|
Post by sportsjock on Jul 19, 2020 20:44:18 GMT -5
There is some good news on the near horizon, that will change things dramatically.
More than 100 vaccines are being developed and tested around the world that are at varying stages of development. Currently leading the pack, is the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine that is being developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca laboratories. The World Health Organization’s chief scientist said in June that AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 was probably the most advanced in terms of development. Their 'Stage I' trial testing has proven to be effective. The vaccine candidate is already in large scale Phase III human trials, to assess whether it can protect against COVID-19. Those results are slated to be released tomorrow, July the 20th. The developers of the vaccine, known as AZD1222, said they were encouraged by the immune response they had seen in trials so far. The pre-clinical trial of the shot in pigs showed that two doses produced a greater antibody response than a single dose. The company has signed agreements with governments around the globe, to supply the vaccine, if it meets approval.
Right now, the goal is to begin vaccine distribution by the end of September. On the home front, researchers in the United States reported this week, that Moderna Inc. experimental vaccine showed it was safe and provoked immune responses in all 45 healthy volunteers in their ongoing early-stage field study. Moderna started it's Phase II in May and expect to start a Phase III trial on July 27th. The medical and scientific community has been working furiously in this game changing effort. While governmental authorities worldwide, have been ironing out administrative and distributive logistics, in readiness for this collaborative effort, the likes, the world has never seen before!
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Jul 21, 2020 6:13:20 GMT -5
The results and conclusions of the Phase I and II clinical trials were released today (7/20/20).
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial at Oxford University reported today: “The interim Phase I/II data for our coronavirus vaccine shows that the vaccine did not lead to any unexpected reactions and had a similar safety profile to previous vaccines of this type. The immune responses observed following vaccination are in line with what we expect will be associated with protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We saw the strongest immune response in participants who received two doses of the vaccine, indicating that this might be a good strategy for vaccination.”
Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “We are encouraged by the Phase I/II interim data showing AZD1222 was capable of generating a rapid antibody and T-cell response against SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca continues to fulfil its commitment for broad and equitable access to the vaccine, should late-stage clinical trials prove successful. So far, commitments to supply more than two billion doses of the vaccine have been agreed with the UK, United States, Europe’s Inclusive Vaccines Alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance and Serum Institute of India.
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Nov 30, 2020 12:09:29 GMT -5
It's a cheap shot, but Screw COVID!
And screw was not my word choice. I'm over this thing!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Nov 30, 2020 14:13:34 GMT -5
No, it's a free shot(S).
|
|
|
Post by Buckeye2b on Dec 15, 2020 17:19:28 GMT -5
I won't be trying the vaccine until i am reasonably sure that I need it. I read today that the Pfizer vaccine doesn't prevent the disease, but minimizes the effect of it.. you will still contract COVID, but it will me more mild than vicious. I don't think I want to try that one out just quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 15, 2020 19:08:02 GMT -5
What you're describing is the 5%. 95% don't get it at all. You don't have to get the vaccine. Just go out and get breathed on by someone who has the Virus, you get it and build up your own immunity....as long as you live.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 15, 2020 22:02:42 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%).
It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Dec 16, 2020 9:25:41 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. Now there is a stat you won't hear about in the FAKE NEWS, or from power hungry Governors. They will not speak about it at all. It does not fit their narrative of the controls being forced upon us.
|
|
|
Post by baldref on Dec 16, 2020 11:59:33 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. Now there is a stat you won't hear about in the FAKE NEWS, or from power hungry Governors. They will not speak about it at all. It does not fit their narrative of the controls being forced upon us. Better question is how many in US will actually contract the virus. The .08 to 1% mortality rate on its own can be somewhat misleading possibly. US population is 320 million and early estimates were that 150 million will contract covid. With the advent of the vacines, that estimate is probably very high. Lets say for comparison purposes only, 100 million will get covid. With an .008% mortality rate, that's still 800,000 deaths in the usa. You can compare that to annual flu deaths in the usa to 60,000. Hopefully the usa will get nowhere near that number of deaths. All I am saying is that anyone can play the "statistics" game to bolster their argument on the severity or lack of danger of covid. Not arguing with anyone, believe what you want, but just want to point out that anyone can play the statistic game to suit their own needs or beliefs from doctors, to politicians, to the average joe on the regular or social media. Me and you included.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 12:18:07 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. Where are you getting a mortality rate of .7% for the flu? The cdc has the mortality rates for 2018 to be 18.1 out of 100,000. And also, by your logic, shouldn't we have a much lower death rate for the flu as well? www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 12:53:17 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. Where are you getting a mortality rate of .7% for the flu? The cdc has the mortality rates for 2018 to be 18.1 out of 100,000. And also, by your logic, shouldn't we have a much lower death rate for the flu as well? www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htmThat’s a combined mortality for influenza and pneumonia on the link you used. I’ve not been able to find anywhere on the CDC website where the tease those out separately. Admittedly, that’s difficult. Many people who die from a lower respiratory infection have a secondary bacterial infection brought on by influenza so what do you blame in that situation? They probably wouldn’t have gotten the bacterial infection if they hadn’t gotten the flu. Some got pneumonia without the flu triggering it. I’m quoting a number from a epidemiologist I just listened to with the most current estimates. It was about two weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 12:58:12 GMT -5
And, for the record, diagnosing pneumonia is not an exact science. We use:
Symptoms Vital signs Labs Imaging
I can admit a person who has classic symptoms with a normal CXR and normal white blood count and call them pneumonia. Sometimes elderly have such weak immune systems that they can’t mount a WBC response or they can be so dehydrated that they can’t make enough pus to show up on an x-ray.
At the end of the day it is a clinical diagnosis made by looking at the big picture. So even that 18.1/100,000 has to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s probably from death certificate data.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 16, 2020 15:44:03 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. AND....there are A LOT of people dying, due to all the COVID restrictions to keep them alive, in assisted living residences. They are tired of living, they can't take it any more. All activities have been canceled. No more eating meals with their friends. Locked in their rooms. Not allowed to be taken by family or friends to church services. CAN NOT leave for any reason. Not even to go to a funeral for a grandson and great grandson that were killed in a car accident. They haven't been allowed visitors for going on 10 months. My mother-in-law and a friend's mother are two. Their death certificate will say died of natural causes, but the truth is The Virus was the real reason.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 16:01:01 GMT -5
And, for the record, diagnosing pneumonia is not an exact science. We use: Symptoms Vital signs Labs Imaging I can admit a person who has classic symptoms with a normal CXR and normal white blood count and call them pneumonia. Sometimes elderly have such weak immune systems that they can’t mount a WBC response or they can be so dehydrated that they can’t make enough pus to show up on an x-ray. At the end of the day it is a clinical diagnosis made by looking at the big picture. So even that 18.1/100,000 has to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s probably from death certificate data. Well the website also states that influenza by itself is 3.4/100,000. I just want to know how your source got .7%.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 16:14:52 GMT -5
Current case mortality rate is 1.6-2% (that’s deaths divided by KNOWN cases). It takes a lot of math to then estimate a true mortality rate because you can’t divide deaths by all cases because a lot of people have had it or currently have it that we’ll never know. Current true mortality is estimated at about half that or 0.8-1%. On par with traditional flu (around 0.7%). It does us no good to speak about with emotional or inflammatory language. AND....there are A LOT of people dying, due to all the COVID restrictions to keep them alive in, assisted living residences. They are tired of living, they can't take it any more. All activities have been canceled. No more eating meals with their friends. Locked in their rooms. Not allowed to be taken by family and friends to church services. CAN NOT leave for any reason. Not even to go to a funeral for a grandson and great grandson that were killed in a car. They haven't been allowed visitors for going on 10 months. My mother-in-law and a friend's mother are two. Their death certificate will say died of natural causes, but the truth is The Virus was the real reason. And that’s a good point. That shouldn’t be attributed to the virus. It should be blamed on the virus response. We can’t control the virus. It’s going to do what a virus does. We can control our response. Doing something isn’t always the right thing. For example, PSA’s are no longer universally recommended for prostate cancer screening. Why? The majority of men who get it don’t die from it. Treatment can result in impotence and incontinence. So we treat a non-lethal cancer and make a guy limp and wet himself. People committing suicide due to depression, people putting off mammograms and colonoscopies due to fear or cancellation of elective procedures, etc. should be blamed on the virus response not the virus.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 16:25:09 GMT -5
And, for the record, diagnosing pneumonia is not an exact science. We use: Symptoms Vital signs Labs Imaging I can admit a person who has classic symptoms with a normal CXR and normal white blood count and call them pneumonia. Sometimes elderly have such weak immune systems that they can’t mount a WBC response or they can be so dehydrated that they can’t make enough pus to show up on an x-ray. At the end of the day it is a clinical diagnosis made by looking at the big picture. So even that 18.1/100,000 has to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s probably from death certificate data. Well the website also states that influenza by itself is 3.4/100,000. I just want to know how your source got .7%. 3.4/100,000 has nothing to do with mortality rate. What that means is 3.4 people per 100,000 US citizens die every year from the flu. That requires two numbers. How many people die from the flu and how many people live in the US. Mortality rates are measured two ways: Case mortality. That’s the number of deaths divided by the number of people diagnosed. That is an obvious overestimation of the mortality rate because there are a lot of additional people that would go into the denominator that never get tested. Overall mortality. That can only be estimated by making a best guess of how many people have the disease and never get measured because they don’t go to the doctor, tests are available, etc. I’ll admit, how they make that estimation is above my pay grade. I am not an epidemiologist.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 16:41:28 GMT -5
Well the website also states that influenza by itself is 3.4/100,000. I just want to know how your source got .7%. 3.4/100,000 has nothing to do with mortality rate. What that means is 3.4 people per 100,000 US citizens die every year from the flu. That requires two numbers. How many people die from the flu and how many people live in the US. Mortality rates are measured two ways: Case mortality. That’s the number of deaths divided by the number of people diagnosed. That is an obvious overestimation of the mortality rate because there are a lot of additional people that would go into the denominator that never get tested. Overall mortality. That can only be estimated by making a best guess of how many people have the disease and never get measured because they don’t go to the doctor, tests are available, etc. I’ll admit, how they make that estimation is above my pay grade. I am not an epidemiologist. I see, so you are talking about deaths from diagnosed cases. I'm getting a case fatality rate for the flu at .1%. 34000 deaths/35 million cases www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 16:54:56 GMT -5
3.4/100,000 has nothing to do with mortality rate. What that means is 3.4 people per 100,000 US citizens die every year from the flu. That requires two numbers. How many people die from the flu and how many people live in the US. Mortality rates are measured two ways: Case mortality. That’s the number of deaths divided by the number of people diagnosed. That is an obvious overestimation of the mortality rate because there are a lot of additional people that would go into the denominator that never get tested. Overall mortality. That can only be estimated by making a best guess of how many people have the disease and never get measured because they don’t go to the doctor, tests are available, etc. I’ll admit, how they make that estimation is above my pay grade. I am not an epidemiologist. I see, so you are talking about deaths from diagnosed cases. I'm getting a case fatality rate for the flu at .1%. 34000 deaths/35 million cases www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.htmlWhat you’re quoting is a per capita death rate. You can’t divide one by the other to get a mortality rate. The US population (the denominator) has nothing to do with the number of people who have the disease.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 16:56:53 GMT -5
What you’re quoting is a per capita death rate. You can’t divide one by the other to get a mortality rate. The US population (the denominator) has nothing to do with the number of people who have the disease. The US population is not 35 million. I'm citing the case numbers.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 17:06:08 GMT -5
What you’re quoting is a per capita death rate. You can’t divide one by the other to get a mortality rate. The US population (the denominator) has nothing to do with the number of people who have the disease. The US population is not 35 million. I'm citing the case numbers. The first number you sent was 3.4 deaths/100,000 population. That is called prevalence data. That’s how many people died of the flu per 100,000 population. You can measure mortality from any disease that way. It says nothing about the rate at which people with any particular disease die from that disease.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 17:08:43 GMT -5
The US population is not 35 million. I'm citing the case numbers. The first number you sent was 3.4 deaths/100,000 population. That is called prevalence data. That’s how many people died of the flu per 100,000 population. You can measure mortality from any disease that way. It says nothing about the rate at which people with any particular disease die from that disease. And I said you were right, found numbers which were relevant to what you were looking for, and gave you what I found. 34000 deaths to 35 million cases.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 17:56:21 GMT -5
The first number you sent was 3.4 deaths/100,000 population. That is called prevalence data. That’s how many people died of the flu per 100,000 population. You can measure mortality from any disease that way. It says nothing about the rate at which people with any particular disease die from that disease. And I said you were right, found numbers which were relevant to what you were looking for, and gave you what I found. 34000 deaths to 35 million cases. Gotcha. I didn’t realize that was a different link than the original. I didn’t fact check the epidemiologist I was listening to. He had credentials. Maybe he was looking at data from more years and his overall mortality for flu was a multi-year average. I’m sure it varies from year to year. Different strains have different lethality.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 16, 2020 19:37:11 GMT -5
AND....there are A LOT of people dying, due to all the COVID restrictions to keep them alive in, assisted living residences. They are tired of living, they can't take it any more. All activities have been canceled. No more eating meals with their friends. Locked in their rooms. Not allowed to be taken by family and friends to church services. CAN NOT leave for any reason. Not even to go to a funeral for a grandson and great grandson that were killed in a car. They haven't been allowed visitors for going on 10 months. My mother-in-law and a friend's mother are two. Their death certificate will say died of natural causes, but the truth is The Virus was the real reason. And that’s a good point. That shouldn’t be attributed to the virus. It should be blamed on the virus response. We can’t control the virus. It’s going to do what a virus does. We can control our response. Doing something isn’t always the right thing. For example, PSA’s are no longer universally recommended for prostate cancer screening. Why? The majority of men who get it don’t die from it. Treatment can result in impotence and incontinence. So we treat a non-lethal cancer and make a guy limp and wet himself. People committing suicide due to depression, people putting off mammograms and colonoscopies due to fear or cancellation of elective procedures, etc. should be blamed on the virus response not the virus. If there was no pandemic, there would no "responses" to it. This is not a chicken or egg thing.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 16, 2020 20:01:50 GMT -5
And that’s a good point. That shouldn’t be attributed to the virus. It should be blamed on the virus response. We can’t control the virus. It’s going to do what a virus does. We can control our response. Doing something isn’t always the right thing. For example, PSA’s are no longer universally recommended for prostate cancer screening. Why? The majority of men who get it don’t die from it. Treatment can result in impotence and incontinence. So we treat a non-lethal cancer and make a guy limp and wet himself. People committing suicide due to depression, people putting off mammograms and colonoscopies due to fear or cancellation of elective procedures, etc. should be blamed on the virus response not the virus. If there was no pandemic, there would no "responses" to it. This is not a chicken or egg thing. Agreed, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be responses that worsen the situation not improve it. Bad decisions that worsen the problem get the blame not the virus itself. For example we could have come up with a safe way to continue mammograms and colonoscopies at the onset of the pandemic rather than cancelling all elective procedures.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 16, 2020 20:45:26 GMT -5
agree
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 16, 2020 22:41:17 GMT -5
And I said you were right, found numbers which were relevant to what you were looking for, and gave you what I found. 34000 deaths to 35 million cases. Gotcha. I didn’t realize that was a different link than the original. I didn’t fact check the epidemiologist I was listening to. He had credentials. Maybe he was looking at data from more years and his overall mortality for flu was a multi-year average. I’m sure it varies from year to year. Different strains have different lethality. I am seeing numbers as high as double than than 2018, but that still leaves us .2% morality rate at the worst (and you could argue it is less based on how many people actually get test, seek treatment blah blah... like most things people can say for covid).At the end of the day, covid is still clearly more deadly. What is even more important is its capacity to spread, which means far more dice are being rolled on a per year basis, which means more deaths as a whole. Not to mention the deaths due to overwhelmed health systems. I'm not saying our covid response isn't without consequences, but we have to be careful about making assertions when we don't have hard data on the consequences. I don't know where we are at suicides right now, but I highly doubt we are over double our national average (~50000 a year), nor do I think most damage done is irreversible from a more serious response. What isn't irreversible is the sheer amount of death that a lax response to covid brings. What also isn't irreversible are the many chronic ailments people will have after suffering damage from the virus.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Dec 17, 2020 13:02:13 GMT -5
Gotcha. I didn’t realize that was a different link than the original. I didn’t fact check the epidemiologist I was listening to. He had credentials. Maybe he was looking at data from more years and his overall mortality for flu was a multi-year average. I’m sure it varies from year to year. Different strains have different lethality. I am seeing numbers as high as double than than 2018, but that still leaves us .2% morality rate at the worst (and you could argue it is less based on how many people actually get test, seek treatment blah blah... like most things people can say for covid).At the end of the day, covid is still clearly more deadly. What is even more important is its capacity to spread, which means far more dice are being rolled on a per year basis, which means more deaths as a whole. Not to mention the deaths due to overwhelmed health systems. I'm not saying our covid response isn't without consequences, but we have to be careful about making assertions when we don't have hard data on the consequences. I don't know where we are at suicides right now, but I highly doubt we are over double our national average (~50000 a year), nor do I think most damage done is irreversible from a more serious response. What isn't irreversible is the sheer amount of death that a lax response to covid brings. What also isn't irreversible are the many chronic ailments people will have after suffering damage from the virus. My first comment was to point out we should use facts not inflammatory language when discussing COVID, not to say we shouldn’t be taking action. We absolutely should be taking action. Post game we will be able to analyze how many people died from COVID versus how many people died from COVID restrictions. I believe COVID deaths will be greater than COVID restrictions, but the later will not be insignificant. We should analyze that data so going forward we can make better decisions that balance ALL risks versus benefits. There will be some long term sequela, but that is unknown. I can promise you the amount of people who will claim long term disability we exceed the people who really suffer long term problems. After dealing with this on the front lines for months I guess I’m just frustrated hearing people who have minimal experience and expertise boiling this down to one extreme or the other. This is a very nuanced issue that literally changes on a day to day basis.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Dec 17, 2020 13:09:50 GMT -5
I read today that suicide watches have been placed on 17 basketball players in the Columbus area that have not been allowed to play games this year. For many kids in big cities sports are their life, their escape, their only reason for living. Another cause of death by THE virus that will not officially be attributed to it.
|
|
|
Post by dude on Dec 17, 2020 13:37:07 GMT -5
I was told by a medical professional that during the process of compiling the list of people who should first get the vaccines, anyone under the age of 16 years was disqualified because they are not at risk. If this is a fact, the closure of schools and youth sports has nothing to do with the safety of our kids.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Dec 17, 2020 21:02:48 GMT -5
I was told by a medical professional that during the process of compiling the list of people who should first get the vaccines, anyone under the age of 16 years was disqualified because they are not at risk. If this is a fact, the closure of schools and youth sports has nothing to do with the safety of our kids. I was told by a medical professional that the vaccine wasn't tested on kids, so they don't know if it safe for them yet. I'll post a link to another source to at least give a little credibility. And while kids don't usually get as sick, they do pass it to others. Lots of kids are being raised by grandparents, live with people with conditions that put them at risk etc... The policy isn't just about the safety of kids, it's also about the safety of those they interact with. apnews.com/article/will-get-children-coronavirus-vaccine-1e007933dc3eace15bc1f9f60670955c
|
|