|
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 | ||
|
Incidentally, the reason the graph goes to -60 is because it's relevant in an adjacent graph.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Haystack posted:Incidentally, the reason the graph goes to -60 is because it's relevant in an adjacent graph. I stand corrected. Sorry for the derail
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
slorb posted:Using "insanely" as an adverb is a slur, and two doses of a MRNA vaccine is ~70% effective against hospitalisation, which I personally don't consider incredibly effective. I must have missed the memo on this. Maybe because I'm not on twitter? I apologise if I offended anyone Owlofcreamcheese posted:Acquired immunity to the virus is unbelievably good. And this. Either the protection even two shots of vaccine provides is unbelievably good or Omicron is just a lot worse at killing/hospitalising people, it's got to be one of the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
nexous posted:Pointing out that we should roll out omicron specific vaccines is met with “why the ones we have work fine” with a graph tailored to make the vaccines look more effective than they are. You clearly realize that the effectiveness isn’t good enough because you took the time to purposefully mislead people. There's nothing misleading about that graph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If none of the data goes anywhere near that division, why is it even on there? Haystack posted:Incidentally, the reason the graph goes to -60 is because it's relevant in an adjacent graph. Very cool. We solved the mystery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Very cool. We solved the mystery. Wow, the waning effectiveness on 2 doses of AZ vs Omicron looks extremely bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Wow, the waning effectiveness on 2 doses of AZ vs Omicron looks extremely bad. Turn over your monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Wow, the waning effectiveness on 2 doses of AZ vs Omicron looks extremely bad. Following it all the way back to the original source adds even more context to that graph. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Turn over your monitor. Oh okay, I was wondering why there was nothing in the earlier weeks. Still pretty weird to go down to -60% at 15-19 weeks, then back up to around 0%, at least to my idiot layperson eyes. Platystemon posted:Turn over your monitor. Yeah, whoops, I was thrown a bit by how bad it looked at 15-19 and didn't really clock that the increasing effectiveness past that was pre-booster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
It’s interesting that efficacy apparently increases over time, but we did see that before with a similar vaccine in the Janssen dick graph. It’s also very possible that it’s nothing but noise. All of the two dose AZ error bars overlap substantially.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Isn't 2 shots of an mRNA vaccine insanely effective at stopping you getting hospitalised/dead even against omicron, and three shots means you have excellent protection against even getting it It would be nice to have vaccines that protect specifically against omicron, especially for folks who are getting their first dose (like many children are). Still, yeah, N95 up, get boosted, use the tools we have right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Following it all the way back to the original source adds even more context to that graph. I really doubt that getting vaccinated makes anyone 60% more likely to get infected
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:I really doubt that getting vaccinated makes anyone 60% more likely to get infected Yeah. As noted in that graph, that small population of AZ vaccinated folks is full of old and sickly people. Classic demographic bias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
incidentally, do you want to know why we'd want something specific based on Omicron, even if the boosters work? So you have at a least a chance of something to throw into the gap if Omicron gives rise to something much more resistant to the current RNA vax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Haystack posted:Yeah. As noted in that graph, that small population of AZ vaccinated folks is full of old and sickly people. Classic demographic bias. Even then, the upper range on those bars tops off pretty low. At least it looks like most places have access to other vaccine options, although there's still a few countries in which it's the only option (and other places still with no vaccine access at all).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:Pfizer manufacturing plans in here and a few other interesting bits and pieces (e.g. proposed 100-day regulatory pathway for vaccine updates) Of note for those questioning the timeline on getting the vaccine out for <5 years is the graph on slide 23 showing the significantly increased risk of severe fever in the 2-5 age range compared to older cohorts. Very small sample size but this was not unexpected. Balancing side effect profile with efficacy is just more complicated for small children and something that is very hard to tell from in vitro/in silico studies. It looks like they'll go with 3ug dosing which is a significant step down in dose from older children and adults. Also good news that I haven't heard before is that they have increased stability at 2-8C up to 10 weeks vs the 2 weeks that was the previous guidance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Of note for those questioning the timeline on getting the vaccine out for <5 years is the graph on slide 23 showing the significantly increased risk of severe fever in the 2-5 age range compared to older cohorts. Very small sample size but this was not unexpected. Balancing side effect profile with efficacy is just more complicated for small children and something that is very hard to tell from in vitro/in silico studies. It looks like they'll go with 3ug dosing which is a significant step down in dose from older children and adults. from the next page:  I'm confused. They're pursuing a third dose due to inadequate response, but it looks like their titers are higher than the 16-25yo full dose cohort?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:I really doubt that getting vaccinated makes anyone 60% more likely to get infected Outside a controlled blind trial, it in principle could if vaccinated people took more risks because they felt protected, but it seems unlikely for COVID since anti-vaxers seem be the ones not taking this seriously at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:from the next page: The numbers for the kids are at 7 days, the numbers for 16-25 are at 1 month. The other complicating factor for young children is that they grow so for babies/toddlers there could potentially be a decrease in efficacy from PD1 over a 6 month period just because they get bigger. Youth Decay fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:The numbers for the kids are at 7 days, the numbers for 16-25 are at 1 month. Also the 6 month to under 12 data is from the phase 1 trial if you read the small footnote vs the other data being from their respective phase 3 trials so presumably the phase 2/3 results for under 5s did not pan out in the larger scale compared to the phase 1 trial (which is one reason phase 2/3 is done in the first place). 
Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
that makes sense thank you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Honestly I take back what I said about the axis not being misleading. It's misleading because without going to -60% on the y-axis it would be even more obvious that study has worthless data because the error bars would fill the entire relevant axis. Those graphs have "worthless sample" written all over them. Notice two of the error bars on the left figure clip off the bottom of the page and the axis only covers the central tendency, with a +80% upper bound for error and unknown lower bound. To their credit the recognize the sample sucks in the caption, but this is into "why even publish this" territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-49-Omicron/ "Hospitalisation and asymptomatic infection indicators were not significantly associated with Omicron infection, suggesting at most limited changes in severity compared with Delta." "... Omicron was associated with a 5.41 (95% CI: 4.87-6.00) fold higher risk of reinfection compared with Delta. This suggests relatively low remaining levels of immunity from prior infection." So around the same severity and more transmissible and less affected by vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
So I'd been looking for age-adjusted IFR reduction between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, and found this from the UK dataset during their summer Delta wave: https://mobile.twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1425085500105232387 This suggests that the vaccines do really help reduce risk of dying, but not by the 10x-20x we've seen compared to the case count (which is also skewed by younger people, who mostly don't die whether vaxxed or unvaxxed); much of that was the ~90% efficacy against breakthrough infection provided by the vaccines against Delta. The thing that feels like the really important question to me (in addition to long covid, systemically), is whether these CFRs remain intact with Omicron if the breakthrough number goes through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Petey posted:So I'd been looking for age-adjusted IFR reduction between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, and found this from the UK dataset during their summer Delta wave: Gonna need to see the boosted numbers
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Petey posted:So I'd been looking for age-adjusted IFR reduction between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, and found this from the UK dataset during their summer Delta wave: I mean this is a twitter thread about how case fatality rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated people understate the vaccine effectiveness because of confounders. Like he makes the specific point about low fatality rates in young people, as a reason why the vaccines are more effective than that: https://mobile.twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1425085512247693314
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Denmark - 22 Decemberpre:Denmark Covid Cases ------------------------------------ Dec 22 13,386 new cases, 531 reinfections, 126 new hospitalization (524 total, -1 net), 66 ICU (-1), 37 ventilator(+2), 14 dead Dec 21 13,558 new cases, 501 reinfections, 121 new hospitalization (526 total, -27 net), 67 ICU (+1), 35 ventilator(+2) , 17 dead Dec 20 10,082 (553 hospitalized) Dec 19 8,212 Dec 18 8,594 Dec 17 11,194 Dec 16 9,999 Dec 15 8,773 pre:Unvaccinated Partial Full Unvaccinated Partial Full 22 DEC New cases: 257.1 198.1 211.7 Hospitalizations: 34.2 15.3 7.3 21 DEC New cases: 270.1 226.2 207.8 Hospitalizations: 32.9 14.3 7.5 pre:20 Dec 1/1 100% 19 Dec 406/907 53.583% 18 Dec 2140/4103 46.234% 17 Dec 2271/4215 44.270% 16 Dec 4395/8373 44.882% 15 Dec 5566/10538 45.711% 10 Dec 11.164% 05 Dec 3.271% 01 Dec 1.777% 27 Nov 0.075% Sources: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/242ec2acc014456295189631586f1d26 https://covid19.ssi.dk/virusvarianter/delta-pcr Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Outside a controlled blind trial, it in principle could if vaccinated people took more risks because they felt protected, but it seems unlikely for COVID since anti-vaxers seem be the ones not taking this seriously at all. Then the study would still be useless because they're inadequately stratifying or case matching or whatever
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1473687815158435841?t=4R_shQhwPq41LrEQCtJqYw&s=19 Jesus  Is this sort of drop unprecedented?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1473687815158435841?t=4R_shQhwPq41LrEQCtJqYw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
"Oh yeah, that thing"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1473687815158435841?t=4R_shQhwPq41LrEQCtJqYw&s=19 and of course some right winger is in the comments arguing that this is good, actually, who wanted those 2 extra years that we're better off without anyhow
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I mean this is a twitter thread about how case fatality rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated people understate the vaccine effectiveness because of confounders. Like he makes the specific point about low fatality rates in young people, as a reason why the vaccines are more effective than that: Right, that’s why this data is useful, because it is age controlled. Google Butt posted:Gonna need to see the boosted numbers None of the booster studies think we are going to get to Delta protection against infection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Remember right at the start of omicron there was a christmas party and half the people got it? There is finally some follow up data: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.50.2101147?s=09 mostly vaccinated, no boosters, age range 26–68 (median 38) so not just super young people. Symptoms appeared median 3 days (which is insanely fast). But no deaths and hospitalization. Nothing too exciting on the symptoms.  Also lol at the one guy who went to the famous omicron party and just got delta somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1473687815158435841?t=4R_shQhwPq41LrEQCtJqYw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:That 68 on the y axis is puttin in a lot of work I laughed
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Honestly I take back what I said about the axis not being misleading. It's misleading because without going to -60% on the y-axis it would be even more obvious that study has worthless data because the error bars would fill the entire relevant axis. The data for >24 weeks and boosters is fine, though, and really that’s the important part since there’s hardly anyone with recent AZ primaries (which is a major part of the reason why the confidence intervals are so big). They could have just said “the sample size is too small to asses <24 weeks since AZ primary” and left it off the charts, which probably would have been better. Also a decent argument against point estimates in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Stickman posted:The data for >24 weeks and boosters is fine, though, and really that’s the important part since there’s hardly anyone with recent AZ primaries (which is a major part of the reason why the confidence intervals are so big). They could have just said “the sample size is too small to asses <24 weeks since AZ primary” and left it off the charts, which probably would have been better. Also a decent argument against point estimates in general. Not really; only the booster data doesn't have comically large error bars. The 25+ AZ primary column's error bars range from ~+35% to ~-35%. Likewise the 25+ Ph primary shows us that we can confidently say it helps a lot, or not at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
So the current consensus as I understand it is that it's still too soon to judge the lethality of omicron. Is that correct? (I really struggle with data and have to have it explained to me tbh)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Mr Cuddles posted:So the current consensus as I understand it is that it's still too soon to judge the lethality of omicron. Is that correct? (I really struggle with data and have to have it explained to me tbh) Basically, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 23:33
|
|
