Wait, you got called a fear monger?! Since I didn't see that post, I assume it came from flatearth so...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.
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.
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.
So Astrazeneca have not yet reported on data from a parallel trial (see below)?
(from The Guardian)
The shares slipped further after an analyst at the US investment bank SVB Leerink, Geoffrey Porges, cast doubt over whether the vaccine would be licensed in the US. Porges argued that the design of the studies did not meet the norms of the Food and Drug Administration for the representation of minorities, severe cases, previously infected individuals and the elderly.
In response, Ruud Dobber, the head of AstraZeneca’s biopharmaceuticals division, told Bloomberg TV: “In the US, we are running a trial with more than 30,000 participants, so let’s be patient to see how the FDA will react before making such harsh statements.”
Edit: yes (from https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html)
The pooled analysis included data from the COV002 Phase II/III trial in the UK and COV003 Phase III trial in Brazil.
The FDA could always make an exception to the rules. Another interesting thing about the trial is that the more successful sub group (half:full) was from the UK while the less successful group (full:full) was from Brazil. Now, someone is saying the lower dose was done in error!?!?
I saw this and had to LOLOL. It is a trend that I have been noticing as the weather has gotten cooler. A lot of the open air outdoor dining setups in restaurants have started to morph into mostly enclosed outdoor tents. I doubt they are actually safer than inside dining if you remove the ventilation. You could not pay me to eat in one of those bubbles.
Except the problem with this is that we have reinfections and immunity doesn't appear to last from having had the virus. I'd be more likely to consider the number of people who participated in the trial as having better immunity than those who have had it. We've seen that Gaviria got Covid 2ce.Since we are now discussing how many people might get vaccinated by early next year, it's germane to ask how many people have been infected--and thus conceivably, could add to the immunity pool. I have seen two large seroprevalence studies that have made estimates for the entire U.S. One analyzed samples from about 28,000 kidney dialysis patients--representative of every state and major ethnic group--and concluded that seroprevalence was 9.3%, or about 31 million people. However, this study was run last July. Cases have about tripled since then (!), so one could argue that as many as 90 million people have now been infected:
The other study was carried out by commercial labs in conjunction with the CDC; about 36,000 samples were analyzed. They estimated about 20 million people. But this study was done in August. Cases have doubled since then, so the number would be pushed up to about 40 million:
There's a lot of estimated variation or error in such studies, of course, but I think the total number of infected probably falls somewhere in this range of 40-90 million people. Another way to estimate infections is from the mortality rate. The current death toll is about 260,000. The minimum estimate of infection mortality rate is about 0.26%, which the CDC published at one point. That would indicate 100 million infected. However, that value is almost certainly too low. Antibody studies in several large W. European countries, carried out several months ago, pointed to an IFR of 0.4-1.0%. This would lead to an estimate of 26-65 million infected. My own guess is 50-60 million, roughly 15-20% of the population.
Let's suppose that 60% of the population gets vaccinated, and that those who don't are representative of the pool of infected, recovered people. That would add another 6-8% to the 60%, bringing the total up to 65-70%. That assumes, of course, that the previously infected people have a good, long-lasting immune response.
Folks argue pretty much anything here but equal parts information and dogma see the light of day. I will say from the early days of cyclist doping speculation that there are very sincere, scientifically skilled contributors on the forums. They debate, disagree and evolve; which is what we should all be doing rather than taking 9 month old-quotes on emerging threats and citing those statements knowing today's science as a sign of political or heretical allegiance. This is a serious situation and entrenched political prejudice is the 2nd major obstacle in this country to the virus IMO.Funny how the example of group thinking is this forum where people don't agree with something, not that other forum where people do agree.
It strikes me as a good example of how once you believe in one conspiracy theory, you're more likely to fall for more. He starts out saying that a global leftist elite is exaggerating the pandemic for its own ends. This is a very widely held belief, and at least it's easy to see how it attracts followers. People of all political persuasions are using the pandemic for their own ends. That's what politicians do. There is a legitimate debate about public safety vs. individual freedoms, and about lives vs. jobs.A lot to unpack
Agreed. Particularly when the wildly inappropriate prejudice will lash out claiming one person is criminally liable for every pandemic death suffered in the US while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge other destruction caused not from the pandemic itself but our reaction to it.This is a serious situation and entrenched political prejudice is the 2nd major obstacle in this country to the virus IMO.
Beat that drum, paste that quote. What do you, Chris, plan to do to get to Spring and outdoor riding?Agreed. Particularly when the wildly inappropriate prejudice will lash out claiming one person is criminally liable for every pandemic death suffered in the US while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge other destruction caused not from the pandemic itself but our reaction to it.
Dogma? You got that right.
In the case of COVID-19, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), although essential to halt transmission of the virus, have led to physical isolation, closure of schools (with untold effects on the development and wellbeing of children), and widespread job losses. Misuse of substances, particularly alcohol, is rising. Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 could even have direct neurological consequences. And as with many other features of this pandemic, not all people have been affected equally. Disruptions to MNS services, as reported by WHO, are disproportionately affecting people with pre-existing mental health conditions by limiting access to essential treatment and support services. People with salaried jobs are far less likely to be affected than those with informal, daily wage jobs, which include a substantial proportion of the workforce in lower-income countries. Frontline workers are experiencing increased workload and trauma, making them susceptible to stress, burnout, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Making the cure worse than the disease is nothing if not heresy, right? I mean, how dare some dude suggest as a Nation we try and balance response to a pandemic with other societal needs while at the same time leverage the power of the Federal taxpayer to seed big pharma (you know, another devil) to race for a vaccine.
Fauci did praise the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed program, particularly for its success in expediting the development of Covid-19 vaccines. Going from the discovery of a new pathogen to multiple vaccines reporting Phase 3 clinical trial data in less than a year, Fauci said, “is beyond historic.”
Yeah, bad man needs to go to prison.
And just to be clear, trotting out Fauci and Birx quotes from early on demonstrate those at the very top of their profession, you know, expert in their field, didn’t have all the correct answers and, like, still don’t. Anyone here think Tony Fauci is concerned with mental health issues created by what he‘s recommending until at least this time next year? Me neither.
Excerpts from a November 19 interview...
Q: People often think of shutdowns as binary. You’re open or you’re shut. Often, when you answer questions about how to live, you start with. ‘Well, I’m in a high-risk group. …” So I would love to hear Dr. Fauci’s hierarchy of “Safe and important to keep open with precautions” and “Things that aren’t safe under any circumstances.”
The reason I answer with some degree of trepidation is because the people who are the proprietors of these businesses start getting very, very upset with me. There are some essential businesses that you want to keep open. You want to keep grocery stores open, supermarkets open, things that people need for their subsistence. You might, if it’s done properly, keep open some nonessential businesses, you know, things like clothing stores, department stores.
Q: We’re heading into the winter months. You could social distance in a restaurant or in an indoor gathering. But would you feel OK being in there without a mask?
If we’re in the hot zone the way we are now, where there’s so many infections around, I would feel quite uncomfortable even being in a restaurant. And particularly if it was at full capacity.
Q: I see you’ve been getting your hair cut. What do you think about hair salons?
I mean, again, it depends. I used to get a haircut every five weeks. I get a haircut every 12 weeks now — with a mask on me, as well as a mask on the person who’s cutting the hair, for sure.
Q: Transportation? Trains? Planes? Metro? Where are we at the moment?
It depends on your individual circumstances. If you are someone who is in the highest risk category, as best as possible, don’t travel anywhere. Or if you go someplace, you have a car, you’re in your car by yourself, not getting on a crowded subway, not getting on a crowded bus or even flying in an airplane. If you’re a 25-year-old who has no underlying conditions, that’s much different.
Bars are really problematic. I have to tell you, if you look at some of the outbreaks that we’ve seen, it’s when people go into bars, crowded bars. You know, I used to go to a bar. I used to like to sit at a bar and grab a hamburger and a beer. But when you’re at a bar, people are leaning over your shoulder to get a drink, people next to each other like this. It’s kind of fun because it’s social, but it’s not fun when this virus is in the air. So I would think that if there’s anything you want to clamp down on, for the time being, it’s bars.
Q: Some airlines and some states are telling people you have to get a coronavirus test before you get on the plane or visit another state. Does that make sense medically?
If you’re negative when you get on the plane — except in the rare circumstance that you’re in that little incubation window before you turn positive — that’s a good thing.
Q: If you had a national plan for testing, what would it be?
Surveillance testing. Literally flooding the system with tests. Getting a home test that you could do yourself, that’s highly sensitive and highly specific. And you know why that would be terrific? Because if you decided that you wanted to have a small gathering with your mother-in-law and father-in-law and a couple of children, and you had a test right there. It isn’t 100%. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But the risk that you have — if everyone is tested before you get together to sit down for dinner — dramatically decreases. It might not ever be zero but, you know, we don’t live in a completely risk-free society.
Q: There are a number of vaccine candidates that are promising. But there’s also a lot of skepticism because we’ve seen the FDA come under both commercial and, increasingly, political pressure. When will we know it’s OK to take a vaccine? And which?
It’s pretty easy when you have vaccines that are 95% effective. Can’t get much better than that. I think what people need to appreciate — and that’s why I have said it like maybe 100 times in the last week or two — is the process by which a decision is made. The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.
Q: You feel the career scientists will have the final say?
Q: And will the decisions that are being made in this transition period — like the vaccine distribution plan — in any way limit the options of a new administration?
No, I don’t think so. I think a new administration will have the choice of doing what they feel. But I can tell you what’s going to happen, regardless of the transition or not, is that we have people totally committed to doing it right that are going to be involved in this. So I have confidence in that.
Q: When do you think we’ll all be able to throw our masks away?
I think that we’re going to have some degree of public health measures together with the vaccine for a considerable period of time. But we’ll start approaching normal — if the overwhelming majority of people take the vaccine — as we get into the third or fourth quarter [of 2021].
Near the end of October, I hadn't had a haircut in more than ten months. I finally decided to try cutting my own. I thought it would look terrible, but since I'm locked in all the time, who's going to notice? It turned out fine. I was surprised at how easy it was to do. It helps that I have thin hair, as any unevennesses don't show up that much, but overall, I was pleased with the results. I'm thinking I may never go to a barber again.I [Fauci] used to get a haircut every five weeks. I get a haircut every 12 weeks now — with a mask on me, as well as a mask on the person who’s cutting the hair, for sure.
The pillow guy will still sell you his cure. The virus will definitely die....with you.I agree with Chris,it's not a single person liable for all the Covid-19 deaths. And any reference to China anything at this point is a waste of time and energy. Every available American calorie of energy should be dedicated to saving lives.
but the problem, the crux of the American cluster phuck is as Dirt points out..written down is 2+2=4 and there is a national argument about the validity of the answer..we can't move on until, facts are acknowledged.
The same people that gave us flat screen televisions,Rogane, microwave oven, cars w air bags that park themselves,carbon fiber bicycles,E-tap..Gore Tex..science,science everywhere in everything..those same people,that same thought process needs to be embraced and the United States needs to stop watching DVR'd The Apprentice reruns for pandemic cure solutions..Gary Busey and the pillow guy don't have any answers,
Here’s a fact you might consider, a 60 who dies from or with Covid is no more dead than a 60 year old who puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger because of Covid. Or the 60 year old that OD’s from some form of Opiods helped in part from our response to Covid.Plus, is it 'group think' when most agree that 2+2=4 or is it just accepting facts?
I’m in Cali. Got sunburned on my ride today. Most winter days are spring-like here.Beat that drum, paste that quote. What do you, Chris, plan to do to get to Spring and outdoor riding?
This, pretty much.I spend a little time on a forum where a substantial proportion of the posters think Fauci is a quack, that masks don't work, that lockdowns don't work, that C19 is no worse than the flu. The bottom line argument is, as one of these posters puts it, that this is the first pandemic in history in which the median age of death is greater than life expectancy. IOW, most of the people dying were lucky to live as long as they did.
When you boil everything down, it comes to how you balance deaths with the effects of social restrictions--economic and psychological. You can't put a monetary value on a human life (though courts do attempt to do so in civil suits, all the time), so you can't really use facts or logic to confirm one view or the other. You can call out people when they try to bolster their arguments with false claims. When people say that C19 is no worse than the seasonal flu, this is demonstrably false. When they say masks have no effect, this is false. When they say lockdowns have no effect, this is false. But even if all of this is false, if they continue to maintain that the negative effects of social restrictions are worse than the deaths, I don't see any way you can prove they're wrong. It comes down to what you value.