Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

“all over” = pandemic stage. It’s projected to change from a pandemic to endemic by most scientists. As in with herd immunity through (hopefully mostly) vaccine and (hopefully less so getting it directly) illness we hit a point that we have some base immunity to covid-19 that getting sick with its variants will not have the same effect and the amount who get sick in general will drastically reduce. It will become manageable, basically, largely through mass vaccination to give covid less of a breeding ground to evolve. 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n494

Fair enough.  I don't necessarily have any reason to doubt what you say, provided that various powers-that-be agree with us. ;)

Link to post
18 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Fascinating. 
 

 

I am very dubious about this. That is not how filters usually work. I hope I am misunderstanding because that would be amazing if it could work. Plus it is from DARPA which sets off even more skepticism alarms.

While DARPA has had some successes these are the people who tried to develop a robot elephant for use in the Vietnam War, tried to develop telepaths to get an edge in Cold War espionage, and tried to develop a spacecraft powered by periodically dropping nukes behind the craft and detonating them. I also don’t see how this technology can be used to bring death to America’s enemies so I am wondering why DARPA is interested in this. I am also a little worried as to why there are interested in this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/11/covid-variant-from-south-africa-was-able-to-break-through-pfizer-vaccine-in-israeli-study.html

  • The coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa is able to evade some of the protection of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a new Israeli study.
  • The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated.
  • The researchers in the study noted the main caveat of the study was the small sample size.

 

For the record, I'm rooting for the vaccines to work. I am not happy with the news I've seen today. I want life to return to normal.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
Quote

The researchers found the prevalence of B.1.351 among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated.

If I understand this correctly, they tested two groups of those testing positive for Covid.  In the vaccinated group, there were fewer of the less dangerous variety and more of B.1.351 variation while the reverse was true for the unvaccinated.  They didn’t just grab a group of vaccinated and then tested them whether infected or not, they identified those infected and vaccinated before testing for type of Covid  

Is this how others are understanding this?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

If I understand this correctly, they tested two groups of those testing positive for Covid.  In the vaccinated group, there were fewer of the less dangerous variety and more of B.1.351 variation while the reverse was true for the unvaccinated.  They didn’t just grab a group of vaccinated and then tested them whether infected or not, they identified those infected and vaccinated before testing for type of Covid  

Is this how others are understanding this?

 

27699E8B-EC9F-4638-BFDA-6E4E09B1D564.jpeg

F04F8AAF-F225-491A-B398-585542B5D1C7.jpeg

Link to post
On 4/8/2021 at 6:43 PM, bsjkki said:

You can quibble with the state departments of health who are using the term if you don't like it. Yes, they  are to be expected and yes, fully vaccinated people have already died.

Who are the fully vaccinated people who have died? Keep in mind "fully vaccinated" means one J&J or two Moderna/Pfizer, with enough time for the vaccine to take effect. Who was "fully vaccinated" and then contracted Covid and died from it?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, halconero said:

Edit: To clarify further, the incidence of thrombosis (blood clots) in the general population during any given year is 1 or 2 in 1000 people, or 0.001 - 0.002%. The incidence of thrombosis in J&J recipients so far is 0.0009 in 1000 people, or 0.00009%. At that level we cannot statistically distinguish J&J associated clots with those seen in the general population without the vaccine.

Now, compare that with clots in people infected with COVID-19: where it jumps to 1 in 100 people generally, and a whopping 1 in 20 among those hospitalized. 

When the history of the Covid pandemic is written, this isn't going to be on the list of our finest moments. A lot has gone right in the development, testing, approval and distribution of the vaccines, but there have been some blunders along the way.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Who are the fully vaccinated people who have died? Keep in mind "fully vaccinated" means one J&J or two Moderna/Pfizer, with enough time for the vaccine to take effect. Who was "fully vaccinated" and then contracted Covid and died from it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/11/3-breakthrough-covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-among-700000-fully-vaccinated-in-oregon/?sh=4f46f7e7333f

"Case in needle point. In Oregon, at least 168 fully vaccinated people have had “breakthrough” Covid-19 coronavirus infections so far. Of those, 19 ended up being hospitalized, and three died, according to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Fully vaccinated means that you are at least two weeks past getting the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which should be enough time for your immune system to build up enough protection. A breakthrough infection is when an infection occurs in a fully vaccinated person. None of the breakthrough cases in Oregon, otherwise known as the Beaver State, were associated with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) variant.

Before you say “dam” what’s happening in the Beaver State, keep in mind that Oregon hasn’t been the only state to report such breakthrough cases. A month ago, I reported for Forbes on three breakthrough cases found in Hawaii. More recently, Paula Pasche covered for The Oakland Press the 246 breakthrough Covid-19 cases that have occurred in Michigan, resulting in 11 hospitalizations and three deaths. So, it’s clear that getting fully vaccinated does not necessarily mean that you can’t get Covid-19 and can’t suffer bad consequences."

Edited by bsjkki
Link to post
12 hours ago, halconero said:

Not great. The CDC here and the health agencies in Europe are being cavalier with the precautionary principle (IMO). 6 cases out of 6.8mn doses is such a small occurrence that it might as well be statistical noise. That’s not diminishing the impact on those six individuals, but rather placing it in context and not over extrapolating it to a general or causal risk in others.

I received a briefing on a similar topic from my boss, who was the head of Health Canada during H1N1 and is now on the federal advisory council. With regards to AstraZeneca, which faces similar barriers, he explained that the occurrence of blood clots may be linked, but not sufficiently so as to be attributable. In fact, the occurrence of clotting might be something that occurs at the same rate without the vaccine, but is something we’re only seeing in the data because of hyper-vigilance regarding the vaccinated. This, is in fact, a good thing, allowing us to develop treatments for diseases that might go untreated or unnoticed otherwise, but it is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal link. Compared to the very established risks from infection by COVID-19, we’re better off ignoring the precautionary principle, which is fine in normal circumstances, but potentially deadly here.

Edit: To clarify further, the incidence of thrombosis (blood clots) in the general population during any given year is 1 or 2 in 1000 people, or 0.001 - 0.002%. The incidence of thrombosis in J&J recipients so far is 0.0009 in 1000 people, or 0.00009%. At that level we cannot statistically distinguish J&J associated clots with those seen in the general population without the vaccine.

Now, compare that with clots in people infected with COVID-19: where it jumps to 1 in 100 people generally, and a whopping 1 in 20 among those hospitalized. 

To put this in perspective birth control pills are more dangerous. A lot of this is due to the psychological issue where familiar risks are minimized but unfamiliar ones exaggerated.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is one of my favorite sources for Covid info.  She has a chart comparing risk of blood clotting due to vaccine with BC pills, smoking, and Covid itself...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=280105440278779&id=110965280526130

 

 

 

6 with vaccine vs 165,000 with Covid...while awful for those who get it, seems like a no brainer to me to keep using the vaccine. BC pills are 500-1200....

I’m surprised they paused...there is either more to the story or it seems an over reaction. The damage to vaccine PR is huge out there. How many are less likely to get vaccinated at all now?

Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I’m surprised they paused...there is either more to the story or it seems an over reaction. The damage to vaccine PR is huge out there. How many are less likely to get vaccinated at all now?

I think everything is an overreaction. My wife and I were discussing this article this morning, and I think this hits a lot of nails on the head. There are no opportunity cost analyses taking place, and everyone (in the 1st world) is chasing the chimera of complete eradication and zero risk at the expense of social, economic, and developmental devastation via never-ending and always-cycling lockdown culture. 6 cases of clots among 6.8 million are fantastic odds, but in this climate of "if it saves even just one life" and "if even one person might die," no one wants to make the opportunity cost case to the public. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/the-zero-risk-western-society/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

I hadn't thought of this before, but one of the questions people have been asking is why Africa and India haven't been hard hit. It's been assumed that exposure to lots of endemic pathogens and poor living conditions have made for tougher and hardier immune systems, but it may be as simple as some places simply can't pay the opportunity cost of total eradication/zero risk policies. 

"How did it happen that the West, which not long ago represented the most vibrant and geostrategically assertive civilization . . . has been reduced to millions cowering in fear from a version of the coronavirus? . . . The answer lies perhaps in political changes under way across Western societies in the past decades. As the West becomes increasingly secular, bereft of sources to give meaning to human existence beyond the here and now, we seem to have become a people no longer capable of accepting any level of risk, while we demand an absolute certainty that those we elect to office provide safety, even at great cost . . .

Unless we accept that in the final analysis we are able only to mitigate risk but never eliminate it — and most of all that there are things worth more than safety alone, such as the quality of life and the ability to pursue the talents God has given us — we will continue to submit to these incessant bureaucratic contortions seeking to achieve the impossible, i.e., to ensure that our existence carries zero risk. Furthermore, if the West continues on its current path, it will be eclipsed and displaced by civilizations that accept the necessity of playing with the cards fate has dealt them and powering through the tough times so that they as well as their children can enjoy good times . . . "

While this was in a larger discussion about lockdown culture, I think it applies to illogical and irrational decisions about weighed vaccine risk. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rongo said:

hadn't thought of this before, but one of the questions people have been asking is why Africa and India haven't been hard hit. It's been assumed that exposure to lots of endemic pathogens and poor living conditions have made for tougher and hardier immune systems, but it may be as simple as some places simply can't pay the opportunity cost of total eradication/zero risk policies. 

Quote

Despite lacking the same testing capacity as other regions in the world, the low numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases can be explained in part due to experiences in handling infectious diseases on the continent. Firstly, resources meant for widespread HIV and tuberculosis testing were leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 [15]. Secondly, the political will exhibited by most governments has been a key element in the response to the pandemic. Governments were swift in imposing lockdowns, restricting movement, and setting up task forces to coordinate efforts [16]. Thirdly, though not backed by evidence, the issue of weather may have given Africa the much needed “lifeline” [17]. Fourthly, compared to Europe, Africa had a lower importation risk of the virus based on the data on the volume of air travel from China to Africa [18]. The estimated the risk of importation per country: Egypt, Algeria, and South Africa had the highest importation risk whilst Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Tanzania, Ghana, and Kenya were at moderate risk. Finally, Africa’s young population may be another reason for the low infection rates experienced on the continent. The median age in Africa is 19.4 years, compared with 40 in Europe and 38 in the US. Case fatality rates for ages above 60 years were higher in Italy compared to other countries, suggesting that the disease is more severe in older populations.

In conclusion, we argue that it is not accurate to offer limited testing capacity, poor health systems and under-reporting as the only explanations for the lower numbers of COVID-19 cases reported in Africa. Africa’s lower COVID-19 cases can be attributed to early mitigatory responses enhanced by leveraging existing infection control systems, and the general low risk of virus importation from COVID-19 hotspots. A recent surge in cases, in particular South Africa is a cause for concern and so is the winter season that much of Africa is experiencing. As lockdowns and restrictions are slowly being eased or lifted, there is a need to maintain vigilance in education, awareness, testing and resource mobilization for procurement of medical consumables to reduce the transmission of the virus.

May be out of date, but addresses the many variables involved in Africa.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

M

12 hours ago, rongo said:

I hadn't thought of this before, but one of the questions people have been asking is why Africa and India haven't been hard hit. It's been assumed that exposure to lots of endemic pathogens and poor living conditions have made for tougher and hardier immune systems, but it may be as simple as some places simply can't pay the opportunity cost of total eradication/zero risk policies.

Unfortunately, India is now the second hardest hit behind Brazil. Many blame complacency but they are also being hit by a new variant. https://time.com/5954416/india-covid-second-wave/

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, rongo said:

I think everything is an overreaction. My wife and I were discussing this article this morning, and I think this hits a lot of nails on the head. There are no opportunity cost analyses taking place, and everyone (in the 1st world) is chasing the chimera of complete eradication and zero risk at the expense of social, economic, and developmental devastation via never-ending and always-cycling lockdown culture. 6 cases of clots among 6.8 million are fantastic odds, but in this climate of "if it saves even just one life" and "if even one person might die," no one wants to make the opportunity cost case to the public. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/the-zero-risk-western-society/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

I hadn't thought of this before, but one of the questions people have been asking is why Africa and India haven't been hard hit. It's been assumed that exposure to lots of endemic pathogens and poor living conditions have made for tougher and hardier immune systems, but it may be as simple as some places simply can't pay the opportunity cost of total eradication/zero risk policies. 

"How did it happen that the West, which not long ago represented the most vibrant and geostrategically assertive civilization . . . has been reduced to millions cowering in fear from a version of the coronavirus? . . . The answer lies perhaps in political changes under way across Western societies in the past decades. As the West becomes increasingly secular, bereft of sources to give meaning to human existence beyond the here and now, we seem to have become a people no longer capable of accepting any level of risk, while we demand an absolute certainty that those we elect to office provide safety, even at great cost . . .

Unless we accept that in the final analysis we are able only to mitigate risk but never eliminate it — and most of all that there are things worth more than safety alone, such as the quality of life and the ability to pursue the talents God has given us — we will continue to submit to these incessant bureaucratic contortions seeking to achieve the impossible, i.e., to ensure that our existence carries zero risk. Furthermore, if the West continues on its current path, it will be eclipsed and displaced by civilizations that accept the necessity of playing with the cards fate has dealt them and powering through the tough times so that they as well as their children can enjoy good times . . . "

While this was in a larger discussion about lockdown culture, I think it applies to illogical and irrational decisions about weighed vaccine risk. 

Cowering in fear? And the great danger is we are going to be replaced by all those other civilizations willing to take risks? Gee, I wonder where your talking points are coming from. :rolleyes:

It also ignores that a lot of nations knew that completely insufficient resources to cope with outbreaks and put in draconian restrictions to keep the disease out from the beginning. They also in many cases obeyed government orders and didn't have massive misinformation campaigns telling people not to. The idea that they just grinned and decided to bear it and trudge through it is a flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation peddled to an audience that wants to believe it.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

M

Unfortunately, India is now the second hardest hit behind Brazil. Many blame complacency but they are also being hit by a new variant. https://time.com/5954416/india-covid-second-wave/

India did not have much of a chance. High population density areas, weak medical infrastructure, and large unmonitored borders. There was no realistic way to prevent the virus from getting a foothold or to deal with it when it broke out. I think they could have done better but they were probably doomed from the start. Brazil has similar problems but they also deliberately and flagrantly went with the "develop herd immunity" strategy (with their national government compelling their states to not try for any type of containment or mitigation) and paid the price like most nations that went with that approach.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

M

Unfortunately, India is now the second hardest hit behind Brazil. Many blame complacency but they are also being hit by a new variant. https://time.com/5954416/india-covid-second-wave/

Based on what I've read in the past, I wonder if India benefitted from partial immunity due to other diseases. Of course now with a new variant that could be different.

Link to post
23 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I’m surprised they paused

Perhaps being sued is in their minds...they can’t be sued for not having a product while they can be sued for having an unsafe one.  And unfortunately there will be those who see any risk attached as being unsafe...but this is not like elective cosmetic surgery for fun where there is no harm in no treatment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/13/2021 at 2:46 PM, cinepro said:

Who are the fully vaccinated people who have died? Keep in mind "fully vaccinated" means one J&J or two Moderna/Pfizer, with enough time for the vaccine to take effect. Who was "fully vaccinated" and then contracted Covid and died from it?

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/out-5800-fully-vaccinated-americans-who-have-gotten-covid-19-74-passed

image.png.09baaf5212929e69f0bcb985793b2907.png

 

image.png.c0f5b511ea155133eafbb93b489d9345.png

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...