of the size of the person As - and the rate for over-65s, who got most of the AZ, is even higher. I'm going to assume that - charitably - they didn't actually properly control for this and the inevitable bias it creates, and also that the incredibly small sample size that would have been imposed on them by that lack of controls to compare against has caused even bigger problems. A less charitable reading is that this bad methodology was deliberately chose as the one most likely to give scary headline figures, and note how Sweden is *always* used by anti-vax and anti-NPI "researchers" as "proof" of their righteousness, but that's probably being far too harsh. The UK study that I posted - and the UK has by far the largest proportion of AZ-vaccinated people in the developed world, as well as rampant infections to keep that sample rate nice and high - shows that AZ keeps chugging away at it's lower-than-mRNA level for at least four months, and the observable reality of death and hospitalisation rates compared to infection rates plummeting from last year to this suggests that, limited though it is, AZ is still doing its job for now (although I still have a booster booked just to be on the safe side).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Pingui posted:Then criticize the article, instead of insinuating that articles in other languages than English are not to be trusted. Your casual dismissal of other language articles as implicitly less worthy of consideration, is not far from a whole lot of bad -isms. You two are talking past each other because you are misunderstanding what they're claiming and they're too busy trying to score points to slow down and rephrase for someone who clearly is misunderstanding the intended message. they weren't saying the new thing is to trick people with non-english studies because non-english studies are bad. The operative part is that the language is different than what the audience can read, I assume they chose English because we are posting on an (primarily) English-language forum. The comment doesn't go to the reliability of the research, it goes to the reliability of how the research is being portrayed by the speaker. i.e. the point wouldn't be substantially different if we were on a Russian-speaking forum and they said "posting pre-prints in English is the new way to trick people". It's about lying to the audience and the audience not having the capability to tell because they can't read the source material.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
How do you deal with getting a test for a flight? I understand the 72 hours before a flight requirement. What I don't understand is how to get it done. I contacted Kaiser and was told they can't guarantee a result in time. You'd think they would guarantee a 24-48 hour turnaround so you aren't waiting for a possible result at the airport. Or even so you can go to a private facility to pay obscene amounts for a $20 test.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Urgent cares all do rapid or PCR tests that can be charged against insurance. I've done a few and they haven't taken more than a day or two to get the results. I don't know about Kaiser though. They do their own thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
CDPH just greenlit 18+ boosters for anyone in my county since it’s deemed high transmission. Cool!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:How do you deal with getting a test for a flight? I understand the 72 hours before a flight requirement. What I don't understand is how to get it done. I contacted Kaiser and was told they can't guarantee a result in time. You'd think they would guarantee a 24-48 hour turnaround so you aren't waiting for a possible result at the airport. Or even so you can go to a private facility to pay obscene amounts for a $20 test. The at home tests that make you do the whole thing on video are valid for travel
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The at home tests that make you do the whole thing on video are valid for travel Depends on where you're going. Canada only accepts PCR tests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The at home tests that make you do the whole thing on video are valid for travel I have to assume this is actually just generating content for a very specialised porn site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Depends on where you're going. Canada only accepts PCR tests. This is a glimpse into what a confusing clusterfuck travel is going to be for years to come, with differing country/airline/border/travel insurance requirements. I wonder if it'll be a boost for travel agents, if there are still any clinging to life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
freebooter posted:This is a glimpse into what a confusing clusterfuck travel is going to be for years to come, with differing country/airline/border/travel insurance requirements. I wonder if it'll be a boost for travel agents, if there are still any clinging to life. I don't know what it will be like for years to come, because I expect there will be some harmonization of policies, but in the mid-term I expect a lot of pissed off international travelers and an even worse life for airline and airport staff. I have had a lot of international travel during Covid for various reason I won't go into. Some of this won't apply depending on location, especially in the US where every domestic flight is like a stretch hummer on prom night. If the pain of travel used to be getting to the airport, lines, delays, fear of flight, etc., it is now Covid paperwork. Every single time I've traveled I've seen many people denied boarding passes or denied boarding at the gate. Usually they have had 99% of the paperwork correct, but for understandable reasons (language barrier, very recently changed rules), one small thing was off. And airlines are playing it super conservative and not giving passengers any benefit of the doubt. With international flights, the stress levels go up even more because you're often dealing with demanding wealthier people and the consequences of missing a flight often means losing an entire day or more, especially with reduced volume. I saw people denied boarding in transit in countries that they could not enter, so their only option would be to wait in the airport until there was another flight back to their country of origin. I was almost denied boarding because my national ID was brand new, used a newly issued design, and did not perfectly match the printed version the airline staff had in a binder. (Despite having a passport and other forms of ID!) In one case, the airline had printed out stacks of paperwork that passengers were commonly forgetting, because the guidance was confusing. I saw a woman (also in transit) denied boarding with her 3 children because they said the quarantine hotel required 1 guardian per 2 children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Smeef posted:I have had a lot of international travel during Covid for various reason I won't go into. Surely there's no need for COVID testing when you're piloting a narco sub?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 01:20
|
|