Covid-19: American Acceptionalism

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Yoshou, Jul 27, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
?

Name the thread!

Poll closed Jul 28, 2020.
  1. Covid-19: American Acceptionalism

    22 vote(s)
    55.0%
  2. My Covid-19th Nervous Breakdown

    8 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. Covid-19: Killing in the Name

    4 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. Covid-19: But my Freedom!

    3 vote(s)
    7.5%
  5. Covid-19: The Final Thread. This tie for sure

    3 vote(s)
    7.5%
  1. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, after I posted I read on some stuff elsewhere and it seems that, apart from the issue with mixing vaccines, at least with the Moderna one they presented evidence that it is 52% effective with a single shot. BioNTech (I refused to call it the Pfizer) didn't present evidence on a single jab, so that is unknown.

    Of course, everything I said is correct, because I'm an Internet Scientist. ;)
     
    dapip repped this.
  2. That isnot covid related, is it?
     
  3. Depends on whether you did or didnot read the New York article.
     
  4. Depends on which trains.
     
  5. russ

    russ Member+

    Feb 26, 1999
    Canton,NY
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  6. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Sounds like it could be. See what the post mortem says.
     
    dapip repped this.
  7. Aneurism is a bursted artery. Covid is linked with blood cloths, blocking blood flowing in the brains.
    But it could be linked to covid as there was also mentioned as covid effects the impact on arteries inner surfaces/lining?, but I'm not certain if I recall that correctly.
     
  8. Gathering Of Patriottic Death squads.
    Alabama students throwing 'COVID parties' to see who gets infected
     
  9. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    The data from Pfizer was presented to the MHRA and JCVI, including down to the effects on the individual participants in the trial. That's where the figure of 90% after 14 days comes from.

    The point at issue is how fast any protection might reduce.
     
  10. So from all of this jab info I get, the impression comes up we can forget a safe 2021, given the roll out issues of the vaccination process, both in availability as in inocculation speed possible.
     
  11. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-55514363
    Oh dear.
    Hospitals across UK 'must prepare for Covid surge', senior doctor warns
    02 January 2021
    Image copyright Reuters [​IMG]

    Hospitals across the UK are being told to prepare to face the same Covid pressures as the NHS in London and south-east England.

    Senior doctor Prof Andrew Goddard said the virus's highly infectious new variant was spreading nationwide.
     
  12. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    They started this again?
     
    dapip repped this.
  13. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    When looking for independent reports on the 2nd jab delay I found this which seems to suggest that Germany and the US are falling behind in their efforts do the vaccinations. I'm guessing we are as well but then, we're run by an idiot so that's pretty much expected.



    I didn't include it before because I wasn't sure whether that, specific dw.com* was a valid news organisation... I've seen copycats of things like TLDR which are clearly heavily biased and suspected it might be the same. Also I only found slightly sketchy information, (during a quick internet search), on the 2nd guy she interviewed so, again, IS he an expert in the field? I wasn't sure.

    Although, having said that, it had this guy talking and he seemed to be pretty clear...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_Pirmohamed

    Anyway, that's why I didn't include it.


    * Maybe @The Jitty Slitter knows dw.com and whether it's a reasonable reporting organisation?
     
  14. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Depends on if he died “of Covid” or “with Covid”.
     
  15. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    xtomx repped this.
  16. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #8591 soccernutter, Jan 3, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
    Yeah, but that is between 14 and 21 days, as published here:
    https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

    But the UK Government is extrapolating. They are assuming 28 days based on what the private company has given them, not independently verified.

    https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAttachment.aspx?Attachment_id=103741 (is is a .pdf)

    And there is this:

    https://www.axios.com/pfizer-single-dose-data-716702dd-324f-42b9-b88d-07df43ca198a.html

    The headline says it all:

    Pfizer: "No data" to show single dose of vaccine offers protection after 21 days

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html

    Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”

    So the guideline says up to 12 weeks. I'm not a math expert, but I do believe 12 weeks is longer than 21 days.

    That is all for the BioNTech vaccine.

    Moderna has published peer reviewed data which might be effective at the 52% rate up to 108 days.

    But, as has been noted earlier, this is for a small number of participants. We really have no idea if these vaccines will be as effective as published at scale. And it is a danger to deviate from those guidelines given by the developers of the vaccines, themselves.
     
    BocaFan, M and Naughtius Maximus repped this.
  17. LastBoyscout

    LastBoyscout Member+

    Mar 6, 2013
    The DW is like the foreign language programming of the BBC just that it's from the German publicly financed news organisation ARD. So the information should be pretty accurate.
     
    russ and Naughtius Maximus repped this.
  18. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    @soccernutter

    First of all thanks for taking the trouble to actually asses the available information :)

    There's a couple of things I'm not sure about in your post, though...

    That's the short statement, essentially just a summary of their findings as it say, rather than a complete report.
    It's the MHRA and JCVI rather than 'the British government'.
    I can't see where they say it hasn't been verified and I'm also not sure what you mean by the phrase 'a private company'. Is there any particular reason why you think the MHRA and JCVI, (not to mention the US and EU regulators), HAVEN'T bothered to check the information and just taking all the data on trust?

    Frankly, if everyone IS just working on data from a private company that hasn't been verified, maybe the vaccines don't work at all.

    I'm not sure that line of thinking leaves us, tbh.

    I think, practically, we have to assume that the various public bodies, both in Europe, Asia and the USA, have all the data they think they need and are happy with it's accuracy.
    Have you missed something? There's nothing after the " ???

    These are the press reports people have quoted in this thread and, as I've said, I think that the MHRA and JCVI probably know more than journalists involved about what this all means.
    Well, that's an interesting point and, tbh, I generally agree. The way this has all be done probably HAS been a lot quicker than it would normally have been done but, obviously, that arguments cuts both ways.

    Specifically, it would probably have been nice to have tested various periods after a first dose with much larger numbers of people but, unfortunately, the time wasn't available.

    IOW if there had been more time maybe they could have looked at more comprehensive testing but, presumably, their thinking was that they wanted to get people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Obviously, if they did extensive testing of 2 doses, say, 1, 2 or 3 months apart the data would have been a lot slower to generate.

    There was also other things Pfizer didn't gather data on such as whether, even if someone is protected from the disease, whilst their body is fighting it, can they still pass it on to other people. Interestingly, that's one aspect the AZ testing actually DID look at as I mentioned earlier.

    So, I don't know but, as I say, one thing I DO know is that, as I sit here, I'm not protected from covid. If they space out the 1st jabs over a longer period it would mean more people can have at least some protection.

    Anyway, just caught this in the obbo on this subject...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/03/why-britain-delaying-second-doses-covid-19-vaccines
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  19. crazypete13

    crazypete13 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 7, 2007
    A walk from BMO
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Flutie rep, easily my fave Argos QB.
     
    Dr. Wankler repped this.
  20. M

    M Member+

    Feb 18, 2000
    Via Ventisette
    Pfizer has specifically said this:

    People should get their shots on the recommended schedule, Pfizer said on Thursday, warning “there is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.”

    So this isn't about what journalists know; that's the vaccine developer saying there's "no data".

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...cks-two-dose-vaccine-schedule-after-u-k-shift
     
    BocaFan, appwrangler, rslfanboy and 3 others repped this.
  21. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    #8596 Naughtius Maximus, Jan 3, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
    But that ignores the other things the experts in the field know which is that, with other vaccines the protection doesn't just stop on a certain day. It continues, possibly at a reducing level, for a period.

    With the AZ one there's actually data that indicates it's better to have a delay in the 2nd dose, at least for people up to age 55 and they think there's no reason that will change for older people.

    The other thing we ALL know, (and you don't need to be an expert to figure this out), is that if you haven't been vaccinated you've got precisely ZERO protection from a vaccination... because you haven't had one.

    There's nothing in any statement from Pfizer that will contradict THAT!

    That, unfortunately, is the position we're in now. If Johnson and the insane clown posse that passes for a government over here had managed this all better, it would be different... but they didn't... and it isn't :(
     
  22. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    https://www.wesh.com/article/crowds-universal/35109218#

    A viewer shared photos with WESH 2 News of Universal on New Year’s Day. He said he regretted going to the park which had large crowds and little distancing.

    The Twitter account Universal Park News also shared images Friday showing a busy day in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

    The parks have reached capacity multiple times this week and despite protocols in place, requiring masks and asking people to stay 6 feet apart, there have been times when the rules aren’t followed.

    People are sooooo stupid.
     
  23. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I won't let it happen again. ;)


    Whether it is a short statement or complete report, it is what was said.

    Fair enough.

    First, this is about preventing the spread of the virus, saving lives and potentially trillions of [insert currency]. So if there is going to be a change from the recommended dose, there needs to a positive verification, not a negative "it hasn't been verified" to not work.
    Second, like it or not, in the current environment in both countries, there is going to be both political and social pressure get the vaccine out to as many as possible, not necessarily following recommended stick schedules. And this is going to be a long term knock on effect of the anti-vaxxers, the general consensus of medical professionals we don't personally know not being honest, and the general distrust in science. And there is plenty of evidence that the bottom of the UK is just as stupid as the bottom of the US.

    You are better than this.

    Moderna has their finding published in a peer-reveiwed journal. And nobody is saying that the BioNTech vaccine won't work, but they have not presented peer-reviewed data to suggest that is does work (beyond the initial 21 days). And as I said above, as this is about saving lives (and a tremendous amount of money), there needs to be positive ("yes it does") and not a negative ("no evidence it fails").

    Again, this is about data "suggesting" as opposed to data that "verifies."

    What we know is that based on the published research, both vaccines are effective at 21 days for a single dose. Moderna is effective at 28 days as well, and in one case (I think it was just one) up to 108 days. But we don't have the verified data on that for the BioNTech vaccine.

    But, there are two questions:
    1 - As I asked, how will this scale up?
    2 - How long will the second booster remain effective (6 months? 12 months? 24 months? 60 months?)?

    Nobody knows the answer to either, and it is dangerous to deviate from the recommended dosage allotment.

    I changed my post half way through and forgot to erase this. Since edited.


    I realize this. That is why I bolded the quote from the vaccine expert.

    There are two points of concern here.
    1 - This is a new method creating a vaccine (mRNA). How effective will it really be? Looks good, but as everything that is new, it takes time...
    2 - What if it doesn't work? No only will that get more people sick and die, but it also has the potential to get people to question the efficacy of the vaccine(s) in the first place. And it certainly will raise questions about the reliability of the current ruling government/party (yes, I know, but proxy).

    To be clear, this is where I am at:
    Do most scientists share this view [of staying firm with the two doses at the developer-recommended intervals]?
    No. Many say risks of limiting virus protection are low. With a new Covid variant spreading rapidly, vaccinating more people – possibly with less efficacy – is better than giving second doses to fewer people.

    I'm all for getting as many people vaccinated as possible. I'm concerned that the extrapolation the data which is being presented is inaccurate for reasons stated previously and above.
     
    M, rslfanboy and chad repped this.
  24. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And that is part of the problem for me. They are straight up lying that there is data to back this up.. How do we know this? Because the company that made the vaccine has repeatedly said there isn’t any data AND their claims are supported by a peer reviewed study that is publicly available AND it has been reviewed by scientists unrelated to the company and UK government and they are also saying there is no data to support this. On the other hand, the government hasn’t provided us with any data to back up their claims and are going with a “trust us!” approach.

    As you note and also mentioned in the tweet thread, there are very valid reasons to delay the second dose that aren’t based on data related to the vaccine. If they’d come out and admit they are doing it for those other very valid reasons despite their not being data for the Pfizer vaccine it likely would be going better for them.
     
    M repped this.
  25. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    Manhattan Beach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just wanted to address this point: he's not.
     
    rslfanboy repped this.

Share This Page