OT: NEW EVERYTHING / ANYTHING COVID-19 THREAD PART II

Status
Not open for further replies.

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
I appreciate the insight you have been sharing. We all run into and/or know folks that range from overly-concerned to anti-vaxers. Given that, IMO, most of their concern is about their perceived risks and does not even consider the impact on others. Given that, what are the 2 or 3 best points to share about why the vaccines are safe for those individuals reluctant to get vaccinated. I want to be ready to go with my response.

PS - Im scheduled for Moderna dose #2 next Wednesday. Dose #1 was no different than past tetanus shots and the 2 dose Shingris vaccine I received last year... soreness at the injection site.

Thanks and here's what I posted a few weeks ago, which I expect to be relevant for the duration of the pandemic. When looking at the relative risks of the vaccines (on the order of 1 in 1MM serious side effects) vs. their benefits (reducing the 100 to 10,000 per 1MM risk of death for those who get COVID to 0.0 risk of death, depending on age and comborbidities), it's an absolute no-brainer to get the vaccine. Good luck.

Repeating and slightly expanding on my post from the other thread...

𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝟭 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝗠𝗠 (𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗿), 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟱𝟬-𝟲𝟰 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 (𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀) 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟯𝟱𝟬𝟬 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝟯𝟱𝟬𝟬 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝗠𝗠 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗗 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟯-𝟰𝘅 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗿 ~𝟭𝟮,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝗠𝗠. 𝗜 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 4𝟬 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲.

Here's some details on what I just posted above. For people in my age group (50-64), the risk of any serious vaccine side effects are well less than 1 in 1MM (and no actual serious side effects have been seen yet, except for anaphylaxis in highly allergic people - the risk for that is maybe 2-3 in 1MM and is well known), which is extremely low. And the risk of death from vaccination, so far is essentially zero (none reported due to the vaccine).

On the other hand, the benefit for vaccination is avoiding the ~3500 in 1MM chance of dying from catching COVID if you're 50-64 or even the ~11,000 in 1MM chance of being hospitalized by COVID. For those 40-49, the benefit for vaccination is avoiding the ~1000 in 1MM chance of dying from catching COVID or the 3000-4000 in 1MM chance of being hospitalized by COVID. Even for those 18-29, the benefit of vaccination is avoiding the ~100 in 1MM chance of dying from catching COVID.

I just want to see people avoid a potentially deadly/debilitating disease that is well over 3000X more deadly than a vaccine. FYI, the numbers are about 72K deaths in the 50-69 age group and out of ~60MM total, in that group, ~35% are estimated to have been infected (~21MM) so far, which gets one the ~3500 deaths per 1MM number (and of those 21MM infected, about 4-5MM have had positive COVID PCR tests, so the death rates for people who have had positive COVID tests is about 4-5X higher. Similar calcs for other age groups...

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data
 

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
This is the worst kind of "analysis" as there's no analysis in that at all. Without knowing why NJ's deaths per capita are so high, those data are useless. As I laid out in the post below, if not for being hit so hard and so early without testing in place to know we were already in the exponential growth phase, coupled with death rates twice as high last spring in areas hit early vs. death rates starting last summer (after we learned a lot in NJ/NY), NJ/NY would've been in the middle of the pack of states with regard to deaths per capita. But people don't seem to want to do a little scientific work to understand that. They'll just keep posting stupid, misleading memes.

Summary: Wanted to elaborate on the post above, by comparing death rates per capita in New Jersey/New York vs. other states, showing how we would've had far lower rates if we weren't hit so early and so hard. This is because I see so many people who say that NJ/NY (and other NE US states like MA/RI/CT) have "done horribly" during the pandemic because our deaths, per capita, are the 1st and 2nd highest in the US (at around 2400-2600 deaths/1MM). NJ/NY would both have death rates ranging from near the middle of the pack in the US to well below the middle of the pack for death rates per capita in the US, depending on which of 2 scenarios played out with regard to being the first ones hit and hit so hard and having such high, exponential death rates early on (twice what was seen in later waves), which is easy to see when comparing against a more "typical" state, like Texas or Florida or California, which were barely hit in the spring, but hit hard in the summer and harder in the winter. NY/NJ had 50-60% of our deaths in the spring, while most states typically had only ~10% of their deaths in the spring.

Details: As per numerous previous posts of mine, the deaths per hospitalization in the spring wave in NJ/NY were double what was seen during the summer in the 2nd wave all over the US and in the winter wave all over the US, including NJ/NY. This halving of death rates, post-spring was largely due to having more efficaceous treatments and having significantly improved medical procedures (especially on dealing with anoxic/ventilated patients), which were developed by the end of the spring wave (we were the guinea pigs). All of the deaths/death rate/population data, below are from Worldometers:

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.198855/post-4685139

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us

And keep in mind that we're comparing crappy to really crappy performance in the US relative to a host of East Asian and African countries that have per capita death rates that are 1/20th to 1/100th of the US's (and most of Europe/South America too), mostly due to far better testing-tracing-isolating, augmented by better masking/distancing. I just wanted to show that NJ and NY are nowhere near the crappiest if one takes into account how early and hard we were hit (including the much higher deaths/hosp we absorbed in the spring).

𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝟭: 𝗛𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗝/𝗡𝗬:

If one halves the deaths/hosp for the spring wave, then NJ/NY both drop to about 1640-1780 deaths/1MM, which would put both states in the 15-25th range in the US, given that both NJ/NY had 50-60% of their deaths in the spring, when death rates per hospitalization were much greater, while the vast majority of states had ~10% (or less) of their deaths in the spring. Specifically, NJ had about 15,040 deaths in the spring and 8310 since spring, so that would've been about 15,830 (15,040/2 + 8310) deaths/8.88MM or 1780 deaths/1MM, while NY had about 32,000 deaths in the spring and 16,000 since the spring, so that would've been about 32,000 deaths (32K/2 + 16K)/19.45MM or 1645 deaths/1MM.

𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝟮: 𝗛𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗝/𝗡𝗬

In addition to being hit first, we had almost no interventions in place when the virus was silently multiplying exponentially in the densest population areas in the country (with very high commuting densities). Again, as I posted many times back in the spring, if we had had any testing in place we could have put interventions like distancing/masking in place well before mid/late March, when testing started getting going, and likely avoided a large chunk of those spring cases/deaths on top of halving the death rates as discussed above. We also would've likely started the stay-at-home orders 1-2 weeks earlier, which several studies have said would've saved 50-80% of the lives lost in wave 1. Even if it was just a 50% reduction in cases/deaths, that added on top of halving the deaths per hospitalization in the spring, would've dropped NJ/NY even further down in death rates, overall.

If we had had 50% less cases/deaths in the spring due to better testing and earlier interventions and had the lower death rates in the spring that other states have seen since summer (meaning roughly 1/4 the deaths we had in the spring), NJ would have had 12,070 total deaths (3760 in spring vs. 15,040 actually in the spring, plus 8310 since spring), which translates to about half of the current 23.2K NJ deaths, which would bring the per capita death rate down from 2640 to 1360/1MM, which would place NJ at about 30th in the US. And NY would have had 24,000 total deaths (8000 in spring vs. 32,000 actually in the spring, plus 16,000 since spring), which translates to about half of the current 48K NY deaths, which would bring the per capita death rate down from 2480 to 1240/1MM, which would place NY at 34th in the US. Both states would have lower death rates per capita than Texas (1540/1MM) and Florida (1470 deaths/1MM), if we had not been hit first and so hard.

𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀/𝟭𝗠𝗠 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀

And if we wanted to see how states have done since the first wave, which nobody was really prepared for, but which NJ/NY were hit far harder in, as detailed above, things really get interesting. Just looking at deaths per 1MM people in selected states (mostly the ones I've discussed before, as per the post linked above), since the end of May, it shows that NJ/NY have better records than most other states (would be in the 35-40th range out of 50 states). People in this area have responded pretty well and only had one significant peak since spring, which was half the peak (in hospitalizations) vs. the spring and had about 1/4 the death rate vs. spring, due to the improved treatments/procedures as discussed previously. I'm only showing the graphs (from the link below) for NJ/NY/FL/TX, just to show the shapes of the trajectories of cases/hosp/deaths.

https://covidtracking.com/data

Arizona: 15,183 deaths/7.28MM = 2085 deaths/1MM
South Dakota: 1832 deaths/0.88MM = 2081 deaths/1MM
Texas: 42,561 deaths/28.99MM = 1468 deaths/1MM
Florida: 28,826 deaths/21.48MM = 1340 deaths/1MM
Calilfornia: 48,801 deaths/39.51MM = 1235 deaths/1MM
New Jersey: 10,049 deaths/8.88MM = 1131 deaths/1MM
New York: 17.675 deaths/19.45MM = 908 deaths/1MM

lOC78Tn.png


yVZ1nO7.png


uSVEIag.png


eqtax5j.png
 

Greg2020

All American
Jan 25, 2020
7,167
5,160
113
That's the way the vast majority of people get infected, outside of superspreader events where people in large groups don't take any precautions. People aren't getting infected at work or in stores, at least not in this area, where almost everyone wears masks in those locations.
maybe @bac2therac will finally learn.
 

LETSGORU91

All Conference
Jan 29, 2017
3,342
3,584
113

Not shockingly, the top three in death rates per 100k just happen to be the very top three in population density in the United States. I wonder if population density plays a role in death rates. Plus what #s said, NJ got smacked early and hard. Remove those early deaths and NJ might be better off than Texas despite our high population density. Here is an interesting fact that you just happened to leave out. Texas ranks 32nd in population density but sits around 24th in the highest death rates per population density. Thumbs down for Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmvon and Greg2020

Greg2020

All American
Jan 25, 2020
7,167
5,160
113
The trends are all going in the wrong direction.Hospitalizations in all three regions have taken a bump recently.A cynic would charge that the vaccinations don't work.To quote Walter Alston:"'It's too early to tell."

I just hope that Murphy doesn't panic and ban all "elective" surgery,as I'm scheduled to have my hernia repaired on April 8th.
@RUJohnny hey where are you with the hospital posts again, you stopped posting them after they went against your claims that they would keep going down. This is now twice you have made a grand claim, only to see it blow up in your face.
 

Spare130

All American
Dec 1, 2012
5,945
3,855
113
@RUJohnny hey where are you with the hospital posts again, you stopped posting them after they went against your claims that they would keep going down. This is now twice you have made a grand claim, only to see it blow up in your face.
Formerly, remember when you claimed Florida would get slammed when they reopened... only to see them do just fine opening all schools and businesses? While states with lockdowns continued to get crushed? You took a major L on that one.
 

Greg2020

All American
Jan 25, 2020
7,167
5,160
113
Formerly, remember when you claimed Florida would get slammed when they reopened... only to see them do just fine opening all schools and businesses? While states with lockdowns continued to get crushed? You took a major L on that one.
Who?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jm0513

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
Is it true, there's never been a vaccine distributed while an out break is active in the world's population as wide spread as this? Also the one fit for all approach knowingly will sacrifice some for the good is what the government is trying to remove from the publics decision making?
No, we do it every year with influenza, although one could argue that while the flu vaccines are "new" each year they're well known and understood and aren't "novel" like the COVID vaccines. We also did it with every other infectious disease that we now have vaccines for, like smallpox, MMR, polio, etc. And it was recently done for Ebola. This is somewhat different though, in that SARS-CoV-2 is a completely novel virus never seen on the planet before, whereas all the ones mentioned above haev been around for a fairly long time. The vaccines that have been developed so quickly and which are so effective are quite possibly the biggest scientific achievement ever.
 

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
Posted this elsewhere in reply to someone who was trying to say that the vaccine trials should have looked at prevention of asymptomatic cases and that vaccines aren't very effective and don't stop transmission of the virus and thought it was worth posting about here. Have seen similar posts here too.

First off, the trials didn't include looking for asymptomatic infections because that would have taken far more resources and time to track, as it would've required swabbing and doing PCR viral tests on 40K+ participants in every trial every day in order to detect asymptomatic cases.

It simply wasn't scaleable and in retrospect the trials obtained what is far more important without that data, i.e., they showed that the vaccines did a very good job in preventing symptomatic infections and, more importantly have been essentially perfect in preventing hospitalizations and deaths, which is the most important outcome at the end of the day.

Furthermore, several post-approval studies in the UK, Israel and the US have shown that the vaccines greatly reduce the likelihood of vaccinated people being infected and greatly reduce the likelihood of vaccinated people infecting others - they don't reduce that risk to zero, but the risk is far lower than the risk of transmission from unvaccinated people.

Getting everyone vaccinated is the only way to beat this pandemic without going the Scott Atlas and friends route of just letting everyone get infected. We have over 540K dead already (and 3-4X that number who were hospitalized, many of whom have lasting impacts) with only about 30-35% of the population infected, so far, meaning to get to 70-80% herd immunity, we'd likely see another ~500K die if we didn't vaccinate people - or we can vaccinate 70+% of the population and see very few more people die. I can't imagine how anyone would prefer the former.

Also, while recovered COVID patients have pretty good immunity, we're seeing some of the more aggressive variants reinfecting a small % of those people, so it even makes sense for them to get vaccinated. And the longer we take to vaccinate the world, the more likely it is that a variant evolves that can escape the current vaccines and possibly start the cycle over again where we'd need to give updated booster shots to everyone (which is doable, but a huge effort to undertake). But if we vaccinate well and quickly that chance is greatly reduced (it's all probability based science with regard to antigenic evolutionary drift as discussed previously).

And while I'm not intent on "shaming" people, I simply can't avoid saying that anyone who doesn't get a vaccine needs to have his or her head examined as the risk of serious side effects from the vaccines are essentially nil (around 1-2 in 1MM) while the risk of hospitalization/death from COVID are far greater than that (at 100-10,000 per 1MM, depending on age/comorbidities, and typically 5-20X greater than for the flu for all except children). It reveals complete ignorance of science to be an anti-vaxxer. Full stop.

https://www.yahoo.com/.../vaccines-could-prevent...
 
Last edited:

Knight Shift

Legend
May 19, 2011
52,628
43,287
113
Jersey Shore
Sadly, China got a pass, and US is complicit.

RU Professor Ebright:

An Interview with Richard Ebright: The WHO Investigation Members Were “participants in disinformation”


You have said several times that this WHO mission was literally “a charade”.
Yes, its members were willing –and, in at least one case, enthusiastic– participants in disinformation.
The pre-negotiated “Terms of Reference” for the WHO study did not even acknowledge the possibility of a laboratory origin of the virus and did not even mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (CDC) or the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products.
Regarding the inspection personnel, at least one member of the WHO mission team, Ecohealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak, seems to have conflicts of interest that should have disqualified him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yes. Daszak was the contractor who funded the laboratory at WIV that potentially was the source of the virus (with subcontracts from $200 million from the US Department of State and $7 million from the US National Institutes of Health), and he was a collaborator and co-author on research projects at the laboratory.
 
Last edited:

slyker

Senior
Feb 2, 2002
1,129
1,012
113
Posted this elsewhere in reply to someone who was trying to say that the vaccine trials should have looked at prevention of asymptomatic cases and that vaccines aren't very effective and don't stop transmission of the virus and thought it was worth posting about here. Have seen similar posts here too.

First off, the trials didn't include looking for asymptomatic infections because that would have taken far more resources and time to track, as it would've required swabbing and doing PCR viral tests on 40K+ participants in every trial every day in order to detect asymptomatic cases.

It simply wasn't scaleable and in retrospect the trials obtained what is far more important without that data, i.e., they showed that the vaccines did a very good job in preventing symptomatic infections and, more importantly have been essentially perfect in preventing hospitalizations and deaths, which is the most important outcome at the end of the day.

Furthermore, several post-approval studies in the UK, Israel and the US have shown that the vaccines greatly reduce the likelihood of vaccinated people being infected and greatly reduce the likelihood of vaccinated people infecting others - they don't reduce that risk to zero, but the risk is far lower than the risk of transmission from unvaccinated people.

Getting everyone vaccinated is the only way to beat this pandemic without going the Trump/Atlas route of just letting everyone get infected. We have over 540K dead already (and 3-4X that number who were hospitalized, many of whom have lasting impacts) with only about 30-35% of the population infected, so far, meaning to get to 70-80% herd immunity, we'd likely see another ~500K die if we didn't vaccinate people - or we can vaccinate 70+% of the population and see very few more people die. I can't imagine how anyone would prefer the former.

Also, while recovered COVID patients have pretty good immunity, we're seeing some of the more aggressive variants reinfecting a small % of those people, so it even makes sense for them to get vaccinated. And the longer we take to vaccinate the world, the more likely it is that a variant evolves that can escape the current vaccines and possibly start the cycle over again where we'd need to give updated booster shots to everyone (which is doable, but a huge effort to undertake). But if we vaccinate well and quickly that chance is greatly reduced (it's all probability based science with regard to antigenic evolutionary drift as discussed previously).

And while I'm not intent on "shaming" people, I simply can't avoid saying that anyone who doesn't get a vaccine needs to have his or her head examined as the risk of serious side effects from the vaccines are essentially nil (around 1-2 in 1MM) while the risk of hospitalization/death from COVID are far greater than that (at 100-10,000 per 1MM, depending on age/comorbidities, and typically 5-20X greater than for the flu for all except children). It reveals complete ignorance of science to be an anti-vaxxer. Full stop.

https://www.yahoo.com/.../vaccines-could-prevent...

1- I wonder why you would attribute a policy of “letting everyone get infected” (The Trump Atlas Policy) to the President who launched and fervently promoted the initiative to greatly accelerate the development production and distribution of a vaccination, and obviously had no intention or policy implemented to let everyone get infected. Comment seems way off-base, uninformed and irresponsible. Right out of the CNN playbook.

2- I also wonder why you again are introducing politics to this thread
 

RUDead

Senior
Sep 20, 2017
2,319
2,445
113
Formerly, remember when you claimed Florida would get slammed when they reopened... only to see them do just fine opening all schools and businesses? While states with lockdowns continued to get crushed? You took a major L on that one.


Despite all evidence to the contrary these idiots keep pushing their "science". Masks don't work. Isolation is more harmful than the disease itself. Fresh air, the sun and exercise are the best solution, not masks, lockdowns, and whatever other crap they come up with.

This idea that we can control everything with a chemical, a pill or a vaccine is fool's gold and is making everyone sicker.
 

Postman_1

Senior
Gold Member
Mar 12, 2017
1,281
1,693
113
Despite all evidence to the contrary these idiots keep pushing their "science". Masks don't work. Isolation is more harmful than the disease itself. Fresh air, the sun and exercise are the best solution, not masks, lockdowns, and whatever other crap they come up with.

This idea that we can control everything with a chemical, a pill or a vaccine is fool's gold and is making everyone sicker.
I 100% agree with you. I look at both sides of the data/science and it shows you are right. Sadly it’s becoming we aren’t allowed to question anything anymore or we are called conspiracy theorists.
 

RUDead

Senior
Sep 20, 2017
2,319
2,445
113
I 100% agree with you. I look at both sides of the data/science and it shows you are right. Sadly it’s becoming we aren’t allowed to question anything anymore or we are called conspiracy theorists.

The hardest thing to do right now is sift through all the BS and find the truth. It's all one side or the other. Everything is agenda driven.
 

RU23

All American
Gold Member
Aug 2, 2010
6,617
2,267
113
Despite all evidence to the contrary these idiots keep pushing their "science". Masks don't work. Isolation is more harmful than the disease itself. Fresh air, the sun and exercise are the best solution, not masks, lockdowns, and whatever other crap they come up with.

This idea that we can control everything with a chemical, a pill or a vaccine is fool's gold and is making everyone sicker.
No one is remotely stopping anyone from fresh air, the sun, or exercise. Sounds like you forgot, so here’s your not-so-friendly reminder: GO OUTSIDE YA DINGBAT. It’ll be good for you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020 and GSGS

RUDead

Senior
Sep 20, 2017
2,319
2,445
113
No one is remotely stopping anyone from fresh air, the sun, or exercise. Sounds like you forgot, so here’s your not-so-friendly reminder: GO OUTSIDE YA DINGBAT. It’ll be good for you

What are you talking about?

Seriously, how did you get the idea that I don't go outside from my post? That's exactly what I am recommending.
 

Frida's Boss

Heisman Winner
Oct 10, 2005
10,618
7,261
113
I 100% agree with you. I look at both sides of the data/science and it shows you are right. Sadly it’s becoming we aren’t allowed to question anything anymore or we are called conspiracy theorists.

You can question, but making conclusions based upon an inaccurate interpretation of data leads to incorrect conclusions. When that is pointed out to people, and test they still make the same arguements, then such people are indeed conspiracy theorists. Or they are seeking information to back a point they want to believe.

The world is not explained by simple relationships. Multiple variables explain outcomes. You fail to grasp that reality,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RU23

All American
Gold Member
Aug 2, 2010
6,617
2,267
113
What are you talking about?

Seriously, how did you get the idea that I don't go outside from my post? That's exactly what I am recommending.
Sounded to me like you were complaining that some “idiots” as you phrased it are forcing or encouraging us to stay locked in our homes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

GSGS

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 2, 2001
19,362
8,963
113
Cause there are also stupid people, who don't understand the risk-reward of vaccines even in the medical field, although extraordinarily few doctors are anti-vax, because they know better - the much less educated medical staff in the field are far more prone to being persuaded by kooky conspiracy theories about vaccines, like yourself.
Pot call kettle

"wet market" 🤭

What's the difference between vaccines and "Proud"?

Vaccines work. 😀 😀 😀
 

GSGS

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 2, 2001
19,362
8,963
113
The AZ vaccine was required to remain revenue-neutral throughout its existence. The pfizer/moderna are selling cheap for now but prices are expected to jump to around 300 bucks a shot this summer for pfizer.

Not true. Pfizer has talked about increasing prices for their vaccine in the future, when the pandemic evolves into "just" an endemic, but that is still a long ways away. The likely jump will be much higher than the current pandemic pricing of $19.50, but should remain under $200 a vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
Good news from Merck on their antiviral, molnupiravir. While this is only a small trial (202 patients is small), seeing a statistically meaningful reduction in viral reduction in mildly ill COVID patients is very encouraging, as per the excerpt, below, from the press release; safety looks good also. We definitely still need effective treatments, especially an orally bioavailable antiviral in capsule/tablet form (remdesivir is marginally effective and only available by IV). Goes to show you how tight-lipped Merck is. Wasn't expecting this today and I worked there for 31 years and have been consulting on molnupiravir process development for the last 6 months, lol - have been hearing about the phase IIb/III data coming out by late March, but who knows?

Today’s presentation described findings from the secondary endpoint of reduction in time (days) to negativity of infectious virus isolation in nasopharyngeal swabs from participants with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, as determined by isolation in Vero cell line culture. At day 5, there was a reduction (nominal p=0.001, not controlled for multiplicity) in positive viral culture in subjects who received molnupiravir (all doses) compared to placebo: 0% (0/47) for molnupiravir and 24% (6/25) for placebo.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...stigational-COVID-19-Therapeutic-Molnupiravir

Edit: one other finding of note in the Saturday press release is that Merck also did an extensive in-vivo study of mutagenicity in animals, demonstrating that the compound is not mutagenic or genotoxicc, which should override the positive Ames test in bacteria.

“Of 202 treated participants, no safety signals have been identified and of the 4 serious adverse events reported, none were considered to be study drug related. In addition to the ongoing clinical studies, Merck has conducted a comprehensive nonclinical program to characterize the safety profile of molnupiravir. This program included assays such as Big Blue and PIG-a designed to provide a robust measure of a drug or chemical’s ability to induce mutations in vivo. Animals were administered molnupiravir for longer and at higher doses (mg/Kg) than those employed in human studies. The totality of the data from these studies indicates that molnupiravir is not mutagenic or genotoxic in in vivo mammalian systems.”
Excellent article in Bloomberg today on the "story" of the development of the promising "new" antiviral, molnupiravir. The story goes back decades, looking at the class of nucleoside (the building blocks of DNA/RNA) analogues as antivirals which target disruption of viral replication, and the use of the uridine-drived nucleoside analogue, molnupiravir, as an antiviral.

The molecule has been around for a long time, but it wasn't until Emory University's George Painter created a more bioavailable "pro-drug" version of the molecule in 2016 that enabled it to be dosed in pill form. Eventually, Painter secured development funding from Ridgeback Bio in early 2020 and they were thinking of trying it out first on influenza, when COVID hit and they turned towards that need. And then when they saw promising pre-clinical data, they brought in Merck, as Merck has lots of expertise in designing/running clinical trials and in manufacturing the huge amounts of drug that would be needed if the trials were successful.

In small phase IIa clinical trials, discussed above, the drug looks promising (and safe) as a treatment in mildly ill COVID patients, but clearly larger scale data are needed and that data is expected in the next week or so. The world could really use an effective antiviral, since it's going to take a long time to get everyone vaccinated and some won't get vaccinated but will still become infected. Results from larger scale clinical trials are expected in the next week or so.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...vir-pill-could-change-the-fight-against-covid
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
1- I wonder why you would attribute a policy of “letting everyone get infected” (The Trump Atlas Policy) to the President who launched and fervently promoted the initiative to greatly accelerate the development production and distribution of a vaccination, and obviously had no intention or policy implemented to let everyone get infected. Comment seems way off-base, uninformed and irresponsible. Right out of the CNN playbook.

2- I also wonder why you again are introducing politics to this thread
Not worth getting into, but Atlas clearly was pursuing a herd immunity strategy within the Administration - vaccine development is a totally separate issue, although I've been very complimentary of that effort since day one. But fair point on bringing politics into it; I edited that part of my op (I had cut/pasted it from elsewhere).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RUJohnny

Senior
Gold Member
Oct 28, 2005
2,137
1,755
113
@RUJohnny hey where are you with the hospital posts again, you stopped posting them after they went against your claims that they would keep going down. This is now twice you have made a grand claim, only to see it blow up in your face.

I was wrong. I don't understand why, but I admit I was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LETSGORU91

RUJohnny

Senior
Gold Member
Oct 28, 2005
2,137
1,755
113
Good for you. My guess would be people have started exhibiting more lax behavior despite us being nowhere remotely close to herd immunity.
I can't agree with that assessment. It's logical that we have more natural immunity through recovery per capita than any other state, and 15% fully vaccinated on top. I can make a strong argument that we have the least vulnerable population in the country. Yet we see spread increasing while states with more lax behavior and regulations are dropping. Doesn't make any sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATIOH

RUhasarrived

All American
May 7, 2007
6,835
1,383
113
Gates says that the world will be back to normal by the end of 2022.

With assiduous applications of the Magnificent 7(quercetin,zinc,D3,DHEA,astaxathin,melatonin,and goldenseal,this could been controlled within a few months and have been over by the end of 2020.However,there are no kickbacks doing it that way.

I wish that there was a vaccine to fix hernias.They'll be cutting me 2 weeks from today,COVID test required 2 days before.
 

Proud NJ Sports Fan

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 11, 2010
37,460
22,849
113
Sussex
Gates says that the world will be back to normal by the end of 2022.

With assiduous applications of the Magnificent 7(quercetin,zinc,D3,DHEA,astaxathin,melatonin,and goldenseal,this could been controlled within a few months and have been over by the end of 2020.However,there are no kickbacks doing it that way.

I wish that there was a vaccine to fix hernias.They'll be cutting me 2 weeks from today,COVID test required 2 days before.

No one should give AF what a software developer says about anything but computer software,
 

RU23

All American
Gold Member
Aug 2, 2010
6,617
2,267
113
I can't agree with that assessment. It's logical that we have more natural immunity through recovery per capita than any other state, and 15% fully vaccinated on top. I can make a strong argument that we have the least vulnerable population in the country. Yet we see spread increasing while states with more lax behavior and regulations are dropping. Doesn't make any sense to me.
My bad, I thought you guys were talking about hospitalizations in general
 

RUJohnny

Senior
Gold Member
Oct 28, 2005
2,137
1,755
113
My bad, I thought you guys were talking about hospitalizations in general
I think we are, can't have rising hospitalizations with rising infections. Whether it's cases or hosps, neither rising makes sense to me.
 

RUhasarrived

All American
May 7, 2007
6,835
1,383
113
  • Haha
Reactions: RUfinally2008

phs73rc77gsm83

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,175
2,566
113
I will not get into the political or other debates on the vaccine but will post my experience for those for whom the vaccine is forthcoming. I received my first shot (Pfizer) in early March at the Convention Center in Edison. It was extremely well organized, in and out in about an hour. I had some soreness in my arm for 24 hours but no bit deal. I had my second dose this Tuesday. Again, very well organized and I was in and out within an hour. I had some soreness in my arm beginning 6 hours after the shot, then a low grader fever and mild aches the next day—no big deal. I’m fell fine today. For those going to a mega center like Edison Convention, I’d maybe bring a water bottle, be prepared to be in line for 40minutes or so, don’t show up too early (more than 30 minutes early) because you won’t get in the queue early.
 

Frida's Boss

Heisman Winner
Oct 10, 2005
10,618
7,261
113
Gates says that the world will be back to normal by the end of 2022.

With assiduous applications of the Magnificent 7(quercetin,zinc,D3,DHEA,astaxathin,melatonin,and goldenseal,this could been controlled within a few months and have been over by the end of 2020.However,there are no kickbacks doing it that way.

I wish that there was a vaccine to fix hernias.They'll be cutting me 2 weeks from today,COVID test required 2 days before.

Saw Gates comments. Always interested to hear his thoughts. A deep thinker and true polymath. Shame he was attacked by the conspiracy nuts.
 

rurichdog

Heisman Winner
Sep 30, 2006
16,131
5,428
113
Saw Gates comments. Always interested to hear his thoughts. A deep thinker and true polymath. Shame he was attacked by the conspiracy nuts.
Perhaps if he didn't reveal himself as an evil person in his previous life, he'd get the benefit of the doubt.
 

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
Going from 8% of people over 65 having gotten their first COVID shot 9 weeks ago to now having 70% of those over 65 having gotten at least their first shot is impressive (people over 65 account for 80% of COVID deaths, as most know). There is no doubt that this is the biggest reason we're seeing a decline in deaths across the US and will continue to see them decline, even as cases plateau, nationally, and go back up in some states - fortunately, recent cases are predominantly in younger people who are at significantly less risk of death (but still greater risk of death than for flu).


I7dJ2M0.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020

RU848789

Legend
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,373
25,672
113
Metuchen, NJ
Gates says that the world will be back to normal by the end of 2022.

With assiduous applications of the Magnificent 7(quercetin,zinc,D3,DHEA,astaxathin,melatonin,and goldenseal,this could been controlled within a few months and have been over by the end of 2020.However,there are no kickbacks doing it that way.

I wish that there was a vaccine to fix hernias.They'll be cutting me 2 weeks from today,COVID test required 2 days before.
Load. Of. Crap. Go back to taking your HCQ.

https://www.cspinet.org/news/fda-wa...-making-fake-claims-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg2020
Status
Not open for further replies.