SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 108 of 200
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

iheartthed Apr 14, 2021 6:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248833)
I don't get what's funny about that. In a nutshell, it's evidence that the vaccine WORKS.

What we are observing is exactly what we would expect to happen if we targeted the over 65 crowd and vaccinated them first, all while a new and highly contagious variant is spreading through the population.

The elderly are relatively spared, while the new variant is rapidly spreading though a relatively unvaccinated and younger population.

Cases will rise and death rates will skew younger.

Everything that you'd expect to happen with a working vaccine is exactly what we are observing. What about that do you have a problem with?
Good thing you don't call yourself The Urban Mathematician, lol.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 6:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248831)
The majority of the old are NOT vaccinated in other than the US and UK and a few other small countries like Israel. They are not in Brazil where I am citing research.

I think you've made your unwillingness to listen to anyone but yourself clear enough.
I accounted for that.

Did it never occur to you that people have adjusted their lives, and the elderly in other countries are probably staying home more? I'm pretty sure that the working young in Brazil have been out and about FAR more than the elderly have in recent months.

Sorry, but if there is any wild speculation going on, it's coming from you, not from me.

You are laughably suggesting that the new variants of COVID have decided to kill more young people than old people :haha: (good luck proving that nonsense)

I will wager you $500 that what I"m describing is a far better explanation for what we are observing

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 6:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9248837)
Good thing you don't call yourself The Urban Mathematician, lol.
Ok, so you've got nothing

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 6:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248826)
Tell it to the Brazilian scientists and the CDC who are saying just the opposite. It's you who lack evidence. I keep posting the opinions of others and you keep trying to refuse me with your own which are clearly just your own.
In your own words:

Quote:
The fact is that there is considerable speculation, and I admit it IS speculation so far,
For the last time:

Everything we are seeing is EXACTLY what you would expect to happen if you vaccinate the elderly first, as well as if you have a younger population that is out and about and the elderly are mostly isolating themselves more

Occam's Razor

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 6:22 PM
For the 'pandemic forever' porn consumers here:

Quote:
U.K. variant isn't linked to more severe disease or death, study finds
The variant known as B.1.1.7 is now the dominant coronavirus strain in Europe and the U.S. Scientists say there is still much to learn about the more contagious virus.

April 12, 2021, 5:35 PM CDT
By Denise Chow
People infected with the more contagious coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom did not experience more severe symptoms and were not at higher risk of death, according to a new study published Monday.

Scientists are struggling to pin down the nature of the U.K. variant, which has become the dominant strain across Europe and, as of last week, in the United States. Chief among the questions: Is the variant more deadly?

The study, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, looked at data from last fall in the U.K., shortly after the variant was first detected. It soon spread rapidly, eventually becoming the dominant strain circulating in the country.

The new findings add to scientists' ever-evolving understanding of the U.K. variant, known as B.1.1.7, at a crucial time in the pandemic, as it and other variants are circulating widely in other countries.

Researchers looked at Covid-19 patients who were admitted to University College London Hospital and North Middlesex University Hospital from Nov. 9 to Dec. 20. The scientists sequenced virus samples from 341 patients, finding that 58 percent were positive for the U.K. variant and that 42 percent had been infected with a different strain.

The researchers then compared the severity of symptoms between the two groups and found that patients infected with the B.1.1.7 variant were not at increased risk of becoming severely ill or dying. The study zeroed in on a time when the U.K. variant was just gaining a foothold in London — and as the U.K.'s vaccination program was getting underway.

"We were able to do this real-time analysis because we were in the eye of the storm," said a lead author of the study, Dan Frampton, a bioinformatician at University College London.

The study found that samples from patients with the B.1.1.7 variant had greater quantities of virus, or higher "viral loads," but it is not yet clear why.

"One idea for why this variant is more transmissible could be that patients are making more virus," Frampton said.

He said that while the researchers did not find an association between the U.K. variant and the severity of illness, patients hospitalized with the B.1.1.7 variant at the time were more likely to be under age 60 and from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Patients with B.1.1.7 were also more likely to be given oxygen. Frampton said that was not necessarily an indication of more severe disease and that more research is needed.

"There's clearly a lot of interesting stuff to look into," he said. "We're in a much better position now to start studying what appear to be small results and go into more detail to flesh the picture out more."

There has been no consensus about the strain's virulence and lethality or whether it causes more severe illness and death.

A paper published last month in the journal Nature found that the B.1.1.7 variant may be associated with a 61 percent higher risk of death than pre-existing variants. Earlier in March, research published in The BMJ found that people over age 30 had a 64 percent higher risk of death from the U.K. variant than from earlier strains. In that study, however, the scientists said the "absolute risk of death in this largely unvaccinated population remains low."

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, who was not involved with the new study, said the conflicting results show how much there is still to learn about the B.1.1.7 variant.

"The new findings don't nullify the other papers — they just make you think," he said. "Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. This study says there's no higher death rate, but they did find more need for oxygen, so there's something going on there with respect to this variant."

Although there have been some indications that the B.1.1.7 variant is affecting young people more than previous strains, there is not enough data to know for sure, Topol said. And it can be difficult to separate out other factors that may account for the trend.

"That's one of the tricky things about this variant epidemiology," he said. "There are a lot of moving parts — age, resources, co-existing conditions — and you can't always adjust for all of that stuff."

A variant that is more contagious is likely to mean there will be more cases among children and young people, who previously were not thought to be most vulnerable to Covid-19.

"It doesn't mean the virus is preferentially finding them. It just means we would expect to see more in younger people because, across the board, it causes higher viral loads and more spread," Topol said.

Another area that will require more research is the effect of the U.K. variant on immunity. A separate study published Monday in The Lancet Public Health examined self-reported data from nearly 37,000 people in the U.K. and found that reinfection rates were low. The findings were based on app-submitted surveillance data over 13 weeks from September to December, when the number of cases of the U.K. variant exploded in London and southeastern England.

The researchers found that only 249 out of 36,509 people of those who reported positive tests before Oct. 1, or 0.7 percent, tested positive again more than 90 days later. In other words, people who had been infected with a pre-existing variant were not at higher risk of being reinfected with the B.1.1.7 variant.

"This suggests that B.1.1.7 does not evade immunity that people develop from infection from prior strains of the disease," said a lead author of the paper, Mark Graham, a research fellow at King's College London.

Graham and his colleagues are monitoring for reinfections, particularly as bigger slices of the population in the U.K. and elsewhere become fully vaccinated. Studies have shown that the vaccines currently available offer strong protection against the U.K. variant, and Graham said long-term studies of immunity will offer more clarity about not only the B.1.1.7 strain but also other potentially worrisome variants that could arise.

"Vaccine rollout is going remarkably well in the U.K., and it's making a huge difference, but the one unknown factor that could derail this progress is new variants," he said. "Understanding how that could affect us will be hugely important."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...-finds-rcna658

homebucket Apr 14, 2021 6:26 PM
Most of the new variants are not more deadly, just more contagious. Now, it is possible that other new ones not fully studied yet could be more deadly but that is still unknown.

Why we're seeing younger people get infected proportionally more than older people now is because of vaccinations. I believe close to 75% of 65+ here have been vaccinated, and we know that one dose alone already achieves pretty optimal efficacy. Obviously two doses is better, but one dose is already enough to slow down the spread. Younger people who still aren't vaccinated are working, congregating, hanging out, doing what young people do, and for children, going back to school for in person learning, so that's why we're seeing more cases, proportionally to older people. Not more cases overall. Michigan is probably the exception.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 6:42 PM
^ Yep, and more infective variants tend to spread more through younger people, not older people.

The 'vaccine factor' in all of this is being ignored. When you have enough of a demographic vaccinated, it begins to impact the epidemiology of disease:

Quote:
Don't worry about coronavirus variants overpowering vaccines, experts say
Alexander Nazaryan
Alexander Nazaryan·National Correspondent
Mon, April 12, 2021, 3:12 PM·5 min read


Coronavirus

Paul Offit

WASHINGTON — Over the weekend, seemingly troubling news emerged from Israel, with a study suggesting that the coronavirus vaccine manufactured by Pfizer and BioNTech was less effective against B.1.351, a variant first encountered in South Africa. One headline called the study “alarming.”

Meanwhile, two of the New York Post’s most-read stories as of Monday morning were about a 31-year-old woman in New York City who tested positive for the coronavirus three weeks after receiving the vaccine and a 52-year-old man who ended up in the hospital with COVID-19, despite having also been vaccinated.

Together, such reports in the mainstream media of “breakthrough” infections of the vaccinated can foster the inaccurate narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective, especially against new strains of the coronavirus, some of which had not yet emerged when those vaccines were being developed.

“The mainstream media want to scare people,” Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a pioneer of vaccine science, told Yahoo News. That criticism appears to be bolstered by a recent paper by Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote and his colleagues, which found that 91 percent of media reporting in the U.S. is “negative in tone,” even when news about the pandemic is actually encouraging.

Offit believes that “we need a word different than ‘breakthrough’” because the image of broadly breached defenses is simply not an accurate one. “Those vaccines are doing what they need to do” by keeping people out of the hospital, he said.

“The breakthrough cases will become vanishingly small,” predicted Dr. Peter Jay Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor, especially as spread of the more transmissible B.1.1.7 variant — now dominant in the U.S. — is attenuated in the coming weeks.

“Until then, that’s why we recommend masks,” Hotez said, along with other non-pharmaceutical interventions, like social distancing.

For all the publicity its findings have engendered about breakthrough infections, the Israeli study makes clear that non-pharmaceutical measures like the ones Hotez and others have been advocating for months are effective, especially when combined with widespread vaccination. The study says vaccines are “the safest and most effective means of preventing the onwards spread” of the coronavirus — including of the South African and any other strain.

The Biden administration is desperate to ramp up vaccinations so the country can return to a semblance of normalcy come summer (the president has touted a close-to-ordinary Fourth of July holiday). But reports about breakthrough infections could lead people to conclude that vaccination is futile to begin with. Widespread vaccine hesitancy is far more likely to prolong the pandemic than a plague of breakthrough infections.

“We see this with all vaccines in clinical trials and in the real world,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top adviser on the pandemic to the Biden administration, said during a Monday briefing of the White House COVID-19 response team. “No vaccine is 100 percent efficacious or effective, which means that you will always see breakthrough infections, regardless of the efficacy of your vaccine.”

Breakthroughs have a “remarkably low incidence,” Dr. Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told Yahoo News in an email, “perhaps as low as 0.1 percent.” Echoing what Offit and others have argued, Topol said that despite the imagery the word “breakthrough” might evoke, such infections are “also remarkably benign, i.e., few are associated with pneumonia or serious illness.”

The vaccines being used in the United States are all about 90 percent effective at preventing infection; even more important, they are nearly 100 percent effective at stopping serious illness and death. But they are not perfect, and with more than 3 million people getting jabs across the United States per day, there are bound to be anomalies.

“A proportion of breakthrough infections are expected. Otherwise, vaccine trials would all have reported 100% efficacy,” wrote University College London geneticist Francois Balloux on Twitter, in a long thread criticizing “lurid and alarmist” studies, an obvious reference to the Israeli report, which has not yet been subject to peer review.

“Breakthrough infections are a trivial concern as long as they don’t lead to serious disease in the infected, and onward transmission of the virus remains limited,” Balloux added.

During the 2019-20 flu season, the flu vaccine was only 39 percent effective, but nevertheless managed to prevent 7.5 million cases of the flu, 6,300 of which, scientists estimate, would have resulted in death. The point was obvious: Even a vaccine much less effective than those now available for the coronavirus will stop a virus from spreading.

That is, if people get the vaccine. According to the data presented by Fauci, the flu vaccination rate for the relevant time period was 51.8 percent for all American adults and children older than 6 months. About 19.9 percent of Americans have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (some share of the population also has antibodies from having been sickened with COVID-19).

“Even if a vaccine fails to protect against infection, it often protects against serious disease,” Fauci added. The 31-year-old woman in the New York Post article, for example, apparently had only minor symptoms.

Fauci also criticized the Israeli study on the South African variant, calling it “about as confusing as you could possibly be” and criticizing the way its findings were reported. “There were essentially no deaths or hospitalizations in the individuals who were vaccinated,” he said at another point during the briefing, seeming to reference the Israeli study but not mentioning it explicitly.

The South African variant accounts for only 1 percent of all infections in Israel. In fact, the study’s authors urge “caution” against “over-interperting” their results, noting that, at least as far as Israel has been concerned, “selection does not strongly favour the B.1.351 variant.”

The much more common variant was B.1.1.7, sometimes also known as the British variant. It is also now the dominant strain in the United States. Vaccines are highly effective against it.
https://news.yahoo.com/dont-worry-ab...abbT4WP0RuOmJJ

iheartthed Apr 14, 2021 6:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9248885)
Most of the new variants are not more deadly, just more contagious. Now, it is possible that other new ones not fully studied yet could be more deadly but that is still unknown.

Why we're seeing younger people get infected proportionally more than older people now is because of vaccinations. I believe close to 75% of 65+ here have been vaccinated, and we know that one dose alone already achieves pretty optimal efficacy. Obviously two doses is better, but one dose is already enough to slow down the spread. Younger people who still aren't vaccinated are working, congregating, hanging out, doing what young people do, and for children, going back to school for in person learning, so that's why we're seeing more cases, proportionally to older people. Not more cases overall. Michigan is probably the exception.
It was pointed out above that the infections are skewing younger in other parts of the world too, in places with lower vaccination rates. So, behavior is probably the overriding factor.

I also don't think we fully understand why infections in the early pandemic skewed older. That could've also been driven by situation, since nursing homes seem to be very effective super spreader situations. And healthy elderly people were probably visiting nursing homes often to see other elderly people, and then they'd probably go socialize with other large groups of healthy elderly. OTOH, places where young people congregate were shutdown pretty early (schools, dormitories, offices, bars, restaurants, etc).

Yes, the above is a lot of speculation, but a lot of the recent talk in this thread is operating under an assumption that everyone has been equally exposed to the virus, and I don't think there's enough evidence to say that with certainty.

sopas ej Apr 14, 2021 8:31 PM
I didn't even think of this, but it's an interesting correlation; bad air quality contributes to bad health and hence underlying health conditions...



From stateofreform.com:

COVID-19 Mortality Rates in Los Angeles County Higher in Communities with Poor Air Quality

UCLA Fielding School of Public Health | Apr 14, 2021

A research project led by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health has found that Los Angeles County neighborhoods with poor air quality had the highest death rates from the pandemic.

“Our findings imply a potentially large association between exposure to air pollution and population-level rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths,” said Dr. Michael Jerrett, Fielding School professor of environmental health sciences and the project’s leader. “These findings are especially important for targeting interventions aimed at limiting the impact of COVID-19 in polluted communities.”

The research – “Spatial Analysis of COVID-19 and Traffic-related Air Pollution in Los Angeles” – is being published in the upcoming August, 2021 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environment International, and is now available on-line. One example of the findings: Los Angeles County neighborhoods with the worst air quality saw a 60% increase in COVID-19 fatalities, compared with communities with the best air quality.

“In the U.S., more polluted communities often have lower incomes and higher proportions of Black and Latinx people. In addition, Black and Latinx people have higher rates of pre-existing conditions, potentially further exacerbating the risk of COVID-19 transmission and death,” said co-author Jonah M. Lipsitt, a PhD candidate and researcher with the Fielding School’s UCLA Center for Healthy Climate Solutions. “The elevated risk of case incidence and mortality observed in these populations may result, in part, from higher exposure to air pollution.”

The research team, from UCLA’s Fielding School (FSPH), the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, Merced, analyzed the relationship of air pollution and COVID-19 case incidence, mortality, and case-fatality rates in neighborhoods of Los Angeles County. They focused on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) because the pollutant serves as a marker for traffic-related air pollution, or TRAP, generally.

“We know that TRAP is associated with many respiratory morbidities, including asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and respiratory tract infections, as well as hospitalizations, mortality, and an increased risk of respiratory viral infection,” said Dr. Yifang Zhu, FSPH professor of environmental health sciences and senior associate dean for academic programs. “Nitrogen dioxide, for example, has been found to impair the function of alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells, thereby increasing the risk of lung infections.”

The work reaches down to the city- and neighborhood-level in Los Angeles County, home to more than 10 million people, a population larger than 40 U.S. states.

“Los Angeles is one of the only metropolitan cities globally to publicly report neighborhood-level COVID-19 cases and mortality,” said co-author Dr. Alec M. Chan-Golston, an assistant professor at UC Merced. “These data gave us the opportunity to study a large population, but at a “neighborhood-level, which allows for more accurate pollution exposure estimates.”

The researchers have benefitted from exhaustive records related to the pandemic made public by the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH). The local focus, however, does not mean the findings are of interest only to Angelenos, Lipsett said.

“Los Angeles is a global epicenter for the pandemic with more than 1.1 million cases to date, but our key conclusion?” he said. “Long-term air pollution exposure, anywhere, is likely to increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and death.”

Methods: Researchers used data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) and the American Community Survey (ACS), produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. This data was compared with statewide air quality data from 2016.

The original study period captured approximately the first six months of the pandemic (March 16th to September 8th, 2020); it was expanded to the subsequent six months (September 8th, 2020 to February 23rd, 2021). This replicated analysis for the subsequent 6-month period had nearly four times the incident cases (875,368 cases) as the first period (230,621 cases).

In comparing the two time periods, before and after September 8th, 2020, researchers found that the results were largely consistent, despite very different case numbers, testing regimes, and improvements in classifying deaths. While some differences exist in the size of the effects, overall the conclusions remain the same.

This press release was provided by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

Link: https://stateofreform.com/featured/2...r-air-quality/

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248913)
Don't worry about coronavirus variants overpowering vaccines, experts say

Quote:
Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2 mRNA [Pfizer] vaccinated individuals
Talia Kustin, Noam Harel, Uriah Finkel, Shay Perchik, Sheri Harari, Maayan Tahor, Itamar Caspi, Rachel Levy, Michael Leschinsky, Shifra Ken Dror, Galit Bergerzon, Hala Gadban, Faten Gadban, Eti Eliassian, Orit Shimron, Loulou Saleh, Haim Ben-Zvi, Doron Amichay, Anat Ben-Dor, Dana Sagas, Merav Strauss, Yonat Shemer Avni, Amit Huppert, Eldad Kepten, Ran D. Balicer, Doron Nezer, Shay Ben-Shachar, View ORCID ProfileAdi Stern
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.06.21254882

Summary

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been raging for over a year, creating global detrimental impact. The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine has demonstrated high protection levels, yet apprehension exists that several variants of concerns (VOCs) can surmount the immune defenses generated by the vaccines. Neutralization assays have revealed some reduction in neutralization of VOCs B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, but the relevance of these assays in real life remains unclear. Here, we performed a case-control study that examined whether BNT162b2 vaccinees with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinees infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351 (South African--odds ratio of 8:1). Those infected between two weeks after the first dose and one week after the second dose, were disproportionally infected by B.1.1.7 (UK--odds ratio of 26:10), suggesting reduced vaccine effectiveness against both VOCs under different dosage/timing conditions. Nevertheless, the B.1.351 incidence in Israel to-date remains low and vaccine effectiveness remains high against B.1.1.7, among those fully vaccinated. These results overall suggest that vaccine breakthrough infection is more frequent with both VOCs, yet a combination of mass-vaccination with two doses coupled with non-pharmaceutical interventions control and contain their spread.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....06.21254882v1

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9248885)
Most of the new variants are not more deadly, just more contagious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248913)
^ Yep, and more infective variants tend to spread more through younger people, not older people.

The 'vaccine factor' in all of this is being ignored. When you have enough of a demographic vaccinated, it begins to impact the epidemiology of disease:
That is not known for certain. It is largely speculation and there is considerable evidence otherwise. Those who assume it to be true are taking a risk. And I would urge anyone making such a statement here to provide an authoritative reference. Otherwise, it's just a personal opinion/belief and must be taken as such.

Work is ongoing. But I'm willing to bet that when all is said and done what we find is that while the vaccines are still highly effective against currently existing strains of virus, there is SOME effectiveness differential with the maximum effectiveness against the original strain of virus used to produce the vaccines and probably the lowest level of effectiveness (but still quite good) against the South African and Brazilian strains. Nevertheless, as mutations continue because in parts of the world high levels of viral reproduction continue, it seems quite serious risk that eventually strains will emerge against which the current vaccines offer inadequate (if not zero) protection. This isn't a bizarre belief. It's a common way that viruses work and it's why the major vaccine makers are prepared to make newer vaccines against newer strains when and if necessary.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9249242)
That is not known for certain. It is largely speculation and there is considerable evidence otherwise. Those who assume it to be true are taking a risk. And I would urge anyone making such a statement here to provide an authoritative reference. Otherwise, it's just a personal opinion/belief and must be taken as such.
:rolleyes::koko:

You are seriously going nuts. Buy yourself an airtight bubble already and live in it, man.....

Meanwhile, for the rest of the sane world, "We don't know for sure" doesn't equate to "We're all doomed!!!" It instead equates to "We don't know for sure. Don't panic, live your life with care and get your vaccine as recommended"

By the way, you obviously read NOBODY'S posts, Pedestrian, because that exact Israeli study that you posted was already critiqued in the article I posted above. Even Fauci, who is pretty much the most cautious of them all, was pretty harshly critical and dismissive of it.

Quote:
“Even if a vaccine fails to protect against infection, it often protects against serious disease,” Fauci added. The 31-year-old woman in the New York Post article, for example, apparently had only minor symptoms.

Fauci also criticized the Israeli study on the South African variant, calling it “about as confusing as you could possibly be” and criticizing the way its findings were reported. “There were essentially no deaths or hospitalizations in the individuals who were vaccinated,” he said at another point during the briefing, seeming to reference the Israeli study but not mentioning it explicitly.

homebucket Apr 14, 2021 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9249242)
That is not known for certain. It is largely speculation and there is considerable evidence otherwise. Those who assume it to be true are taking a risk. And I would urge anyone making such a statement here to provide an authoritative reference. Otherwise, it's just a personal opinion/belief and must be taken as such.

Work is ongoing. But I'm willing to bet that when all is said and done what we find is that while the vaccines are still highly effective against currently existing strains of virus, there is SOME effectiveness differential with the maximum effectiveness against the original strain of virus used to produce the vaccines and probably the lowest level of effectiveness (but still quite good) against the South African and Brazilian strains. Nevertheless, as mutations continue because in parts of the world high levels of viral reproduction continue, it seems quite serious risk that eventually strains will emerge against which the current vaccines offer inadequate (if not zero) protection.
We already know that the UK strain is not more deadly. The South African one does have a higher chance of breaking through the current set of vaccines but is not associated with severe infection requiring hospitalization. So while you can get infected despite being fully vaccinated, the risk of a poor outcome is very low.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9249245)
:rolleyes::koko:

You are seriously going nuts.
And you are on the edge of being nothing but insulting and offering no information.

I pretty much said exactly what Fauci is quoted as saying--"Even if a vaccine fails to protect against infection, it often protects against serious disease"--but this virus isn't finished mutating and vaccine effectiveness isn't "either/or". Vaccines can be a bit more or a bit less effective and there can be a progression as I think we are seeing--a progression toward less effectiveness that so far can be dismissed, as Fauci and all the others quoted in your post are want to do, but eventually may not.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9249251)
We already know that the UK strain is not more deadly.
I'm not sure we know that. One day the "experts" tell us that, the next day one or the other of them says something different. Right now it's reasonable to believe that its deadliness isn't enough different to matter.

Quote:
The South African one does have a higher chance of breaking through the current set of vaccines but is not associated with severe infection requiring hospitalization. So while you can get infected despite being fully vaccinated, the risk of a poor outcome is very low.
The South African strain is not yet dominant enough most places to know for sure what you are saying and again, if you're going to make that kind of statement provide some references.

homebucket Apr 14, 2021 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9249257)
I'm not sure we know that. One day the "experts" tell us that, the next day one or the other of them says something different. Right now it's reasonable to believe that its deadliness isn't enough different to matter.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...ath-study-find

Quote:
The South African strain is not yet dominant enough most places to know for sure what you are saying and again, if you're going to make that kind of statement provide some references.
You posted it yourself in post #5364.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9249265)
You posted it yourself in post #5364.
That didn't say the South African strain wasn't "associated with severe infection requiring hospitalization". It says it can be contained with "a combination of mass-vaccination with two doses coupled with non-pharmaceutical interventions." Trouble is, they are talking about preventing infection, not what happens if you get infected. They aren't addressing how severe the illness is.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 11:12 PM
Pedestrian, you are contradicting yourself and simply spouting your own fears.

I've heard your comments on this matter. You haven't left your home in over a year, won't go anywhere, won't ride in an Uber, refuse to ever use transit again... That's pretty much enough for me to see where you're coming from.

That level of fear may be enough for you, but don't expect the rest of the world to live with so much trepidation.

Yes, a mutant can eventually emerge that will finally overcome the vaccines that exist right now, but I and the rest of the world are not going to go about our lives constantly in fear of dying like you are. You sound like Howard Hughes did later in life.....

10023 Apr 14, 2021 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK (Post 9248675)
Everybody is at risk for PASC though, as well as 1/3 of covid patients will have neuropsychiatric conditions. If people don't feel they are at risk, they should volunteer at hospitals and participate in forced injections (of covid) for scientific research. Then if possible, mass produce vaccines from these special humans.
This is also not really true.

10023 Apr 14, 2021 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248785)
When you stop pretending you are invulnerable and governments should let people like you do as you wish no matter whom it puts at risk.

What I posted just above doesn't compare Brazil to other countries so it's relatively young population is irrelevant. It compares what's happening now with the new virus variant with what happened previously in Brazil. And Brazil hasn't vaccinated enough residents old or young to explain the difference either. It's Brazilian scientists who are saying they believe the new variant is more dangerous to younger people but you and the rest of the COVID fatigue brigade seem in denial as much as ever.
You are flirting with a form of psychosis about this. Let it go.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9249284)
You are flirting with a form of psychosis about this. Let it go.
Are you finally going to present your credentials for making diagnoses? What you seem to be saying is "disagreeing with ME is psychotic". Your name should be Narcissus.

For the record, when I think you are wrong I will continue to say so like any participant here has a right to do. If you want the subject dropped, stop making incorrect, unsupported statements.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 11:44 PM
This is what Homebucket said:

Quote:
Most of the new variants are not more deadly, just more contagious.
Then this is how Pedestrian responded:

Quote:
That is not known for certain. It is largely speculation and there is considerable evidence otherwise. Those who assume it to be true are taking a risk.
Then Pedestrian takes us in a bizarre direction with this even more confusing statement:

Quote:
I pretty much said exactly what Fauci is quoted as saying--"Even if a vaccine fails to protect against infection, it often protects against serious disease"--but this virus isn't finished mutating and vaccine effectiveness isn't "either/or". Vaccines can be a bit more or a bit less effective and there can be a progression as I think we are seeing--a progression toward less effectiveness that so far can be dismissed, as Fauci and all the others quoted in your post are want to do, but eventually may not.
:shrug:

I guess we should be afraid because um...well....you never know...something bad might happen....because even though I don't see any signs of it yet it might just well come down the road....just wait for it because...well...something in my gut just kinda sorta makes me worried and I just KNOW it's coming any day now.......

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 12:00 AM
I have a question for the "COVID is mutating and the vaccine may eventually stop working" porn crowd:

What happens when a new vaccine for the mutant strain is created?

Then we get that shot.

Then the mutant strain mutates further so that the new shot is no longer effective?

Then we will get a new shot for the new strains...

Then that shot is no longer effective because COVID has mutated even further..

But then there's another new shot...

And another set of new mutations....

And another new shot....

All the while ALL of NYC's restaurants, gyms, and bars are long closed & the roofs collapsed..
All of the hotels everywhere are abandoned
We all are connected via wires from our scalps to our laptops and order everything on Amazon while watching CNN updates on COVID infection rates 24/7
And Pedestrian now has long hair, a long beard, looks like Gandalf, and slurps all of his meals through a sterile straw

But we will STILL BE SAFE!!!!!! :haha:

10023 Apr 15, 2021 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9249289)
Are you finally going to present your credentials for making diagnoses? What you seem to be saying is "disagreeing with ME is psychotic". Your name should be Narcissus.

For the record, when I think you are wrong I will continue to say so like any participant here has a right to do. If you want the subject dropped, stop making incorrect, unsupported statements.
Except it’s not me making incorrect, unsupported statements. It’s me and like a dozen other forumers making statements which are supported by a year’s worth of clinical and statistical data, and then you and one or two other hypochondriacs saying that the sky is falling and young, healthy people need to act like we are still in lockdown or we’ll all die.

jtown,man Apr 15, 2021 1:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9249316)
I have a question for the "COVID is mutating and the vaccine may eventually stop working" porn crowd:

What happens when a new vaccine for the mutant strain is created?

Then we get that shot.

Then the mutant strain mutates further so that the new shot is no longer effective?

Then we will get a new shot for the new strains...

Then that shot is no longer effective because COVID has mutated even further..

But then there's another new shot...

And another set of new mutations....

And another new shot....

All the while ALL of NYC's restaurants, gyms, and bars are long closed & the roofs collapsed..
All of the hotels everywhere are abandoned
We all are connected via wires from our scalps to our laptops and order everything on Amazon while watching CNN updates on COVID infection rates 24/7
And Pedestrian now has long hair, a long beard, looks like Gandalf, and slurps all of his meals through a sterile straw

But we will STILL BE SAFE!!!!!! :haha:
LOL Exactly.


I have already spent 13 months of my life living like this, I am done.

What if I die at 50? I would have spent 2% of my life inside.



At what point do you fearmongers just say "alright, this is a virus, we have to move on with our lives before we don't have the same life to move back to?" 2 more months? 6? 1 year? Never?

If you think normal people are gonna continue to put their lives on hold because of your fear, sorry, not going to happen.

woodrow Apr 15, 2021 2:30 PM
Does anyone personally know anyone with vaccine hesitancy? I might have a cousin or two I haven't talked to in years, but I don't have a single close family member, friend, dentist, hair dresser, barista, etc. who either hasn't gotten the shot or is anxiously waiting to get one. I am curious if anyone has friends, family, colleagues, etc. who are not planning on getting a shot and if so are you going to encourage them to change their? More vaccinations, less variants.

pip Apr 15, 2021 2:43 PM
^none for me. Everyone I know either has had one or really wants one like now or are lazy about it so far but plans on getting one.

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 2:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249814)
Does anyone personally know anyone with vaccine hesitancy? I might have a cousin or two I haven't talked to in years, but I don't have a single close family member, friend, dentist, hair dresser, barista, etc. who either hasn't gotten the shot or is anxiously waiting to get one. I am curious if anyone has friends, family, colleagues, etc. who are not planning on getting a shot and if so are you going to encourage them to change their? More vaccinations, less variants.
Yes. I talk to them every day. But I’m in a unique position being a healthcare professional and interacting with people face to face of varying backgrounds every day (I don’t WFH and associate with the same 5 people daily, which if you ask me only amplifies the irrational fear and ignorance out there)

Meeting people. Different people. Strangers. Every day. Who’d a thought that doing such a thing would be such a rare privilege? It’s become one now, and I feel blessed.

Anyhow, I regularly meet people who are scared of the vaccine, even though I strongly urge them to get it. Fear is a very powerful thing, it overrides pretty much every other sensibility—rational or not—that we have. Look at Pedestrian

SteveD Apr 15, 2021 2:47 PM
I'm very pro-science, pro-vaccine, but I canceled my 2nd Moderna shot. I'm still within the 42 day window, which ends one week from today.

I had decades of mild, manageable tinnitus. About 5 days after my first Moderna shot, it got suddenly and dramatically worse, and it remains that way today. The prospect of it getting even worse with a second shot was untenable to me.

There are increasing numbers of people reporting this same condition. I'm on a FB COVID vaccine tinnitus group started just a couple weeks ago that now has over 1,000 members. So far, it's not getting much attention or generating much news.

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 2:55 PM
^ I’m sorry to hear that. Nothing unreasonable about what you’re doing.

I have never had a patient experience what you are experiencing, though

SteveD Apr 15, 2021 3:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9249862)
^ I’m sorry to hear that. Nothing unreasonable about what you’re doing.

I have never had a patient experience what you are experiencing, though
That doesn't surprise me. My Doc said he hadn't heard about it and recommended that I proceed with the second shot. Based on my perception of the tone of his response, I ignored him. It came across as dismissive to me. This was a message exchange between the two of us on the practice's patient portal.

woodrow Apr 15, 2021 3:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9249838)
Yes. I talk to them every day. But I’m in a unique position being a healthcare professional and interacting with people face to face of varying backgrounds every day (I don’t WFH and associate with the same 5 people daily, which if you ask me only amplifies the irrational fear and ignorance out there)

Meeting people. Different people. Strangers. Every day. Who’d a thought that doing such a thing would be such a rare privilege? It’s become one now, and I feel blessed.

Anyhow, I regularly meet people who are scared of the vaccine, even though I strongly urge them to get it. Fear is a very powerful thing, it overrides pretty much every other sensibility—rational or not—that we have. Look at Pedestrian
What angle do you take with your patients? I mean, I haven't run into ANYONE who is against it. But I am bound to, and maybe (probably) even someone I know. I think I have all the facts at hand, but am curious if you might have good talking points, medical or otherwise.

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 3:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249895)
What angle do you take with your patients? I mean, I haven't run into ANYONE who is against it. But I am bound to, and maybe (probably) even someone I know. I think I have all the facts at hand, but am curious if you might have good talking points, medical or otherwise.
I tell them that it is very important to get vaccinated, that the risk of anything bad happening is close to zero, that it will help us end the pandemic, and that the shot is basically free immunity.

It sways some people but not many of them.

Fear is the most stubborn emotion out there. Trust me.

That is why, this far into the pandemic and knowing what we know, we still can’t get our lives back to normal. Its the fear

10023 Apr 15, 2021 3:20 PM
I have met more young people that are at least skeptical (if not afraid) of the vaccine than young people who are scared of Covid. And that’s probably justified. Covid is very rarely a problem for young, healthy people but mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology and no long-term studies of their effects exist.

Most people I know are just getting the vaccine out of worry that it will be a prerequisite to do the things they want to do. I’m only getting it so that I can travel freely in Europe.

SteveD Apr 15, 2021 3:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9249916)
I have met more young people that are at least skeptical (if not afraid) of the vaccine than young people who are scared of Covid. And that’s probably justified. Covid is very rarely a problem for young, healthy people but mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology and no long-term studies of their effects exist.

Most people I know are just getting the vaccine out of worry that it will be a prerequisite to do the things they want to do. I’m only getting it so that I can travel freely in Europe.
I'm very worried about that. I wonder how many people there are going to be such as myself who get the first shot but not the second one (for vaccines that have a two dose regimen). I have to travel for work.

iheartthed Apr 15, 2021 3:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249814)
Does anyone personally know anyone with vaccine hesitancy? I might have a cousin or two I haven't talked to in years, but I don't have a single close family member, friend, dentist, hair dresser, barista, etc. who either hasn't gotten the shot or is anxiously waiting to get one. I am curious if anyone has friends, family, colleagues, etc. who are not planning on getting a shot and if so are you going to encourage them to change their? More vaccinations, less variants.
There doesn't seem to be much trouble convincing people of any age in NY to get it. That might be because so many of us know people who got very ill from it last year. From social media posts, it seems like there is much more skepticism of the vaccine in Michigan. Of my network there, it looks like about half were eager to rush and get vaccinated when eligible, and half were either apathetic or outright skeptical.

SIGSEGV Apr 15, 2021 3:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249814)
Does anyone personally know anyone with vaccine hesitancy? I might have a cousin or two I haven't talked to in years, but I don't have a single close family member, friend, dentist, hair dresser, barista, etc. who either hasn't gotten the shot or is anxiously waiting to get one. I am curious if anyone has friends, family, colleagues, etc. who are not planning on getting a shot and if so are you going to encourage them to change their? More vaccinations, less variants.
yes, my sister-in-law's husband and his family. I think they finally stopped believing that it's a secret Bill Gates microchip, but they still don't want it.

woodrow Apr 15, 2021 3:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9249916)
I have met more young people that are at least skeptical (if not afraid) of the vaccine than young people who are scared of Covid. And that’s probably justified. Covid is very rarely a problem for young, healthy people but mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology and no long-term studies of their effects exist.
I get that, but as a 56 year old I have more concerns (not fear) about Covid than about new pharma technology. But then mRNA has been in development for over a decade. To those concerned about it being new, so was the smallpox vaccine, the measles vaccine, and of course, the Polio vaccine. Got to start somewhere.

JManc Apr 15, 2021 3:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9249916)
I have met more young people that are at least skeptical (if not afraid) of the vaccine than young people who are scared of Covid. And that’s probably justified. Covid is very rarely a problem for young, healthy people but mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology and no long-term studies of their effects exist.

Most people I know are just getting the vaccine out of worry that it will be a prerequisite to do the things they want to do. I’m only getting it so that I can travel freely in Europe.
I think that is a pretty common sentiment among younger people in general. I never bothered with a flu shot until I was 45 because I always thought my odds of getting really sick were low while the shot itself could give me flu like symptoms.

woodrow Apr 15, 2021 4:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9249940)
I think that is a pretty common sentiment among younger people in general. I never bothered with a flu shot until I was 45 because I always thought my odds of getting really sick were low while the shot itself could give me flu like symptoms.
Same on flu shot, waited until I was 50. Even then, it was partially because my mom and my husband (and my doctor) kept haranguing me about it. And I considered how my getting the shot might keep another person from getting the flu. No hesitation with Shingrix; I had a friend who had terrible shingles so I was happy to get that shot. Side effects sucked. I am expecting my second Moderna is going to have bad side effects.

I just want more people to get the vaccine so we can open up more.

iheartthed Apr 15, 2021 4:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9249940)
I think that is a pretty common sentiment among younger people in general. I never bothered with a flu shot until I was 45 because I always thought my odds of getting really sick were low while the shot itself could give me flu like symptoms.
I got flu shots just about every year in middle and high school, but only because my parents were required to be vaccinated for work. I haven't gotten a flu shot since college, but I got the flu a couple of years ago and it was no fun at all. If it were more convenient to get the shot, I would do it every year without question.

homebucket Apr 15, 2021 4:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 9249930)
yes, my sister-in-law's husband and his family. I think they finally stopped believing that it's a secret Bill Gates microchip, but they still don't want it.
Might be a dumb question but since you’re a physicist by trade, is it even theoretically possible to implant a chip into someone via a vehicle like a clear, colorless solution injected intramuscularly? I know things like valves and sensors can be implanted through major arteries and veins but you can actually see those with your naked eye.

sopas ej Apr 15, 2021 4:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9250028)
I got flu shots just about every year in middle and high school, but only because my parents were required to be vaccinated for work. I haven't gotten a flu shot since college, but I got the flu a couple of years ago and it was no fun at all. If it were more convenient to get the shot, I would do it every year without question.
I've been getting flu shots every year since I was 40, because it *is* convenient, at least for me---that was the age I started working for my current employer, who offered free flu shots via Rite Aid; a nurse and pharmacist would show up to my work, and anyone who wanted a flu shot could get one. But then 3 years ago, our stupid CEO/owner didn't want to sign the waiver that said Rite Aid wouldn't be responsible for anyone who might have a bad reaction from the flu shot, so those free flu shot clinics in the break room stopped. But I still go to Rite Aid to get my free flu shot (they accept my health insurance); you don't even need to make an appointment. I could also make an appointment at my doctor's office, but I find that to be more of a hassle.

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 5:09 PM
Frequent vaccination secures a robust immune system, and it is even believed that vaccination confers protection against viruses OTHER than what the vaccine is for, by way of stimulating the T Cell system.

I view vaccination as training. If you want to win, you gotta train your soldiers

10023 Apr 15, 2021 6:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249936)
I get that, but as a 56 year old I have more concerns (not fear) about Covid than about new pharma technology. But then mRNA has been in development for over a decade. To those concerned about it being new, so was the smallpox vaccine, the measles vaccine, and of course, the Polio vaccine. Got to start somewhere.
Right, but you are not a young person and so the calculus is obviously different.

And mRNA is new in a different way. It’s essentially a gene editing technology. Most of those earlier vaccines were a fairly tried and tested approach using attenuated virus. And many of those diseases, like smallpox or polio, are far more dangerous than Covid for the general population.

Really we should be strongly encouraging anyone over 50 to be vaccinated, leaving it up to personal preference (but free and widely available) for younger people, and not conferring any special privileges on the vaccinated. In other words treat it just like influenza, but with the government paying and a stronger PR effort.

the urban politician Apr 15, 2021 6:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9250181)
Right, but you are not a young person and so the calculus is obviously different.

And mRNA is new in a different way. It’s essentially a gene editing technology. Most of those earlier vaccines were a fairly tried and tested approach using attenuated virus. And many of those diseases, like smallpox or polio, are far more dangerous than Covid for the general population.

Really we should be strongly encouraging anyone over 50 to be vaccinated, leaving it up to personal preference (but free and widely available) for younger people, and not conferring any special privileges on the vaccinated. In other words treat it just like influenza, but with the government paying and a stronger PR effort.
56 is old? Holy shit!

And I disagree that we should be targeting any age group for vaccination. All adults should be encouraged to get the shots. I’m not as irrationally freaked about variants as some others are, but we DO have to acknowledge that as long as the viral load is high in the public, the virus will gradually evolve into resistant strains. Keeping viral levels low within the population is the best way to dramatically slow that process down.

muertecaza Apr 15, 2021 6:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 9249814)
Does anyone personally know anyone with vaccine hesitancy? I might have a cousin or two I haven't talked to in years, but I don't have a single close family member, friend, dentist, hair dresser, barista, etc. who either hasn't gotten the shot or is anxiously waiting to get one. I am curious if anyone has friends, family, colleagues, etc. who are not planning on getting a shot and if so are you going to encourage them to change their? More vaccinations, less variants.
My mother-in-law is beyond hesitant. She's the type that sends me Sherri Tenpenny videos she found on Facebook. It has been quite discouraging. We've been able to have someone frank conversations with her about vaccines, but the conversations end up being a constant moving of the goalposts--it's either that they are too new and untested, or they cause cancer, or they will damage our immune systems, or the virus isn't even a big deal, etc. etc. I'm not going to be able to change her mind. And honestly at this point I'm less worried about her getting COVID than I am about what it says about her worldview in general when she's buying what people like the Tenpenny lady are selling.

Pedestrian Apr 15, 2021 6:55 PM
At last some concrete data:

Quote:
CDC Identifies Small Group of Covid-19 Infections Among Fully Vaccinated Patients
By Robbie Whelan
April 15, 2021 8:37 am ET

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a small cohort of approximately 5,800 cases of Covid-19 infection among more than 66 million Americans who have completed a full course of vaccination.

These so-called breakthrough cases, which are defined as positive Covid-19 test results received at least two weeks after patients receive their final vaccine dose, represent 0.008% of the fully vaccinated population.

Officials said such cases are in line with expectations because the approved vaccines in the U.S. are highly effective but not 100% foolproof. They are a reminder that even vaccinated people are at risk and should continue to take precautions such as masking and social distancing in many circumstances . . . .

The Wall Street Journal contacted health departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to ask how many breakthrough cases had been identified. Twenty-three states responded, reporting a total of 4,172 breakthrough cases.

One area of focus for the CDC is conducting genomic sequencing on respiratory samples from patients with breakthrough cases, so that the agency can track genetic variants of the coronavirus for clues as to how they interact with the vaccines. Public-health officials are studying whether certain mutations of the coronavirus are more resistant to vaccine-based immunity.

The CDC has established a database to record details of each breakthrough case, including patient demographics, geographic location, time since vaccination, vaccine type and virus lineage . . . .

Of the breakthrough cases identified by the CDC, more than 40% occurred in people older than 60, while 65% of the cases were in female patients, according to Tom Clark, leader of the vaccine evaluation team at the federal agency. The CDC found that 29% of breakthrough infections were asymptomatic and 7% of patients experiencing a breakthrough infection were hospitalized. So far, 74 people have died after experiencing breakthrough infections. The agency is expected to publish some of these findings next week . . . .

Currently there are five variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in the U.S., several of which scientists believe to be more easily transmissible among humans than the originally identified version of the virus. Public-health officials believe that studying breakthrough cases will help them better understand how variants work . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-ide...d=hp_lead_pos7

A few comments:

- The overall number and percentage of breakthrough cases isn't surprising and, in fact, is reassuring. Even more reassuring to me is that the CDC seems to be on top of genomic sequencing of breakthrough cases to determine whether they are viruses against which the vaccines are effective most of the time or possibly new mutant strains against which the vaccine my have significant lesser effectiveness. So far, that hasn't been the case.

- What is a bit surprising to me although maybe it shouldn't be is that 74 breakthrough cases have died. Recall that in phase 3 testing with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, there were NO deaths among vaccinated individuals.

- Finally, 40% of the breakthrough cases were in people older than 60 whereas (by subtraction) 60% were younger than 60. Given the preponderance of older people among those so far vaccinated, this is a bit surprising. One possibility is that it's because the younger people who were vaccinated early were largely at higher than typical risk--health care workers and so on. In any case, this would seem to confirm that the vaccine works at least as well in older people as in younger in spite of their supposedly weaker immune systems.

Pedestrian Apr 15, 2021 6:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD (Post 9249922)
I'm very worried about that. I wonder how many people there are going to be such as myself who get the first shot but not the second one (for vaccines that have a two dose regimen). I have to travel for work.
Why aren't you getting the second shot?

There are studies that show that DELAYING the second shot beyond the 3 or 4 weeks used in the trials is not only not a bad thing, the vaccine may be MORE effective if you do that. It's part of the justification used in the UK and some other places for intentionally trying to maximize first doses while intentional delaying second doses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD (Post 9249853)
I'm very pro-science, pro-vaccine, but I canceled my 2nd Moderna shot. I'm still within the 42 day window, which ends one week from today.

I had decades of mild, manageable tinnitus. About 5 days after my first Moderna shot, it got suddenly and dramatically worse, and it remains that way today. The prospect of it getting even worse with a second shot was untenable to me.

There are increasing numbers of people reporting this same condition. I'm on a FB COVID vaccine tinnitus group started just a couple weeks ago that now has over 1,000 members. So far, it's not getting much attention or generating much news.
Ah. Well the good news is that even one dose offers considerable protection.

Pedestrian Apr 15, 2021 7:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9249916)
I have met more young people that are at least skeptical (if not afraid) of the vaccine than young people who are scared of Covid. And that’s probably justified. Covid is very rarely a problem for young, healthy people but mRNA vaccines are a brand new technology and no long-term studies of their effects exist.

Most people I know are just getting the vaccine out of worry that it will be a prerequisite to do the things they want to do. I’m only getting it so that I can travel freely in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9250181)

And mRNA is new in a different way. It’s essentially a gene editing technology. Most of those earlier vaccines were a fairly tried and tested approach using attenuated virus. And many of those diseases, like smallpox or polio, are far more dangerous than Covid for the general population.

Really we should be strongly encouraging anyone over 50 to be vaccinated, leaving it up to personal preference (but free and widely available) for younger people, and not conferring any special privileges on the vaccinated. In other words treat it just like influenza, but with the government paying and a stronger PR effort.
The mRNA vaccines are likely among the safest possible vaccines and even though there's not long-term testing (nor will such necessarily be generally applicable even when we have relatively long term experience with the coronavirus mRNA vaccines), it's hard to come up with a theory on how they could do harm which is in contrast to traditional vaccines and other techniques. mRNA, unlike other forms of RNA, does not get incorporated into the human genome and its existence within the body is transitory. It is soon destroyed by the body. It is emphatically NOT a gene editing technology.

Quote:
Over the past decade, major technological innovation and research investment have enabled mRNA to become a promising therapeutic tool in the fields of vaccine development and protein replacement therapy. The use of mRNA has several beneficial features over subunit, killed and live attenuated virus, as well as DNA-based vaccines. First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods. The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile. Second, efficacy: various modifications make mRNA more stable and highly translatable. Efficient in vivo delivery can be achieved by formulating mRNA into carrier molecules, allowing rapid uptake and expression in the cytoplasm. mRNA is the minimal genetic vector; therefore, anti-vector immunity is avoided, and mRNA vaccines can be administered repeatedly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Finally, you are also incorrect in saying that this technology is "brand new". In fact, there has been a lot of research with it and numerous prototype vaccines previously created. As the CDC put it:

Quote:
Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines.

mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus (CMV).
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ines/mrna.html

This idea that mRNA vaccine technology is entirely new and untried is a media fiction you have bought hook, line and sinker. You don't even know how it works.

For a MUCH more thorough discussion of the research and past vaccines, see https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:54 PM.
Viewing Page 108 of 200
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.