Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 182 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Likely be sooner than that once the j&j trial finishes in early 2021. It is single dose and would help immensely. Basically, the more pipelines, the quicker it will be.
I was talking with one of my friends in Spain and he told me that the hope there is that half the population of Spain will be vaccinated by May.

I agree with that the more vaccines that work well and are approved the sooner more people can be vaccinated.

Currently we have Pfizer already applying for EUA, Moderna should be next, and AstraZenica should be applying by the end of this year. Then J&J hopefully in January.
 
Reactions: Keram and jmdirt
Masks don’t ‘work’ as evidenced by the virus positive surges in dozens of Countries worldwide. Masks help, but they don’t ‘work.’. try not to go all Redfield on us

Stating masks ‘work’ is a lie by your own definition.
masks work..are they absolute..absolutely not..again you are going with the..why wear a life vest because of heavy surf..is anything for sure? No..but yes carry a spare tire,bring a condom,just in case..and yes have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen,even though your mom and grandma never ever ever ever needed one..
Do you have shorts w a chamois? Clip in pedals? Still sporting a Silca frame pump? Gettin a funny feeling somebody is still drinking Maxwell House..
 
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
masks work..are they absolute..absolutely not..again you are going with the..why wear a life vest because of heavy surf..is anything for sure? No..but yes carry a spare tire,bring a condom,just in case..and yes have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen,even though your mom and grandma never ever ever ever needed one..
Do you have shorts w a chamois? Clip in pedals? Still sporting a Silca frame pump? Gettin a funny feeling somebody is still drinking Maxwell House..
Here’s the thing; had the bad man come out from day one promoting mask use you’d be excoriating him today for the surge in positives.

It’s how you are hardwired.
 
Chris 26 years registered Republican..rode my horse in a Barry Goldwater parade in PV as kid, served US Navy, worked as a DOD contractor for 7 years. Homeowner,2 times over. And have owned or been a partner in 3 small businesses.
And if I owned a landscaping business,ice cream shop,burrito or taco shop,car wash or bike shop or cut hair..I should not be responsible for anybody's health care..not in my wheel house..I know what a lady parts look like and am positive I should not be giving medical advice on vaginas.
I don't care if I think you are good or bad..it's all about being qualified..
You know the old blurb..got a legal problem call a lawyer,got a problem with pipes call a plumber,medical problem call a doctor..in no scenario,absolutely none, does anyone, has anyone ever,never ever ever said..got a world wide pandemic health crisis call a reality TV show host..never.
A world wide pandemic response requires work..not phoning it in every 5 months between tweets,golf and drunkenness without drinking.. The job of leading during a major deadly health emergency is not for everyone..certainly not a person who doesn't read or use email..doesn't have a computer on their desk..but most important,political nothing,political anything has zero to do with saving a quarter million..a quarter million..a quarter million American lives..zero..nada..nunca,zilch ..it was never political..there lies the problem.. Confusion..confused by the objective..save human beings,not amass political capital w half a country.
Don't mind you calling me out..it's been happening..I don't suspect it will stop soon.
If you live by..stereotypes save time..cool..rock on..suggest you Google how long the Great Pumpkin has called himself Republican..
And there is a well documented history of how each President reacted to war, war was how Donald described the Covid-19 crisis..lots of history on how those in office reacted to major health crises ..
if you come across tweeting or golf,stadium rallies in a health response, send me the link..
He simply never did the work..
How can these images even exist?
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTUq2OFiZ4&t=204s


I know,he is driving the golf cart to a vaccine research lab
 
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Reactions: Cookster15

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Chris 26 years registered Republican..rode my horse in a Barry Goldwater parade in PV as kid, served US Navy, worked as a DOD contractor for 7 years. Homeowner,2 times over. And have owned or been a partner in 3 small businesses.
And if I owned a landscaping business,ice cream shop,burrito or taco shop,car wash or bike shop or cut hair..I should not be responsible for anybody's health care..not in my wheel house..I know what a lady parts look like and am positive I should not be giving medical advice on vaginas.
I don't care if I think you are good or bad..it's all about being qualified..
You know the old blurb..got a legal problem call a lawyer,got a problem with pipes call a plumber,medical problem call a doctor..in no scenario,absolutely none, does anyone, has anyone ever,never ever ever said..got a world wide pandemic health crisis call a reality TV show host..never.
A world wide pandemic response requires work..not phoning it in every 5 months between tweets,golf and drunkenness without drinking.. The job of leading during a major deadly health emergency is not for everyone..certainly not a person who doesn't read or use email..doesn't have a computer on their desk..but most important,political nothing,political anything has zero to do with saving a quarter million..a quarter million..a quarter million American lives..zero..nada..nunca,zilch ..it was never political..there lies the problem.. Confusion..confused by the objective..save human beings,not amass political capital w half a country.
Don't mind you calling me out..it's been happening..I don't suspect it will stop soon.
If you live by..stereotypes save time..cool..rock on..suggest you Google how long the Great Pumpkin has called himself Republican..
And there is a well documented history of how each President reacted to war, war was how Donald described the Covid-19 crisis..lots of history on how those in office reacted to major health crises ..
if you come across tweeting or golf,stadium rallies in a health response, send me the link..
He simply never did the work..
How can these images even exist?
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTUq2OFiZ4&t=204s


I know,he is driving the golf cart to a vaccine research lab
Words of Ron Klain, Biden’s new Chief of Staff..

It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”

Over the course of a year, the H1N1 flu infected 60 million Americans, but claimed only 12,469 lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


I’m calling bullsh*t. You have an affliction that doesn’t go away with a change of administrations. You’ll be typing the same crap months and months from now.
 
Astrazeneca mentions c. 90% efficacy in a subgroup of their trial. They don't give absolute numbers of infected people in these subgroups, but from the overall numbers (with 131 infected people in total), I gather that only 2 or 3 people in this small subgroup (only about 2700 people enrolled, the majority was in the other subgroup) have been infected. So the 90% number is rather uncertain...

It's strange they 'only' had 23.000 people enrolled. I would have expected about double that amount.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I shudder to think what is going to happen after Thanksgiving.
Same.
Astrazeneca mentions c. 90% efficacy in a subgroup of their trial. They don't give absolute numbers of infected people in these subgroups, but from the overall numbers (with 131 infected people in total), I gather that only 2 or 3 people in this small subgroup (only about 2700 people enrolled, the majority was in the other subgroup) have been infected. So the 90% number is rather uncertain...

It's strange they 'only' had 23.000 people enrolled. I would have expected about double that amount.
I don't really understand why the group who got a lesser dose of the vaccine with the first inoculation would fare so much better. It could be a small sample size issue as you point out. It is good news for the developing world as this was their best route back to normalcy.
 
Reactions: Koronin and jmdirt
The AstraZenica numbers do seem a bit strange. I don't understand the lesser first dose group having better results. On the other hand it appears every who got Covid after receiving the vaccine had at worst moderate symptoms so didn't need to go to the hospital.
 
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Likely be sooner than that once the j&j trial finishes in early 2021. It is single dose and would help immensely. Basically, the more pipelines, the quicker it will be.
Possible good news;

Six in 10 Americans are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccinations - Gallup
The willingness of Americans to accept an approved vaccination has positively improved since Pfizer/BioNTech SE and Moderna made announcements regarding their positive large-scale trials.

A vaccine with 90%+ efficacy with 60% coverage will pretty much be game, set & match.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/six-in-10-americans-are-willing-to-receive-covid-19-vaccinations-gallup-649964
 
Reactions: Keram
The AstraZenica numbers do seem a bit strange. I don't understand the lesser first dose group having better results. On the other hand it appears every who got Covid after receiving the vaccine had at worst moderate symptoms so didn't need to go to the hospital.
Yes, that is a really promising part of the data. Here is what a virologist suggests about the difference between dosing regimens. Plausible, but I still wonder if JT is right and the numbers have really large confidence intervals and we are looking at noisy data that is not very significant statistically. Only time will tell. Could also be that the 2x full dose group had greater pre-exposure to the Adenovirus used as the vector and generated less protection as a result. The FDA make the rules so they can do whatever they want, but I don't see them approving the AZ for use in the US given the study design. But at a reported $2.50 a dose, it really should be reserved mostly for places other than the US.

View: https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1330859732756664321

A vaccine with 90%+ efficacy with 60% coverage will pretty much be game, set & match.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/six-in-10-americans-are-willing-to-receive-covid-19-vaccinations-gallup-649964
Very true and hopefully representative of the country.
 
Good points. I had been hearing that this study was rejected from a few top tier journals before it got published. It is pretty clear why. There is really no conclusion that you can draw from a study like this, especially if you can't pinpoint where the infections occurred. It deserves to be published, but it has very little scientific impact.
It was rejected by the NEJM, The Lancet & JAMA because they're not going publish a unfavorable mask study in the current climate of a global mask culture.

The authors had to change some language to get it published at all. Look at the discussion section: "Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers." What? The authors are essentially saying both reduce and increase infections if you wear a mask. I've never seen language like that in a study before...ridiculous. Sounds like they said that to get it published, IMO.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t going to go over well with most posters here.
The vast majority of the information I post here doesn't "go over well with most posters here." Lol.

It's a perplexing thread - more of an excercise in group thinking, IMO. I was originally hesitant to start posting on this thread because I could see the direction most of the posts go. But I spend a fair amount time interested in researching Covid - particularly looking at alternative voices from other mainstream scientists - and not just getting sucked in by the fearmongering vacuum of the MSM (CNN is by far the worst - you'd think it's the end of the world the way they fearmonger every aspect of this virus for their political agenda).

It's funny - I post regularly on a popular running site that has several active Covid threads going on at any one time. The same information & studies I post here are posted there, and always receive "likes," "+1" and other accolades. This running site has a high volume of posters and more diversification since registration is optional; where this thread seems to contain a relatively low volume of posters who are the same ones that post regularly.

Case in point: I've been very interested in following Prof Sucharit Bhakdi (and Prof Sunetra Gupta) concerning their thoughts on the virus, natural immunity, masks, vaccines, etc. (in fact, Bhakdi just gave an excellent interview in the UK). I frequently post info & links from Bhakdi, Gupta & other researchers on the running site and it's received by as many positive responses as negative. Here it's only met with fierce retribution & contempt - simply because most or all of the posters here don't agree with them. But that's expected with the general direction this thread flows and the low volume of posters.

Que...Sera...Sera
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Cookster15
Case in point: I've been very interested in following Prof Sucharit Bhakdi (and Prof Sunetra Gupta) concerning their thoughts on the virus, natural immunity, masks, vaccines, etc. (in fact, Bhakdi just gave an excellent interview in the UK). I frequently post info & links from Bhakdi, Gupta & other researchers on the running site and it's received by as many positive responses as negative. Here it's only met with fierce retribution & contempt - simply because most or all of the posters here don't agree with them. But that's expected with the general direction this thread flows and the low volume of posters.
I think you'll find that most people in virology and epidemiology do not agree with much of what Gupta has been saying. That's because much of what she has said, has turned out to be false. She claimed in March that more than 60% of the population in the UK had possibly been infected. That's someone you would go to for a dosis of 'truth'? Her herd immunity view has turned out to be hogwash. By the way, Sweden is now stepping even further away from their own model, and are enforcing much stricter measures. Turns out a lot of people there are still being infected. They're doing much worse than their Nordic neighbours again. One thing of being a scientist, is being able to admit your past views were wrong. Has Gupta done much of that?

By the way: if you want to be credible as a scientist, you publish peer-reviewed papers rather than 'declarations' sponsored by libertarian think tanks.

Group thinking. Yeah.
 
It was rejected by the NEJM, The Lancet & JAMA because they're not going publish a unfavorable mask study in the current climate of a global mask culture.

The authors had to change some language to get it published at all. Look at the discussion section: "Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers." What? The authors are essentially saying both reduce and increase infections if you wear a mask. I've never seen language like that in a study before...ridiculous. Sounds like they said that to get it published, IMO.
Quite possible. Being the gatekeepers, the editors and reviewers have the leverage. Most in the field will be familiar with giving editorial concessions of varying degrees to push a paper across the finish line. The alternative is to put it up on a pre-print server and get nothing out of it professionally. After the Wakefield debacle re:measles vaccines and autism, I think editors are a little more cognizant of the larger issues at play, but top tier journals are not obligated to publish every manuscript they receive. The study was underpowered and failed to obtain data to strongly support any conclusion as the part you quote indicates. It is going to be tough sledding to get that type of finding in a top journal regardless of the topic.
The vast majority of the information I post here doesn't "go over well with most posters here." Lol.

It's a perplexing thread - more of an excercise in group thinking, IMO. I was originally hesitant to start posting on this thread because I could see the direction most of the posts go. But I spend a fair amount time interested in researching Covid - particularly looking at alternative voices from other mainstream scientists - and not just getting sucked in by the fearmongering vacuum of the MSM (CNN is by far the worst - you'd think it's the end of the world the way they fearmonger every aspect of this virus for their political agenda).
I really don't recall anybody posting CNN articles. I see a lot more from sources like the Guardian, which have been quite informative and accurate. I tend to post direct research findings, or data oriented charts. I don't know if you are obliquely calling me a fearmonger, but once upon a time I was posting that the death rates were overstated back at the beginning of the outbreak, when the CFR was like 10%. The fundamental difference between us is perspective IMO. You are correct to claim that most people will survive infection, likely with little long term effect. That is the view from the individual perspective. Personally, I see COVID-19 from a societal view. A virus that kills 1 out of 200 seems pretty innocuous.... until you let it infect 100 million people. Then it is a tragedy.
I think you'll find that most people in virology and epidemiology do not agree with much of what Gupta has been saying. That's because much of what she has said, has turned out to be false. She claimed in March that more than 60% of the population in the UK had possibly been infected. That's someone you would go to for a dosis of 'truth'? Her herd immunity view has turned out to be hogwash. By the way, Sweden is now stepping even further away from their own model, and are enforcing much stricter measures. Turns out a lot of people there are still being infected. They're doing much worse than their Nordic neighbours again. One thing of being a scientist, is being able to admit your past views were wrong. Has Gupta done much of that?

By the way: if you want to be credible as a scientist, you publish peer-reviewed papers rather than 'declarations' sponsored by libertarian think tanks.
Or Immunology for that matter. I would say that you make good points, but that might be considered group-think mentality. Overall, I can totally understand why people want to believe what Gupta and Bhakdi are saying. They are spouting very attractive lies. Who wouldn't have wanted herd immunity to have been reached in March as Gupta claimed? Or that the virus is practically harmless as Bhakdi claims? It sure beats the F-ed up reality that we are living in. But I prefer hard truths. I've refrained from posting the data from Sweden as that issue is pretty much a dead horse at this point, but they look exactly like what the science predicted they would be. If a lot of the posters here agree on a number of points, it is often because there is now a broad consensus about COVID-19 obtained by billions of dollars and countless hours of R&D. There is still a lot more to learn though.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY