#1 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 12 weeks ago
Alot of questions being asked about the Oxford vaccine.
Seems like they need to restart the trials. Questions around doses and how people over 55/in risk groups were actually tested.
So as I understand it with the oxford one:
- 90% effective when given with a 1/2 dose followed by a full dose.
- 62% effective when given with two full doses.
However it turns out that the half dose system above was only tested on people below 55.
Other interesting thing is that apparently the half dose tests were actually an accident - but when they realised they got approval to continue studying at that dosage and seem to have discovered that it's actually a better dose (pending what the next test shows).
I don't think these results are cause for alarm though - just grounds to keep looking into it - as given older people respond less well to vaccine generally it might be that the half dose system would not be as effective for them. So we might end up with something where you take more if you are older and get a lesser effect, while people who are younger need to take less and get a stronger effect from it.
But obviously we need to know. But it's good that so far it's been free from too many worrying side effects.
Just another in a long line of scientific and medical advancements/discoveries that have been made by accident.
I think initially the hope was for a vaccine to be somewhere in the region of 60-80% effective. The idea of 90%+ efficacy was a dreamland type scenario. The regular seasonal flu jab is only around 50% effective on average and that has a huge beneficial impact each winter. I don't think it was expected that Covid was ever completely eradicated (although it could be possible if 90% vaccines is the reality) through vaccination. More control infection levels to a point that it becomes a low level risk in society to the elderly or very vulnerable but in such a way that they aren't pouring in to hospitals in waves of thousands a day.
The other point is tht even lower or poor efficacy in the elderly is not a disaster. It's not ideal but doesn't mean a vaccine doesn't have merit. On the assumption the vaccine prevents you from spreading it rather than just dulling symptoms then there is still a knock on benefit to the elderly. If it's effective in younger people then their interactions with the elderly become less risky by default.
It's also good that the first 3 vaccines to complete phase 3 trials have shown that they do, in principle, work. It's highly likely more will work as well and the more vaccines available the less chance of a bottleneck in supply and it keeps prices down as well.
I dont know...rushing vaccines doesn't seem like a good idea...how long do these things normally take to fully vet?
Depends on the disease and also the man power to an extent. This is the largest vaccination development programme in human history. The more people you have working on it and the more volunteers/patients you have the easier and faster you can get significant data.
Also worth pointing out the blueprint or skeleton for these vaccines was already in existence way before Covid. Work began on this type of vaccine to treat SARS 15 years ago but never completed trials as they managed to stop the spread of SARS among the human population anyway, same with MERS several years later. 75% of the vaccine has been completed for years they just needed the unknown next corona virus candidate to come along in order to add the relevant genetic material from the virus to the vaccine.
#2 Re: The Garden » Current Events Thread » 15 weeks ago
#5 Re: The Garden » Racial Discussion » 36 weeks ago
When I said in the politics thread the other day about Trumps election being a response to the left this is what I meant. Admittedly I had not foreseen the 7 days that have followed but it's a great example. I wasn't meaning so much the corridors of power had shifted too far left or policies of specific governments so much as a societal shift left. Or at least far too loud a voice is afforded to the radical left which I think results in the electorate voting more to the right in response. I know you wanted to keep this politics free but the two are linked I feel, at least in terms of what I outlined above.
Demanding that people should hang their heads in shame and self flagellate for the crimes of their ancestors two centuries ago (broad generalisation), meanwhile insisting on removing and censoring any entertainment medium from pop culture history that doesn't meet June 2020's new standard is not, in my view at least, going to win people round. Neither is removing and defacing statues or memorials of historical figures. Then anyone who makes a point along those lines is labelled a bigot and shutdown. So we see the response in the voting booth instead, the only place left where people can voice an honest opinion.
I will leave the explicit politics there, or at least try.
Like most inequalities they are often far more complex than any one explanation and to simply boil down the whole topic to 'systemic racism' in this case massively over simplifies the subject. I think the response then does more harm than good in trying to correct inequality generally with a 'top down' approach which usually just results in positive discrimination which is then alienating to a different group of people.
That's not to deny racism exists either, clearly it does and will be a factor but it is one of many.
#6 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 37 weeks ago
I'd also like to add that blaming the left for marching leftward while we currently sit as far right as we've ever stood in American politics is a peculiar assessment.
Do you think?
Do you not think Trumps presidency is a symptom of the mainstream left having already headed too far left more most people?
#7 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 41 weeks ago
#8 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 41 weeks ago
"We searched the WHO repository of COVID-19 studies on 24th March 2020. To identify studies reporting data on LTCs among people who had died from Covid-19, we screened titles and abstracts of all epidemiological, clinical, case-series and review articles (n=1685). We identified and screened 77 potentially relevant full-text articles, of which four reported aggregate data on LTCs among people who had died of COVID-19. Three were small studies (32, 44, and 54 deaths, respectively) based in Wuhan, China"
Any person with any academic background in stats would immediately see the problem. To say nothing that its thesis clearly doesn't align with real world data. They're using data from March, and 3/4 of their data is from "small studies" in Wuhan. That's just a fantatsic model to make predictive claims from.
''In view of the smaller sizes of the Chinese studies, and the greater dissimilarity of these populations with the UK relative to the Italian data, we opted not to include these in the analysis.''
Any person with an academic background in stats would probably read the whole study properly first.
Of course everyone acknowledges there are consequences, but the financial fall-out just seems so much more manageable (in the sense that we as a society have the tools to soften the impact) than the loss of lives (for which we still don't have an adequate answer in the form of a cure or vaccin).
Do you have anything to support this opinion, or is based on the same appeal to authority as your other posts are. "I don't really have an answer, but I like it when authority tells me it's going to be ok. I'm still going to express an opinion, but when someone tells me not to worry, I just let the people I think are smarter than me make decisions, and accept them. You're crazy if you question any of it."
Does he really need to support this opinion on that? The West has recovered from many financial crisis over the years, history tells us it is not only possible but highly likely. Is the stance that a financial crisis and the effects thereof are easier to reverse than death a postion that needs defending?
#9 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 41 weeks ago
Well, I mean my state has more than 2x the amount of people as all of Scotland (you Europhiles keep forgetting how much bigger we yanks are than any of your countries), so if you're going to make a blanket statement about ages, I think the sample should be evaluated. Looking at this BBC article from 5 days ago, 90% of all deaths in Scotland have been over the age of 65 and 75% are over the age of 75. The average life expectancy in Scotland is 79. So my state's numbers and Scotland's are almost identical, but why research any of this before linking an article that supports your fear.
So I have no idea how this study makes the argument people are dying 12 years too early. 40% of all Scots dying from COVID are over 85, and only 9% are under 65 (wow, this number is significantly higher than the US - don't let the others know this piece of information) so it just doesn't add up at all. But feel free to accuse my "anecdotal" evidence of my state which has over 2x the population of Scotland, and ignore Scotland's own numbers which clearly show this study to be wrong on its face. And what do you know, the majority of deaths in Scotland are occurring in "care homes". It's almost as if the virus treats people the same regardless of nationality. You found a headline, didn't bother to fact check a single thing or see if it made sense at all, linked it as an authority, then had the gall to say me linking actual numbers from my states (which is 2x a big as Scotland) is anecdotal. Wooosh (that's the sound of it going over your head)
I get it. People defaulting on loans and losing their homes is all just imaginary. 33% unemployment is just a number. These people don't need income and food to eat.
If you're going to just dismiss anything I say outright, do yourself a favor and make sure your posts at least pass the smell test before embarrassing yourself. You clearly didn't bother to research anything before posting, and have the audacity to call my comments anecdotal when some random, non credited study you link doesn't pass basic math. But keep trying.
Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.
It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the statistical modelling they have done but applying deaths from one country to a general population of another and concluding years lost seems a bit woolly to me.
Can we also look at moving this to more civil ground please. Some feel the current lockdown is an overreaction, fine. Others disagree, also fine. Given the scientific community and world experts in this field haven't reached a general consensus either, a position of 'I'm right and you're wrong' on a GNR fan forum from either side of the argument seems foolish to me.
#10 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 42 weeks ago
This is an interesting story. Research suggests the virus we're suffering from now is not the same strain that originated in Wuhan. Basically, it has mutated. This is worrying, because mutation means no vaccine is possible for the long-term. It's like the flu in that there is a new type of vaccine each year, but we have to wait to see what strain is circulating before issuing vaccines. https://www.latimes.com/california/stor … n-original
There’s two sides to this. The first is that no permanent vaccine to any corona virus has ever been developed. Therefore it’s likely the best we can hope for is a seasonal vaccine. Although we could also find an effective treatment which reduces symptoms in the worst sufferers sufficiently that make a vaccine is less necessary.
The other side is that mutation was inevitable and not really the scare story it’s being presented as (for now at least). When a virus jumps to a new host species they are usually ill adapted at first and need to mutate in order to better increase the chances of replication. If it hadn’t mutated yet there’s a good chance it would have died off already and we wouldn’t even be talking about it now. It’s only reporting what virologists would have assumed from the outset.