|
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 | ||
|
Did my first day of in-person work in like a month. We are never getting out of this. 1) So many dick-nosers 2) Even the people who seem to take proper masking seriously unmask in public areas to eat and drink (not me! I went out to my car!) 3) Very few "good" masks Looking at all this crap, I still like my odds of avoiding any variant of COVID, overall. I do not think contracting this disease is inevitable, I think it's difficult to avoid and requires forethought, but it's not impossible. I might yet be wrong and get it eventually, but I'm going to do everything I can to avoid it.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Did my first day of in-person work in like a month. We are never getting out of this. Half-mask respirator time, buddy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Half-mask respirator time, buddy Sadly, I don't think this will work for me. I'm a pilot, so I need my mic to pick up my voice and I don't think it would work with that thing. Although maybe it I put it right against the diaphragm, it would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Sadly, I don't think this will work for me. I'm a pilot, so I need my mic to pick up my voice and I don't think it would work with that thing. Although maybe it I put it right against the diaphragm, it would. There are some respirator aficionados in the CSPAM thread; you should see if they have any recommendations. I remember someone posting about models that have speaking diaphragms that they said work well, but I don't remember specifically what models.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:There are some respirator aficionados in the CSPAM thread; you should see if they have any recommendations. I remember someone posting about models that have speaking diaphragms that they said work well, but I don't remember specifically what models. That would be one of them. One of the Secure Clicks. The negative pressure check button is also nice. I own one, but can’t say with confidence that it would work with a pilot’s mic. Someone else in the thread might know more, though. Stop by—it’s a supportive place. Insanite fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I don't know the details on why it's non-representative. I'm just taking the authors' word for it: This is not a statement that the sample is not representative. That it’s a convenience sample (and tbh I’m not even entirely sure why the authors use that term for this sampling methodology) could potentially introduce bias, but this seems unlikely to be a major limitation given the description of the data source and the sample size. Again we’re not talking about people opting into an online poll, this is a massive hospital claims database that per the authors captures 20% of the country’s inpatient admissions from hundreds of hospitals throughout the country. PostNouveau posted:I don't know what the math involved is for analyzing risk factors for only a handful of deaths, but the authors also say "the number of deaths alone was too small to allow analysis of risk factors in this subgroup." But they went ahead and did use those cases in one of the main conclusions of the study. That statement is a snippet of a longer sentence: quote:the components of the composite outcome are not necessarily of equal severity and results should be interpreted accordingly; the number of deaths alone was too small to allow analysis of risk factors in this subgroup. They’re saying that the death count was too small to analyze individual risk factors in the same way that they did for the composition “severe outcome” endpoint. They’re not saying that their finding that deaths were overwhelming concentrated in people with >=4 risk factors is invalid because of only having 36 deaths. Again not saying any of this as a defense of walensky, I’d be happy if she was canned, just trying to be accurate about what constitutes a “garbage” study and maybe cast some doubt on the authority of the death panel podcasters (who I’ve never heard of and don’t have any opinion on outside of this discussion) if that’s the type of thinking they’re pushing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:This is not a statement that the sample is not representative. That it’s a convenience sample (and tbh I’m not even entirely sure why the authors use that term for this sampling methodology) could potentially introduce bias, but this seems unlikely to be a major limitation given the description of the data source and the sample size. Again we’re not talking about people opting into an online poll, this is a massive hospital claims database that per the authors captures 20% of the country’s inpatient admissions from hundreds of hospitals throughout the country. As they note, people with chronic conditions might be more likely to seek health care which would unbalance it. The authors aren't even trying to claim this is generalizable; I'm not sure why you are. To me, this is silly though. It's only 36 deaths. I don't think I need to go find the exact math to know that is not a lot for a study like this. Your reading of the composite part does not seem to follow to me. They seem to be saying the severity of the risk factors varied a lot in patients, so that should be kept in mind when reading the severe outcomes table. Edit: Also their number of deaths being that low is very weird. The database they use represents 20% of admissions, but only about half of the facilities in the database reported vaccination status. So we can maybe assume there's 10% of admissions in the database with vaccination status for the sake of talking about it. Alright, so in 10% of admissions, they have only 36 breakthrough deaths as of Oct. 2021. Texas alone had ~2,200 breakthrough covid deaths by Oct. 2021. They're clearly not even close to catching 10% of the breakthrough deaths. PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:As they note, people with chronic conditions might be more likely to seek health care which would unbalance it. The authors aren't even trying to claim this is generalizable; I'm not sure why you are. It may be true that people with chronic conditions seek healthcare more than those without, but isn’t that true in the general population too? Doesn’t seem like a sampling issue to me. You’re mistaken about the composite part. They’re saying that each component (diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, need for NIV, ICU admission, or death) that gets bucketed into the composite “severe covid-19 outcome” is not necessarily the same severity so the composite outcome that they use sacrifices some nuance in order to gain a larger number of events and allow for analysis of individual risk factors’ contributions to the rate of “severe covid-19 outcomes”, as shown in the forest plot of figure 1. Their comment on the low # of deaths is directly related to this analysis of individual risk factors. Don’t have time right now to dig into Texas example but it’s a fair point that the database appears to capture lower than 20% of overall inpatient admissions. That said, my original point that I still maintain is that this is not a garbage study, and that its limitations are not nearly as problematic as you/death panel podcasters imply. It’s a very solid study and discussion of its limitations is totally fair game, but saying that it’s garbage and should be ignored by public health officials is misguided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 04:33
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:It may be true that people with chronic conditions seek healthcare more than those without, but isn’t that true in the general population too? Doesn’t seem like a sampling issue to me. It seems like a sampling issue to the people who wrote the study, so I'mma just trust them on it. Your explanation makes no sense to me. Aren't these components binary? You were admitted to the ICU or not, you needed NIV or not. They're pointing out the inherent problems in the data in that section, and the big red siren one for deaths is that there ain't many of them to examine. But then they go ahead and draw some conclusions from them anyway, and now those conclusions that they shouldn't have drawn are getting blasted across the country by the CDC director to try to convince us we shouldn't care as much about the risk of vaccinated breakthroughs because the people who die were as good as dead already. Drawing conclusions based on very, very little is a garbage thing for a researcher to do, and them doing it has produced some garbage real world outcomes, so it looks like a garbage study to me. It appears to be drastically less than 20% of overall inpatient admissions based on the number of deaths in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:It seems like a sampling issue to the people who wrote the study, so I'mma just trust them on it. That’s an interesting take, do you also trust them on their finding of breakthrough deaths being concentrated among people with more comorbidities? Authors discussing potential limitations of a study is not the same thing as the authors admitting their study is flawed and/or worthless. PostNouveau posted:Your explanation makes no sense to me. Aren't these components binary? You were admitted to the ICU or not, you needed NIV or not. “the components of the composite outcome are not necessarily of equal severity” = the components of the composite outcome are acute resp failure, icu admission, non invasive ventilation and death. These components are not of equal severity. NIV is not as severe as death, but they’re counted equally in the composite measure. “And results should be interpreted accordingly” = when interpreting the composite outcome, one must acknowledge that it does not distinguish between NIV and death, and this could in theory lead to situations where group A has 20 “severe covid-19 outcomes” comprising 19 NIVs and 1 death and group B has 10 “severe covid-19 outcomes” comprising 9 deaths and 1 ICU. This means group A has 2x the rate of severe outcomes but I’m not sure its clear that people from group A are worse off than group B. This is the drawback of a composite endpoint, which they’ve knowingly accepted as a trade off because it means they get to increase the number of events for analysis by lumping them together. “the number of deaths alone was too small to allow analysis of risk factors in this subgroup.” = I will grant that this is poorly worded. I believe that they’re stating they can’t do a detailed analysis of individual risk factors like they do for the composite endpoint as presented in figure 1. But the way it’s worded, i can see how it would be read that they shouldn’t even do analysis of aggregate frequency of risk factors among the 36 deaths, as presented in figure 2. quote:They're pointing out the inherent problems in the data in that section, and the big red siren one for deaths is that there ain't many of them to examine. But then they go ahead and draw some conclusions from them anyway, and now those conclusions that they shouldn't have drawn are getting blasted across the country by the CDC director to try to convince us we shouldn't care as much about the risk of vaccinated breakthroughs because the people who die were as good as dead already. Drawing conclusions based on very, very little is a garbage thing for a researcher to do, and them doing it has produced some garbage real world outcomes, so it looks like a garbage study to me. Their finding about the presence of more risk factors among severe cases including deaths as compared to non severe cases is legitimate and, importantly, completely unsurprising. The distribution of risk factor frequency for deaths is almost identical to the 153 people with severe outcomes who didn’t die (figure 2), and also broadly consistent with our understanding of the frequency of severe outcomes and risk factors among the unvaccinated / prior to the availability of vaccines. If walensky misuses or doesn’t speak to the nuances of the study on live tv, that doesn’t mean it’s a garbage study, that it wasn’t well designed, conducted and analyzed, it just means you don’t like how it’s being used, which yeah sure, not much to like about the state of public health leadership in the US right now. My only skin in this game is that I am a science nerd and don’t like when media spreads poor scientific critical analysis, esp when it’s from a podcast that might be seen (and perhaps rightfully so) as innately more trustworthy than what walensky says on msnbc or in a NYT op-Ed. As a reminder, here are the authors’ actual conclusions: quote:What are the implications for public health practice? I’m about to get very baked so bowing out for the night. Cheers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:That’s an interesting take, do you also trust them on their finding of breakthrough deaths being concentrated among people with more comorbidities? Nah, they're basing it on only 36 deaths. Sharks Eat Bear posted:“the components of the composite outcome are not necessarily of equal severity” = the components of the composite outcome are acute resp failure, icu admission, non invasive ventilation and death. These components are not of equal severity. NIV is not as severe as death, but they’re counted equally in the composite measure. This makes a lot more sense, thanks! Sharks Eat Bear posted:“the number of deaths alone was too small to allow analysis of risk factors in this subgroup.” = I will grant that this is poorly worded. I believe that they’re stating they can’t do a detailed analysis of individual risk factors like they do for the composite endpoint as presented in figure 1. But the way it’s worded, i can see how it would be read that they shouldn’t even do analysis of aggregate frequency of risk factors among the 36 deaths, as presented in figure 2. Yeah, I mean my reading is bolstered by the fact that they only have 36 corpses to poke at here, and it's pretty obvious that ain't enough to do the individual risk factor analysis or the aggregate frequency analysis. Sharks Eat Bear posted:Their finding about the presence of more risk factors among severe cases including deaths as compared to non severe cases is legitimate I dunno seems like they'll need someone to do a much more robust study to say it about deaths, and until then they shouldn't announce big conclusions about deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 06:30
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:With what we've seen about booster waning and how much they're dragging feet on boosting at least every 3 months, it's pretty unclear if boostees are better off bc they have higher titers from a more recent vaccine or overall better long-term outcomes based on the effects of 3 shots You've made this argument before about boosters waning, but again, there is a difference between neutralizing antibody response, to prevent infection in the first place (and generally at the center of the "waning" argument), and the T-cell and B-cell response post-infection. So far, immune response to omicron infection via T-cell response appears to be fairly robust and offering fairly broad protection (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/14/1/79/htm, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-022-00017-z). Will it keep someone from becoming infected? No, because that's not how T-cells work. Will it likely keep them out of the hospital? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:The Death Panel crew's point was that she did not HAVE to mention this study because it in no way gives you a definitive answer about anything. It's not like there's overwhelming evidence she just HAD to talk about. The interviewer explicitly asked her about that study.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The interviewer explicitly asked her about that study. So? Being asked about it doesn't mean she had to repeat its dubious claims to minimize the deaths of the old/disabled/sick
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
The continued insistence that walensky was misinterpreted in the face of near unified criticism from disability advocates and rights groups seems kind of gross to me. "No, it is every single group that has a life or death stake in this subject that is wrong."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Sadly, I don't think this will work for me. I'm a pilot, so I need my mic to pick up my voice and I don't think it would work with that thing. Although maybe it I put it right against the diaphragm, it would. https://tigerperformance.com/parts-...espirator-mask/ A variant of the RU8500 (the model I use) specifically modded to your needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Sadly, I don't think this will work for me. I'm a pilot, so I need my mic to pick up my voice and I don't think it would work with that thing. Although maybe it I put it right against the diaphragm, it would. That 3m-800 series has a both a speech diaphragm version and non. It might be worth a shot to try it because they cost 30 bucks and you can always use them for when you're painting or sanding or whatever, not a bad thing to have around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Or wildfires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Sadly, I don't think this will work for me. I'm a pilot, so I need my mic to pick up my voice and I don't think it would work with that thing. Although maybe it I put it right against the diaphragm, it would. Comedy option Honeywell silicone half mask with the mic from the company that bodges what are obviously honeywell half-masks into oxygen masks with mics https://www.mypilotstore.com/mypilotstore/sep/9340
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
With all the indication of immune system damage in even mild covid, I feel like I can't really go back to my job as a seaman (work with sewage plant, deal with random people without masks, etc) but I can't stay home either (wife is a teacher). I feel like this virus has blown up my whole life and I haven't had a single symptom. I guess I can isolate myself in this room for a year or so and try to find a WFH, but drat it sucks being medically fragile indefinitely bc of Joe loving Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
So a bit of an insensitive question: What is a reasonable level of pandemic control, to protect the vulnerable, who can't rely on a vaccine? If the virus had a 0% sickness rate for vaccinated people, so they'd be completely asymptomatic, but would spread it freely everywhere, and anyone close to it would get infected, while the ones who can't vaccinate have a high fatality rate, would you consider it justified to be on a perpetual lockdown to lower the deaths among them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:So a bit of an insensitive question: How many people are you positing in the vulnerable pool
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:With all the indication of immune system damage in even mild covid, I feel like I can't really go back to my job as a seaman (work with sewage plant, deal with random people without masks, etc) but I can't stay home either (wife is a teacher). I feel like this virus has blown up my whole life and I haven't had a single symptom. I guess I can isolate myself in this room for a year or so and try to find a WFH, but drat it sucks being medically fragile indefinitely bc of Joe loving Biden. Leaving aside the question of the prevalence and the degree of immune system damage from a typical COVID case, even if COVID somehow leaves you severely immunocompromised there's no reason you can't work an in-person job or interact with your wife even if she's a teacher. The typical advice doctors give when dealing with severely immunocompromised people is more about awareness about your own health and noticing when you're sick than avoiding society altogether. During exceptionally risky times, yes you take precautions but the past 2 years hasn't been so exceptionally risky that you needed to isolate constantly throughout (certainly there were periods like that, and right now definitely counts as one of those).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:So a bit of an insensitive question: Personally I think it's more about giving tools to the vulnerable so they're more capable of protecting themselves. Right now in Ontario you can't get a test regardless of how vulnerable you are ("high risk" people who can get a test are more based on where they live than medical conditions), if you have kids you have no idea what spread is like in their school, you're not necessarily covered for sick days if you need to isolate (and you have to isolate twice as long as anyone else, which I'm sure is going to go over swimmingly with managers).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:So a bit of an insensitive question: Is this a hypothetical? I don’t see how it relates to our current situation with covid, which doesn’t have a clear distinction between those who would be completely asymptomatic and those who are vulnerable. The “vulnerable” pool is extremely large with a lot of variability in how vulnerable people might happen to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
If it's some tiny pool of drop dead people just use prep, even Omicron is essentially entirely curable/preventable if you're mabbed and prepped 24/7
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:The continued insistence that walensky was misinterpreted in the face of near unified criticism from disability advocates and rights groups seems kind of gross to me. "No, it is every single group that has a life or death stake in this subject that is wrong." Would it be good news or bad news if Covid killed people with zero co-morbidities at the same rate it killed people with 4+ co-morbidities?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Would it be good news or bad news if Covid killed people with zero co-morbidities at the same rate it killed people with 4+ co-morbidities? A variant that was severe, transmissible, and full-escape for all immunity and therapeutics would likely cause the global community to pursue elimination. It's hard to say precisely if a month or two of crazy deaths until the lockdown inevitably succeeded are worse than the millennia of severe morbidity we can expect from perpetual covid, because the death rate necessary to trigger a lockdown, the speed at which anyone would act, and the burden of long covid are all unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:A variant that was severe, transmissible, and full-escape for all immunity and therapeutics would likely cause the global community to pursue elimination. It's hard to say precisely if a month or two of crazy deaths until the lockdown inevitably succeeded are worse than the millennia of severe morbidity we can expect from perpetual covid, because the death rate necessary to trigger a lockdown, the speed at which anyone would act, and the burden of long covid are all unknown. So.....? bad news?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
There are already several animal reservoirs with spillovers and spillbacks happening back and forth. How do you propose to eliminate covid there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:There are already several animal reservoirs with spillovers and spillbacks happening back and forth. How do you propose to eliminate covid there? Eliminate the reservoirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:Eliminate the reservoirs. It's in deer, I don't think that's a particularly workable solution. I linked a while back that some states vaccinate raccoons and such for rabies using bait (fish flavored/scented for example) and an oral vaccine. The challenge there is apparently it's hard to bait herbivores. edit: some quick googling gives a wild deer population in the US of about 25 million animals, and the range of white-tailed deer (as one example) is extensive:  So you're talking about exterminating many tens of millions of animals over a very large range. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Would it be good news or bad news if Covid killed people with zero co-morbidities at the same rate it killed people with 4+ co-morbidities? "Don't worry, it only kills people [like you/not like you]!" It turns out being told it's good news that it only kills people similar to the listener will provoke outrage in that listener, regardless of the absolute numbers affected. Like seriously, replace "4 comorbidities" with any other minority group and you might realize why people were pissed The actual response is to eliminate/minimize contact with the reservoir population A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:It's in deer, I don't think that's a particularly workable solution. Iirc there are Cold War studies on how long game stocks would last after a societal collapse and it's somewhere on the order of a week of the whole remaining 60M people diligently hunting them. I suspect an industrial cull including very large bounties, aerial hunting, widespread poison, and defoliation could do a lot. Huge ecosystem damage so it depends on how much you think the biosphere is just a walking corpse due to climate change I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
How many people are actually catching covid from deer
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1482768652055326725 I mean with stuff like this (brain inflammation detected in autopsied asymptomatic infections), we're going to be facing an extremely high chance of early dementia since the Brain Doesn't Heal (TM). I'm going to have to work up a very strict advance directive for this contingency is all I can say, holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
I'd rather keep the deer and mice
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:Iirc there are Cold War studies on how long game stocks would last after a societal collapse and it's somewhere on the order of a week of the whole remaining 60M people diligently hunting them. I suspect an industrial cull including very large bounties, aerial hunting, widespread poison, and defoliation could do a lot. Huge ecosystem damage so it depends on how much you think the biosphere is just a walking corpse due to climate change I guess. So you want a mass extinction of all mammal life, to have a slight increase in the chance to kill of covid before global warming kills everything anyway? That sounds like this approach is based on spite, rather than any kind of safety or practicability. You seriously went all in on the necessary elimination of your sworn enemy for the greater good of all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:So you want a mass extinction of all mammal life, to have a chance to kill of covid before global warming kills everything anyway? That sounds like this approach is based on spite, rather than any kind of safety or practicability. You seriously went all in on the necessary elimination of your sworn enemy for the greater good of all. I certainly believe that some humans will be able to survive in a hosed hot-rear end world without wild mammals, and that getting rid of covid will help them do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How many people are actually catching covid from deer You only need one animal to human infection to kick off another wave of the virus (source: SARS-COV2, late 2019)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 00:41
|
|