|
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 | ||
|
Platystemon posted:https://twitter.com/mkarolian/status/1467959999645298697?s=20 I’m so glad that the people who Believe In Science are in charge now.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
I think government action could save, could definitely have saved this entire time, hundreds of thousands of lives. I base this off multiple other countries successfully doing so. Why is this considered the doomer or pessimistic perspective? There's a guy a couple pages back arguing the government shouldn't encourage, much less give away, more effective masks because no one will even listen or use them. How is that not a doomer perspective?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 04:48
|
|
|
Edit uh this isn't the thread I thought it was my bad WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:02
|
|
|
What
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I don't think that is true: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00306-2/fulltext 1) What gives you the impression that "mild to moderate" means "equal to a bad cold"? 2) We have to consider the distribution of outcomes for a particular outcome when try to compare the severity of diseases. Breakthrough COVID is much more likely to kill you, land you in the hospital, and/or have long-term health repercussions that an infection by a cold agent, even if we restrict ourselves to viral agents we would consider to cause "severe" colds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
I mean, you're also going to spread it around if you get a breakthrough infection, which seems like what people should be most worried about. "It's just a cold" I seem to remember hearing something like that in March 2020 from the Trump folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm of the mind that measures should still be taken to slow or stop the spread, especially due to the absurdly strained healthcare system in the US where the unvaxxed are single handedly doing their best to collapse and overwhelm it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
Stickman posted:1) What gives you the impression that "mild to moderate" means "equal to a bad cold"? Nothing like a cold, right. You could maybe stretch it to "breakthrough covid is like a bad flu" if you wanted (I still wouldn't say that), but a bad flu is something that can knock you on your rear end for a week or two and kill you if you're old or immunocompromised; it's as far from a cold as unvaccinated covid is from flu. The last time I had full-on flu was the closest to death I've felt and that was just the fever/malaise, I didn't get any lung problems out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
https://giant.gfycat.com/SpecificShabbyBengaltiger.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1468014921334116355?t=HsJ_inqXlNm02vJ-cc2vsg&s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 09:05
|
|
|
The Voice of America, with Reuters contribution, is saying “South Africa Hospitals Jammed with Omicron Patients ” Disclosure: I think everyone should know this, but Voice of America is state media. quote:“Unfortunately, we’re seeing a more than doubling of hospital admissions each day,” said Ian Sanne, an infectious diseases specialist who serves on South Africa’s COVID-19 presidential advisory committee. quote:Unvaccinated people are particularly susceptible to omicron, as are individuals who have not been exposed to COVID-19 before, disease specialist Sanne said. They didn’t print any positions on whether or not it’s ‘mild’, but it is filling up hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1468014921334116355?t=HsJ_inqXlNm02vJ-cc2vsg&s=19 ?????
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 10:22
|
|
|
I thought that the Jesse Bloom Lab thread explained the model, its implications, and its limitations fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
RBD is Receptor Binding Domain. So the omicron spike protein is much less strongly bound by antibodies that strongly bind prior strains, and that presumably this means that antibody-mediated immunity to omicron will be weaker. It's not *zero*, and there's humoral immunity, but it's not good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 10:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1468001934334259202 https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1468001935760367617 quote:When a new SARS-CoV-2 variant arises, there are three main questions: (1) How transmissible? (2) How virulent? (3) How much antigenic change? Third question important as it’s the most actionable: we can update vaccines & develop new antibodies. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 10:47
|
|
|
Studywise, mild generally means 'self-resolving with home care'. You can feel like utter garbage for a week or two and that still counts as mild as long as you didn't have any functional lung trouble or need hospitalization. My expectations for Omicron until it's been around long enough for it to be studied better are that it'll behave like a normal immune reducing mutation. Probably similar severe disease in immune naive people (no vaccination or prior infection) but much less severe disease if you have exposure to original/alpha/beta/delta. Omicron|naive ~= Delta|naive > Omicron|vaccinated > Delta|vaccinated. Immune response is very unlikely to go to zero, antibodies just won't bind as well and you'll need bigger concentrations to get the same neutralization. But the virus still gets less of a lead before purpose-built adaptive immunity kicks in (or you kick it with less efficient antibodies that just have more lag before they get upregulated enough). Like the difference in severity between seasonal influenza and a bird/swine flu pandemic strain isn't anything fundamental to the virus, it's that the seasonal variants are strains that have mutated enough to allow infection but previous defenses still work somewhat and the pandemic ones are new. If you put either into someone whose never had any influenza either will mess them up badly. Original SARS-COV-2 => omicron is still a much smaller change than other human coronaviruses => SARS-COV-2. It's certainly possible that omicron does something weird (there's lots of weird viruses), but it probably doesn't. It's still bad because it spreads faster + there's lots of unvaccinated people in the naive bucket. And infection+spread in vaccinated people is bad even if it's not severe. But it's very unlikely vaccination isn't protective even if it's not protective enough to prevent infection entirely. They're taking a mix of 33 antibodies that bind to a specific region on spike protein (RBD), calling how well that mix binds to original SARS-COV-2 '1', then guessing at how well the mix neutralizes different variants (by aggregating a bunch of individual antibody vs mutated protein experiments). For omicron, you have to jack the antibody concentration way up to get the same neutralization. So in-vivo, a omicron exposure is more likely to get a foothold vs the same circulating antibodies level, and after infection antibody producing cells have to upregulate more to reach the same neutralization effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1468014921334116355?t=HsJ_inqXlNm02vJ-cc2vsg&s=19 gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 11:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:https://twitter.com/mkarolian/status/1467959999645298697?s=20 It’s really shocking how little this administration seems concerned by this pandemic. This is an unforgivable response to that question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
It's a random graph pulled with little context where the line goes down and the language is complex, so you are supposed to read it and then fill in the blanks in your head and assume it's simply a graph of "immunity percent" or something, instead of reading it as some specific measure of some specific calculated binding score that is surely important to know for someone studying covid, but is otherwise just being presented by fitterhappier with no context because he knows no person will have any tool to interpret what it specifically means (but will probably default to mentally translate "this number goes down 80% so immunity will go down 80%" without having to actually make a claim like that).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
Has anyone seen any of those charts comparing Omicron to SARS Cov 1? Remember earlier in the pandemic we'd get "neutralization against wildtype, alpha, beta, Cov1"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1468014921334116355?t=HsJ_inqXlNm02vJ-cc2vsg&s=19 Why is the bottom of the graph stretched out like that? Is it just to clarify how close Omicron and PM520 are to each other?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a random graph pulled with little context where the line goes down and the language is complex, so you are supposed to read it and then fill in the blanks in your head and assume it's simply a graph of "immunity percent" or something, instead of reading it as some specific measure of some specific calculated binding score that is surely important to know for someone studying covid, but is otherwise just being presented by fitterhappier with no context because he knows no person will have any tool to interpret what it specifically means (but will probably default to mentally translate "this number goes down 80% so immunity will go down 80%" without having to actually make a claim like that). hmm maybe this furry scientists’s annotated graph will help https://twitter.com/catameep/status/1468053955796217859 To be clear, that graph is pulled from the preprint, but the paper was accepted for publication in Nature Medicine. See also e: Got my links mixed up. Castaign posted:Why is the bottom of the graph stretched out like that? Is it just to clarify how close Omicron and PM520 are to each other? ??? It’s just a logarithmic scale. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:hmm maybe this furry scientists’s annotated graph will help To be clear, your source here is a random furry nobody drawing ms paint lines on a graph from a preprint. But okay, sure, that does confirm my suspicious. That graph shows a boosted person is 80% as immune against omicron as against delta. The "RBD neutralization score" going down a scary amount on a graph did not correlate to an equally huge loss in immunity and was posted solely to mislead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:preprint Read that again. Owlofcreamcheese posted:But okay, sure, that does confirm my suspicious. That graph shows a boosted person is 80% as immune against omicron as against delta. The "RBD neutralization score" going down a scary amount on a graph did not correlate to an equally huge loss in immunity and was posted solely to mislead. What? Pick a lane. Either it’s junk science and you shouldn’t take anything away from it, or it truly does suggests that we are avoiding the worst‐case scenario for vaccine efficacy. I don’t know why you’d latch onto eighty percent, though. It’s high eighties if both figures are toward the favorable side of their ranges (i.e. combined factor of two and a half, leaving boosted Spikevax above convalescent) and low sixties if they’re both unfavorable (i.e. factor of twelve reduction). Without a boost and/or with a weaker vaccine, you could be literally off the chart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Is the graph with the anime ferret really getting printed in nature, anime animal and all, that would be amazing
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
70 out of 170 people popped positive after a hospital party in Spain. All 70 were boosted. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/07/europe/spanish-hospital-covid-christmas-party-intl/index.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is the graph with the anime ferret really getting printed in nature, anime animal and all, that would be amazing No. The basic graph is in Nature Medicine, but sadly it lacks the snow panther. It also lacks the grid lines, which is I suspect why the furry lifted it from the preprint rather than the published version. And to be clear, this particular furry has “astrophysics” in his bio. I have no idea if he’s really a professional in that field, nor do I care because it overlaps precious little with the pandemic. I just thought it was funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Read that again. So you are saying what we have learned is vaccines are somewhere between zero and 90% effective against omicron. Really big breaking news, that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So you are saying what we have learned is vaccines are somewhere between zero and 90% effective against omicron. Love seeing folks making GBS threads on scientists for not having full serum studies in under a loving fortnight from when the variant of concern was identified. I mean come on, it’s one thing to constantly go after political figures, but maybe loving lay off the scientists. I’ve not done infectious disease work in a professional lab setting for a number of years in the past, and sometimes poo poo takes time. Sometimes you need to run a test again, especially when you have to be sure. And yes, that includes antibody titration and observational studies. Are the scientists now just brunch-eating lanyard shitlibs now? Maybe lay off the constant complaining, hearing nothing but venting is obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Love seeing folks making GBS threads on scientists for not having full serum studies in under a loving fortnight from when the variant of concern was identified. I am torn because I agree with you, but I agree *about* your post...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Love seeing folks making GBS threads on scientists for not having full serum studies in under a loving fortnight from when the variant of concern was identified. I'm not going after "the scientists". I am going after the twitter ecosystem that pulls random graphs out of random pre-prints that literally no one has the tools to interpret then posts them with 'woopsy doodle, looks bad" type captions so that the audience fills in the gaps on what they think the paper might say. (then when it is interpreted, which can only be done by pulling another random graph from another preprint and having a different nobody twitter guy draw on it in an art program, the actual apparent interpretation is "well, it says the effect might be somewhere between 0 or 100%.... maybe") Like it's not even an issue of "pre-prints are bad" it's that that chain of knowledge is literally deranged. Like it's not even wrong, in that yes, I'm sure the vaccine will be between 0 and 90% effective (or maybe more or maybe less) against covid. Laundering that non-fact through a hallway of hard to interpret graphs is a deliberate tactic to mislead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Owl wanted context for what the binding score meant. He gets as much context as science has at the moment, and then he complains that the errors bars are too large and that the graph doesn’t cover enough of the low end—because no vaccines generated antibodies that feeble against the wild type, which if you ask me is a good problem to have. Tedious are all the folks like himself that are too lazy to actually do anything meaningful and poo poo all over those who are. He’s so drat certain that he knows more than actual epidemiologists and virologists and doctors and other medical researchers and public health officials. Put up or shut up, it's really that simple. Once again, he isn’t quoting anyone, he’s just speaking in generalized terms that prevents further discussion and insists that we just take his word for it. Science changes with new information, so he’s still complaining about professionals not being able to see into the future with perfect agency. That must be so tedious for him! All I originally asked was the people stop constantly making GBS threads all over people who are doing the hard work of trying to deal with this pandemic. But you folks just can't help yourselves, can you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Owl wanted context for what the binding score meant. No, he's complaining that Twitter by its very design is absolutely terrible for getting any useful information out of, especially on a subject as complex as virology and is mainly used to spread anxiety in order to get more 'engagement' due to stuff being posted completely out of context. And he's right Alctel fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Alctel posted:No, he's complaining that Twitter by its very design is absolutely terrible for getting any useful information out of, especially on a subject as complex as virology and is mainly used to spread anxiety in order to get more 'engagement' due to stuff being posted completely out of context Strong agree, Twitter is loving awful
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m glad you asked. Thank you for this! It was a very helpful synthesis, and I just realized I never responded (been a busy few days at work). I also asked the PI of my local Novavax trial site, who previously had led my city's trial for J&J. She responded: quote:Re: heterologous boosting. There are a few papers out there showing an advantage to heterologous boosting, and that is consistent with our prior HIV work as well. However, this is all immunologic data in terms of immune responses, and it's unclear if it translates to a real-world difference. The important caveat is that we don't have heterologous data with Novavax. Since it's a different technology all together (protein), I couldn't predict if mix and match would be better than just boosting with NVX again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Owl wanted context for what the binding score meant. What is this "stop being mean to the poor brave scientists"? The scientists are fine. What isn't fine is twitter/you trying to amplify a particular graph as being important new information, then having no way to interpret it until another twitter nobody provides a tool from another preprint, using their own personal interpretation and the combined result being "the vaccine will be somewhere between 0 and 90% effective or maybe more or maybe less" which is what we already knew if no one had brought up the first graph in the first place! The science is fine, the preprints themselves might even be fine (but I can't possibly know if they are or aren't). The element of cargo cult interpretation is not fine, and in this case is comical because even using the cargo cult interpretation of a rando's interpretation of a preprint's interpretation of an unrelated preprint's single graph.... the result is "we don't know what this graph means for real life"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
it's a graph that requires some significant technical knowledge and context to properly interpret with the caption "Jeez. Ouch." It's not very different than what people used to get in trouble for in USPol, hot dropping misleading or out-of-context tweets as rage bait. Could've just linked the actual underlying tweet thread that contains some of the context. This is correct:Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am going after the twitter ecosystem that pulls random graphs out of random pre-prints that literally no one has the tools to interpret then posts them with 'woopsy doodle, looks bad" type captions so that the audience fills in the gaps on what they think the paper might say. I posted some of the actual underlying twitter thread by the Bloom lab, who are the researchers that generated those data: quote:When a new SARS-CoV-2 variant arises, there are three main questions: (1) How transmissible? (2) How virulent? (3) How much antigenic change? Third question important as it’s the most actionable: we can update vaccines & develop new antibodies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Alctel posted:No, he's complaining that Twitter by its very design is absolutely terrible for getting any useful information out of, especially on a subject as complex as virology and is mainly used to spread anxiety in order to get more 'engagement' due to stuff being posted completely out of context. Twitter is an awful medium, but unfortunately it is also a load‐bearing component of modern civilization. If people could not fly off the handle when information arrives in the form of a tweet, that would be great. The people at the Jesse Bloom Lab do good work. David S. Khoury, Deborah Cromer, Arnold Reynaldi, Timothy E. Schlub, Adam K. Wheatley, Jennifer A. Juno, Kanta Subbarao, Stephen J. Kent, and James A. Triccas do good work. Anthony Leonardi also does good work. His quote tweet doesn’t add much here, but his mysterious smile ought not to trigger conniptions. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
you could always just provide some context to the tweets you post instead of tut-tutting and talking about how nice the scientists are
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:you could always just provide some context to the tweets you post instead of tut-tutting and talking about how nice the scientists are I provided context to the tweet I posted. I did not post the Leonardi tweet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 15:52
|
|