Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 198 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
If reports from company officials hold out to be accurate,Johnson and Johnson has a single dose vaccine in development that could be ready at the end of January..not sure,but it sounds significant that it can be stored and transported at regular temps..no 94 below zero!!
Americans need to keep their fingers crossed for a relief bill before Congress Christmas break..people could use a little good news before the holiday.


Check out the promo photos for each event..it's hard to believe sitting here today that I was one of those screaming happy people from the crowd shots..Motorcycle racing scheduled for April..


California in a state of lockdown w a doubling of ICU patients in 16 days..Weather Tech Laguna Seca is at least giving hope, first for the July scheduled races and for putting something other than a doomsday notice for camping..not sure what will happen with showers..before the showers were the size of a large 18 wheeler trailer, w 6 or 8 stalls..unlimited hot water..but it would look to be challenging for social distancing..

California reporting that fishing and hunting licences are way way way up..
 
The numbers are there..you just have to care if old people are dying,pretty straight forward..but I will put on my social catchers mitt and prepare for another wild pitch like the comment about the young guy having a stroke as no big deal..to flip to be believed..
we have over 1000+ people a day dying,no end in sight,stormy medical forecasting and 280,000+ already dead.
Covid on the podium for the number one cause of death in the United States..
tweeting and tee times don't work for medical issues..they just don't.
The WH has been strangely silent about nursing home mortality in states other than NY. Guess that takes away from fund raising time...er-"legitimate" election challenges. Wonder what the big box Evangelical franchises will have to say when the faithful don't have enough cash to tithe for another Bizjet fer Jezus because they donated it all to the election challenge PAC? That fund raising effort will go on as long as people keep sending money in, gaaaarunteed.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
AstraZeneca vaccine study published in the Lancet today.


AstraZeneca found by chance that its vaccine works best when the first dose is smaller than the second one. Vector immunity can explain why this is the case. A first high dose will create some immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus but also some immunity against the vector virus, so when a first high dose has trained the immune system to fight the vector virus the second 'booster' vaccine dose using the same vector will become inefficient. A lower first dose can make sure that the second higher dose is not prematurely defeated by vector immunity but can still do its work.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was developed by Oxford Uni and cost per dose will be around $3 per shot, far below the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines that will cost around $30 per shot, and don't require storage at or below -70C, so for the majority of the world, the latter two options are just not viable to be used largescale. If countries want to limit the global effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, they will have to resort to the cheaper vector based vaccines, which also includes the Chinese and Russian vaccines.
That accident is a very tiny number of participants and hence the reason they have to fully redo their phase 3 trial. I refuse to take their vaccine due to how their trial has gone so far and the way they released the information. I personally couldn't care less about the cost difference. Two of the trial sites for all of the vaccines are 2 and a half hours from me so my being able to access the Pfizer vaccine also is not an issue once it's available. I will not take the AstraZenica one.
 
The nursing home data show that deaths continue to rise there more or less in parallel with cases in society. Here's a radical idea:

Require all NH staff to live in the NH 24/7. Maybe allow them to go outside once a week to visit their families or whatever, but mostly lock them in. If they can't go out, they can't get infected, and they can't bring the infection back to the NH patients. Spare those patients, and you cut the mortality rate by 40%.

Given that NH patients are first in line for vaccinations, this would only have to be temporary, so it wouldn't be that much of a burden on the staff.
Maybe regularly test this cohort of workers. Sometimes the simplest steps are overlooked.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
You're still staying silent on any feasible way forward, by the way. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.
I'd follow the science. I'd ask and persuade people to do the safe thing but I would not trample anyone's Liberty. I'd stop pretending Covid discriminates against people with certain political beliefs. I'd not use the pandemic to remake society in a more progressive way. I would not shutter/fine/arrest business owners who have taken every possible measure to provide their service in as safe a way as possible. I would acknowledge and recognize the catastrophic damage caused to those who the pandemic has destroyed financially and not smugly shrug my shoulders and say "too bad for you.' I'd recognize the damage done (primarily) to disadvantaged kids and I would not allow public teachers unions to flush a generation down the toilet in order to re-imagine education in this Country.

I could go on but there's no point. It's like my vote for President in California - a complete waste.

But I'll just leave you with this. Take a stab at answering the questions posed by this small business owner in LA.

View: https://youtu.be/tpFfr0niCf0
 
Anecdotally, there are issues with the short staffing that this kind of test might entail, so see no evil...... And that is not unique to nursing homes. I mentioned that my partner works in a clinic that does COVID-19 testing. Never once taken a test since the pandemic hit and is not encouraged to do so. We can see the big structural issues that have hampered the US covid response. But once you start to zoom in, you start to see how many more issues there are than you can even imagine. Just big red flashing lights all over. It was just a matter of time until something like this ripped the seams open.
 
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Anecdotally, there are issues with the short staffing that this kind of test might entail, so see no evil...... And that is not unique to nursing homes. I mentioned that my partner works in a clinic that does COVID-19 testing. Never once taken a test since the pandemic hit and is not encouraged to do so. We can see the big structural issues that have hampered the US covid response. But once you start to zoom in, you start to see how many more issues there are than you can even imagine. Just big red flashing lights all over. It was just a matter of time until something like this ripped the seams open.
Kinda sounds like systemic issues with readiness spanning decades or more. We are only very good at printing money and creating debt. It's well past time we all admit at least that.
 
Reactions: yaco
Maybe regularly test this cohort of workers. Sometimes the simplest steps are overlooked.
Nursing homes began doing this a long time ago. You can test negative for several days after you have been infected, during which time you may become infectious.

I refuse to take their [AstraZaneca] vaccine due to how their trial has gone so far and the way they released the information.
I think at this point, based on only a few tens of thousands of subjects, it's hard to gauge safety concerns. UK is already warning people with allergies not to take the Pfizer vaccine:


Keep in mind that by the time most people get a chance to take a vaccine, it will have been given to tens of millions people--a thousand times greater number than those in the phase 3 trials. Because of that, and the longer period of time in which those millions will have had the vaccine, we will have a much better ability to judge the probability of side effects and other safety concerns.
 
Last edited:
All that is plausible about vector antibodies. But AFAIK, they are using the higher dose in their big US clinical trial. I don't think they will have the ability to switch dosing schemes when they apply for an EUA. Especially when the data is based on a small subset of a separate study. Regulators do have a lot of discretion, so I am curious to see how they treat this finding. Of course, the higher dose would be on track to be approved because it is above the FDA threshold of 50%, assuming that the efficacy in the new trial matches the old one.

A not great development due to COVID will be qualified medical people thinking twice about doing public service. You couldn't pay me enough to put up with this.
View: https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/1336671293043863556
The ignorant radicals have gone insane here in ID. They march around, armed like soldiers at war, and intimidate intelligent people.
 
Nursing homes began doing this a long time ago. You can test negative for several days after you have been infected, during which time you may become infectious.



I think at this point, based on only a few tens of thousands of subjects, it's hard to gauge safety concerns. UK is already warning people with allergies not to take the Pfizer vaccine:


Keep in mind that by the time most people get a chance to take a vaccine, it will have been given to tens of millions people--a thousand times greater number than those in the phase 3 trials. Because of that, and the longer period of time in which those millions will have had the vaccine, we will have a much better ability to judge the probability of side effects and other safety concerns.
This^...it unfortunate that health care people and our seniors will be Guinea Pigs for the rest of us, but by the time I get vaccinated, we will know way more than we do now.
 
it unfortunate that health care people and our seniors will be Guinea Pigs for the rest of us, but by the time I get vaccinated, we will know way more than we do now.
It actually works out well, I think. Whatever the risks of an adverse reaction, they should be considerably lower than the risk of dying for a NH patient. Almost 10% of NH patients have died, there is no way that the odds of dying from vaccination remotely approach that number. And if the vaccine protects these patients, we can potentially reduce 40% of the deaths by vaccinating less than 0.5% of the population. In fact, because mortality rate is so much higher for older people, we should be able to reduce deaths by 90% or more long before those first 100 million people are vaccinated.

But in the short term...we are about to exceed 3000 deaths today, for the first time. And with daily cases still exceeding 200,000, I don't see how average number of deaths/day can fall below 3000 before the end of the year.

Take a stab at answering the questions posed by this small business owner in LA.
My guess is that the film company brings in far more money for the economy than a restaurant does. Is it fair that the film should be allowed to have outdoor dining when there's a blanket banning of that for all restaurants? No. Would I personally allow it? No. But you could make the argument that the benefit/risk ratio--where benefit is money brought in, and risk is number of deaths from spread of the virus--is higher for the film company than for the restaurant.

In fact, I don't know what other reasoning could be driving that decision. I really don't think it's because the film company is owned by someone who is close friends with Newsom, who granted this as a favor. I could be wrong, but I imagine Newsom was persuaded by the number of jobs that the film company provides.

Look at it this way, Chris. Newsom has two other alternatives. He could bar the film company from having communal meals, also. That would remove the hypocritical element, but that restaurant owner, and so many others like her, would still be just as angry, and just as much in economic peril. Or he could allow outdoor dining, risking that that will increase the spread of the virus.

I will concede we don't have the data to say with any confidence how much it will increase the spread. But keep in mind that even if small business owners like that woman go to great lengths to make the environment as potentially safe as possible, you're still going to have individual customers who won't. As long as businesses are open, and people are allowed to congregate, social distancing and other rules are going to be broken by some people. Not because they necessarily don't believe in these rules, and intentionally want to flout them, but because people aren't perfect, we're all used to living in a different way, and it can be very hard to maintain a different style.

I recently went into a small store for the first time in eight months. After all that time, I really enjoyed just being around people again, and I saw how easy it was to let down my guard. A very small place like that could build up a significant concentration of virus in the air if an infectious person came in, and while the odds that someone like that would be there while i was might be fairly low, anyone working. there most of the day would be at risk, and therefore could potentially infect anyone who came in there.

I went in there with the aim of buying what I needed as quickly as possible, and getting out, and still I had to fight the desire to linger. It had just been so long since I had been in such an environment.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt
I think at this point, based on only a few tens of thousands of subjects, it's hard to gauge safety concerns. UK is already warning people with allergies not to take the Pfizer vaccine:
As the only allergies I have are to perfumes and such that isn't a concern for me. My husband on the other hand is allergic to just about everything (except food and so far medications). Unfortunately for him he may not be able to get the vaccine early even though he's labeled by the hospital he works at as high risk, that same reason for high risk may prevent early vaccination as well. (Unfortunately he's still sick and we still don't know what is causing it and he may end up at one of the two university hospitals. The effect is he has pneumonia.)
 
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
My guess is that the film company brings in far more money for the economy than a restaurant does. Is it fair that the film should be allowed to have outdoor dining when there's a blanket banning of that for all restaurants? No. Would I personally allow it? No. But you could make the argument that the benefit/risk ratio--where benefit is money brought in, and risk is number of deaths from spread of the virus--is higher for the film company than for the restaurant.
Maybe... but if you consider all the restaurants with outdoor dining in LA I can imagine it will go the other direction.


In fact, I don't know what other reasoning could be driving that decision. I really don't think it's because the film company is owned by someone who is close friends with Newsom. I could be wrong, but I imagine he was persuaded by the number of jobs that the film company provides.
I don’t think so. I think it’s 100% power and influence. TV and film is considered essential? On what planet? News and radio I understand.. but if we have to watch re-runs for a year then Hollywood is just going to have to get over it. Or some would have thought.
 
that same reason for high risk may prevent early vaccination as well. (Unfortunately he's still sick and we still don't know what is causing it and he may end up at one of the two university hospitals. The effect is he has pneumonia.)
Are you saying that some people's pre-existing conditions may make them less likely, rather than more likely, to receive the vaccine earlier? Has your husband been told that there's concern that he would be more likely to have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

I remember your posting about this a while back, so I gather your husband has been sick for quite a while. Have you exhaustively ruled out that he isn't suffering from long-term effects of C19? Keep in mind that these effects can long outlast the presence of the virus in the body. It's theoretically possible that your husband was infected, and showed no symptoms for a while. When he finally did, the virus was gone, so he would have tested negative. But I think you mentioned that he was negative for antibodies as well?

Maybe... but if you consider all the restaurants with outdoor dining in LA I can imagine it will go the other direction.
But also more spread. Look at it this way. Consider one tent, or one unit of so many square feet of space. For the restaurant, that represents the owner, and how many other people she employs. How many people is that? I don't know, there are cooks, dishwashers, waiters, maybe a dozen? If you divide the total number of restaurants into the total number of people employed by them, you come up with about 15, but obviously it depends on the size, type of restaurant, etc.

For the film company, everyone eating in that area is an employee. From that video, it could be forty or fifty people just in one unit. Moreover, they are only there for an hour or so for each meal, whereas the restaurant has people for long hours. So while I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, I could see that the number of employees per risk could be far higher for the film company. But I'll also add that even if that's the case, and that was Newsom's reasoning, he should be very transparent about that. Because in the absence of transparency, most people probably will think like you, that it's all power, money and influence.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that some people's pre-existing conditions may make them less likely, rather than more likely, to receive the vaccine earlier? Has your husband been told that there's concern that he would be more likely to have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

I remember your posting about this a while back, so I gather your husband has been sick for quite a while. Have you exhaustively ruled out that he isn't suffering from long-term effects of C19? Keep in mind that these effects can long outlast the presence of the virus in the body. It's theoretically possible that your husband was infected, and showed no symptoms for a while. When he finally did, the virus was gone, so he would have tested negative. But I think you mentioned that he was negative for antibodies as well?

Yes, it's possible. My husband has RA, and the trials would not accept anyone with auto immune diseases. I looked in to it.

He originally got really sick in March. The thing is he hasn't even come close to recovering from it. Had multiple negative Covid tests, got diagnosed with pneumonia at the local hospital where I still am in Sept and has not gotten better since then. Basically has had constant sinus drainage since February. He had tested negative for antibodies in June. Tested negative for Covid multiple times. Now recently he did test positive for Covid, so now it seems he's managed to get that on top of whatever it is he's been dealing with since last winter. The stuff that's in his chest he hasn't been able to cough up since the hospital diagnosed him in Sept. He's in the Raleigh/Durham area now. The doctor there wants him to see a specialist, but needs to figure out how to get the stuff out of his chest/lungs first and that may end up with a trip to the hospital. Hence my ensuring that the two university hospitals (thankfully) take our insurance. I don't know if him going to Duke or UNC Chapel Hill hospital would make any difference.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Nursing homes began doing this a long time ago. You can test negative for several days after you have been infected, during which time you may become infectious.



I think at this point, based on only a few tens of thousands of subjects, it's hard to gauge safety concerns. UK is already warning people with allergies not to take the Pfizer vaccine:


Keep in mind that by the time most people get a chance to take a vaccine, it will have been given to tens of millions people--a thousand times greater number than those in the phase 3 trials. Because of that, and the longer period of time in which those millions will have had the vaccine, we will have a much better ability to judge the probability of side effects and other safety concerns.
I can assure you that regular testing in aged care centres, quarantine centres, etc is not standard within and outside of countries. Hong Kong only started regularly testing aged care workers two or three months, while Australia wasn't doing it on a regular basis until the latest qaurantine outbreak in Adelaide last month and it is still not standard across the country - The whole idea with regularly testing this cohort is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible which is impossible to do with no regulrar testing.
 
Last edited:
What is weird about kids, besides everything..anybody who has ever been around one knows that they are filthy. Covid commandos using logic..if hand washing is good..necessary then kids are bad because they don't wash their hands or anything else. Kids, social distancing..those can't be compatible..but it turns out so far what would seem obvious isn't, cause children are doing well in the problems of the pandemic,despite themselves.
And kids are different everywhere..environmental wise..American fear about " a lost generation "..our kids falling behind..
none of it's true..American kids go to school more and learn less..American kids skip recess,art and music and end up getting short changed..the long term damage caused to our kids,especially when vaccines are coming..what acting like a myopic *** looks like..what not knowing how to pick your battles looks like..
Our kids will be fine..and testing them on reading,writing and rythmatic' was a bad idea because they were not doing great in any of those anyway..


 
Reactions: jmdirt
I can assure you that regular testing in aged care centres, quarantine centres, etc is not standard within and outside of countries.
I was referring to the U.S., that should have been obvious from the context of the discussion. The testing is not uniform across the U.S.--there are problems in particular about using the antigen tests, which are faster--but everyone has long since been aware that staff bring in the virus. I will say that if NH staff and residents could be tested as regularly and as efficiently as pro athletes, a lot of these problems would disappear.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt
Kinda sounds like systemic issues with readiness spanning decades or more. We are only very good at printing money and creating debt. It's well past time we all admit at least that.
We're also good at risk management in alot of businesses because the liability consequences are catastrophic. Most of the hangup in the current "recovery" legislation is over the GOP desire to include carte'blanche, no-fault indemnification for corporations. This, while most relief would be in the form of basic, extended unemployment benefits.
We'd like to think that most business operations would do everything they could to protect employees and many have chosen to shut down for that reason. There are those that may be inept and those that are primarily concerned with profit/business survival. Chris G could go on about that and show you the small town bar owner as an example....
Add to it the Executive orders designating food production industries as essential during the first big wave (with implied forbearance liability for the industry owners) and you have meat processing companies forcing workers to toil in a primitive bubble system until most of them had Covid. Thanks, Dakotas; your governors embraced that kiss of the ring immediately. Now you've got the rolling consequences and doubled down on the rolling Thunder at Sturgis, the evangelical DT rally at Mt Rushmore. Kristi Noem should have to work the intubation ward without a mask or a work break to understand what the situation is.
We are good at divisive interpretations of reality but the money being printed is new currency in this executive term. The trend started before Covid and none of the President's faithful could muster a peep of resistance except Rand Paul. Now that he's had Covid he is silent because he can't put words to the insanity he sees. As most here that are in the medical field will tell you: we've had a cakewalk compared to what's coming after January. The vaccine will help the mindful but the casualty count will go up so no one remains to go the the bar...that's out of business 'cause the owner got the bug.
 
Reactions: Koronin and jmdirt
I was referring to the U.S., that should have been obvious from the context of the discussion. The testing is not uniform across the U.S.--there are problems in particular about using the antigen tests, which are faster--but everyone has long since been aware that staff bring in the virus. I will say that if NH staff and residents could be tested as regularly and as efficiently as pro athletes, a lot of these problems would disappear.

There are no excuses to not regularly test essential staff. The problem is authorities have been using testing in a reactive way, rather than in a proactive way. At the end of the day the actions of Government does not match their rhetoric of protecting the elderly.
 
Be explicit, what do you expect to see in long term results? The vaccine components are long gone in the people who have gotten them. The viral RNA is harmless by itself. The two month safety data is good enough for me. Some past presidents have been suggested to be filmed taking the vaccine to enforce the message of safety. If they need more people to do this, hit me up......
One of the most concerning to look at with vaccines is autoimmune diseases. Vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases can sometimes take years to manifest themselves. And these pathologies are difficult to treat and usually are permanent.


And didn't it take years for Dr. Offit to safely develop the rotavirus vaccine?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS