Page 576 of 636 FirstFirst ... 76476526566574575576577578586626 ... LastLast
Results 11,501 to 11,520 of 12703
  1. #11501
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I keep hearing airplanes are relatively safe. Okay, sure. How about airports, teams, lines, taxis, lounges, bathrooms, etc etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Exactly, IMO, traveling today is risky business. Looks like 2020 Thanksgiving air travel will be very substantial. If 2020 Christmas is the same, then I fear the US will pay a horrible price the 1st quarter of 2021.
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    Our daughter flew home from Duke to New Jersey this morning. I know many of you are highly critical of this action, but she was not allowed to stay on campus and didn't really have another safe way to get home. She found the experience to be pretty good. Everyone masked, no one crowding at gates, etc. On the receiving end, at baggage claim, people were well spaced out. The airport parts of the trip certainly didn't seem any less safe than grocery store trips (actually, we are much closer to other people at grocery stores than we ever were at any point at the airport). Anyway, sorry for being so irresponsible!
    Yeah, I think it's less that airports and flying are unsafe (although certainly they're not a zero risk activity) and more that the expectation is that with Thanksgiving travel we're going to be intermixing large groups together indoors without masks in MUCH larger numbers than we have. So, the act of the flying itself may not be super risky (although it should be weighed against the need/risk profile of the individual; like, yeah, in the case of your daughter coming home from Duke, makes perfect sense), but people flying all of the country is likely indicative of a greater problem to come and disregard to changing behaviors as a result of the pandemic. People are traveling to have group gatherings with people outside their households. And are bringing COVID from one place to another in certain cases.

    It's clear we're going to be in for a rough end of the year, and then the next few weeks could be really bad...I hope that's not the case of course.

  2. #11502
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    https://nypost.com/2020/11/24/modern...-virus-spread/

    This isn't too encouraging...the notion that the Moderna vaccine may keep one from getting Covid, but may not protect one from carrying the virus and transmitting it to others...
    I don't think this is discouraging at all, and I applaud a person at a company admitting that the vaccine might not walk on water, clean fish, and ball melons.

    Vaccines, generally speaking, are designed to protect against ILLNESS, not to protect against INFECTION. Even wild-type infection doesn't usually prevent reinfection; for example, people who had chickenpox when they were little generally don't get chickenpox a second time, but mothers who had chickenpox as children do see a boost in their antibody titers when one of their children gets chickenpox. This is because the mother is getting infected, but not getting sick.

    I would posit that not only do we not know whether the Moderna vaccine can prevent spread, we further don't know that it won't. Infections are obviously spread more easily when the virus is allowed to replicate to high titers. Vaccination should probably not allow that to happen, so that even if there is a POTENTIAL for spread, practically speaking it won't be a lot of potential. And if other people are protected from disease by vaccination, even if the virus spreads it won't cause illness. So, to my way of thinking, this is just another reason for as many people as possible to go out and get their vaccination.

    Oh, and the Astra-Zeneca vaccine trial did report a reduction in asymptomatic shedding, too, so there is at least some evidence that their vaccine might also prevent spread.



    Either way we are in a good place as soon as millions of vaccines become readily available and as soon as we can convince people that getting vaccinated is in their best interest. I know, both are huge "ifs."
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  3. #11503
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Either way we are in a good place as soon as millions of vaccines become readily available and as soon as we can convince people that getting vaccinated is in their best interest. I know, both are huge "ifs."
    Meanwhile, there is a small subset of of people looking for the vaccine like this:


  4. #11504
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Exactly, IMO, traveling today is risky business. Looks like 2020 Thanksgiving air travel will be very substantial. If 2020 Christmas is the same, then I fear the US will pay a horrible price the 1st quarter of 2021.
    I fully get the importance of everyone staying where they are and not traveling during the holidays in order to prevent COVID. I do have to admit, though, that I am sensitive to those who have gone months without any human contact who now face the prospect of the holidays alone. For someone who is mentally well, it is challenging enough, but for someone who struggles with mental illness, I think it would be very hard to make it through. On a less important note, I am pretty sure that this is the year my kids stop believing in Santa Claus, as the only thing they have asked for is the coronavirus to be over so my sister can come to see us for Christmas.

  5. #11505
    The Russians are claiming vaccine success too.


    Russia says Sputnik virus vaccine more effective than western rivals.


    I have not heard anything about the vaccine(s) the Chinese government is testing on its citizens. They are administrating it to hundreds of thousands of people over the last couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...9-vaccines-why

  6. #11506
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    I don't think this is discouraging at all, and I applaud a person at a company admitting that the vaccine might not walk on water, clean fish, and ball melons.

    Vaccines, generally speaking, are designed to protect against ILLNESS, not to protect against INFECTION. Even wild-type infection doesn't usually prevent reinfection; for example, people who had chickenpox when they were little generally don't get chickenpox a second time, but mothers who had chickenpox as children do see a boost in their antibody titers when one of their children gets chickenpox. This is because the mother is getting infected, but not getting sick.

    I would posit that not only do we not know whether the Moderna vaccine can prevent spread, we further don't know that it won't. Infections are obviously spread more easily when the virus is allowed to replicate to high titers. Vaccination should probably not allow that to happen, so that even if there is a POTENTIAL for spread, practically speaking it won't be a lot of potential. And if other people are protected from disease by vaccination, even if the virus spreads it won't cause illness. So, to my way of thinking, this is just another reason for as many people as possible to go out and get their vaccination.

    Oh, and the Astra-Zeneca vaccine trial did report a reduction in asymptomatic shedding, too, so there is at least some evidence that their vaccine might also prevent spread.



    Either way we are in a good place as soon as millions of vaccines become readily available and as soon as we can convince people that getting vaccinated is in their best interest. I know, both are huge "ifs."
    I linked this article earlier, but didn't quote this key passage, which says the trials for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines didn't use frequent testing, but the AstraZeneca trials did, which is an interesting difference:

    On the other hand, it is also possible that people who received the vaccine may have been infected with the virus but had only mild or no symptoms, so they might not have been captured in the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases so far. Oxford-AstraZeneca conducted weekly swab tests of volunteers as part of its trial, which may have detected mild infections. But the Moderna trial and the Pfizer-BioNTech trial only reported people who experienced symptoms and were later confirmed to be infected.

    “There are likely many more infections than there are disease events, and even more than that, there are many more exposures,” Janes said. “We will ultimately capture the infections that accrue in the trial, but it will be a while longer before we know anything about those.”

    I agree that most of us shouldn't get too worried about this, unless we are in close contact with someone who can't mount an effective immune response. But it is something to keep in mind as people start getting vaccinated. Just because someone has been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't spread the coronavirus.

    https://www.vox.com/21575420/oxford-...zeneca-results

  7. #11507
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    I don't think this is discouraging at all, and I applaud a person at a company admitting that the vaccine might not walk on water, clean fish, and ball melons.

    Vaccines, generally speaking, are designed to protect against ILLNESS, not to protect against INFECTION. Even wild-type infection doesn't usually prevent reinfection; for example, people who had chickenpox when they were little generally don't get chickenpox a second time, but mothers who had chickenpox as children do see a boost in their antibody titers when one of their children gets chickenpox. This is because the mother is getting infected, but not getting sick.

    I would posit that not only do we not know whether the Moderna vaccine can prevent spread, we further don't know that it won't. Infections are obviously spread more easily when the virus is allowed to replicate to high titers. Vaccination should probably not allow that to happen, so that even if there is a POTENTIAL for spread, practically speaking it won't be a lot of potential. And if other people are protected from disease by vaccination, even if the virus spreads it won't cause illness. So, to my way of thinking, this is just another reason for as many people as possible to go out and get their vaccination.

    Oh, and the Astra-Zeneca vaccine trial did report a reduction in asymptomatic shedding, too, so there is at least some evidence that their vaccine might also prevent spread.



    Either way we are in a good place as soon as millions of vaccines become readily available and as soon as we can convince people that getting vaccinated is in their best interest. I know, both are huge "ifs."
    good to know, thanks as always.

  8. #11508
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I linked this article earlier, but didn't quote this key passage, which says the trials for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines didn't use frequent testing, but the AstraZeneca trials did, which is an interesting difference:

    On the other hand, it is also possible that people who received the vaccine may have been infected with the virus but had only mild or no symptoms, so they might not have been captured in the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases so far. Oxford-AstraZeneca conducted weekly swab tests of volunteers as part of its trial, which may have detected mild infections. But the Moderna trial and the Pfizer-BioNTech trial only reported people who experienced symptoms and were later confirmed to be infected.

    “There are likely many more infections than there are disease events, and even more than that, there are many more exposures,” Janes said. “We will ultimately capture the infections that accrue in the trial, but it will be a while longer before we know anything about those.”

    I agree that most of us shouldn't get too worried about this, unless we are in close contact with someone who can't mount an effective immune response. But it is something to keep in mind as people start getting vaccinated. Just because someone has been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't spread the coronavirus.

    https://www.vox.com/21575420/oxford-...zeneca-results
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    good to know, thanks as always.
    I look forward to the findings of the Food and Drug Administration. They should offer some nuance and normalization.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  9. #11509
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    The Russians are claiming vaccine success too.


    Russia says Sputnik virus vaccine more effective than western rivals.


    I have not heard anything about the vaccine(s) the Chinese government is testing on its citizens. They are administrating it to hundreds of thousands of people over the last couple of months.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...9-vaccines-why
    I've got a line on a few thousand doses, Sputnik V factory seconds from State Vaccine Factory Number Eight in Irkutsk...they should work fine, right? I do wonder why the Pootster hasn't chosen to try it yet...

  10. #11510
    https://dnyuz.com/2020/11/24/evidenc...arder-to-stop/

    Very interesting article on whether or not an early mutation in the virus made it much more contagious!

  11. #11511
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    I've got a line on a few thousand doses, Sputnik V factory seconds from State Vaccine Factory Number Eight in Irkutsk...they should work fine, right? I do wonder why the Pootster hasn't chosen to try it yet...
    Who needs a vaccine when you are:
    1) In isolation
    2) Require visitors to quarantine for two weeks before they see you
    3) Have disinfecting tunnels.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/putin-virus-russia-bubble.amp.html

  12. #11512
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIRe...ature=youtu.be

    Not sure how many want to geek out on this, but here's a supercomputer simulation of Covid at work that won the Gordon Bell Special Prize...(friend of mine designed the Power9 processor)...

    Meanwhile, this isn't encouraging, states giving up on extensive contact tracing:https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11...19-coronavirus

  13. #11513
    Thought this article might be interesting to some:
    https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news...cines-forever/
    "Coronavirus mRNA vaccines won't just end the pandemic. They could change vaccines forever
    Two vaccine candidates show promise in knocking out the pandemic. The technology used to develop them could herald more breakthroughs...


    With significant refinement, mRNA vaccines could treat not just viral diseases like COVID-19, but inherited diseases, allergies or even cancer. "I think we'll see some pretty incredible breakthroughs based on these technologies in the future," says Larisa Labzin, an immunologist at the University of Queensland, Australia."

    Apparently, BioNTech had already been working with Pfizer on the technology for a potential influenza vaccine.

  14. #11514
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    I am starting to think optimistically about the vaccine. 70%+ of covid deaths are from the age group 65 and up. The US has approximately 50 million people in this age group. Getting to this group as quick as possible is going have a huge impact. Not only on the number of deaths but also hospitalizations etc..From what we are hearing it seems that this should happen fairly quickly.

  15. #11515
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Correct side of the Durham/CH border
    Another nail in the coffin of hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure against Covid. No significant positive impact and a much higher incidence of treatment related, though not serious, adverse events.

    RESULTS

    The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care. Results were similar in the hydroxychloroquine and usual-care groups with respect to the incidence of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 (5.7% and 6.2%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.42]). In addition, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than usual care (18.7% and 17.8%, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than in the usual-care group (56.1% vs. 5.9%), but no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801
    “Coach said no 3s.” - Zion on The Block

  16. #11516
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    "I encourage all Americans to gather, in homes and places of worship, to offer a prayer of thanks to God for our many blessings." - the president

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...nDH?li=BBorjTa

  17. #11517
    So, apparently the half dose followed by full dose from AstraZeneca was a mistake... They never intended to do it but it was a manufacturing error and then they just rolled with it. And now people are questioning the numbers on that piece because it was a relatively small number of people, nobody over 55 got the half dose followed by full dose, and they pooled the results. Could be statistical fluke. Nobody really knows why a smaller dose up front would be more effective if it's even true at all.

    The Associated Press: AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results.
    https://apnews.com/883e783962dc562a99864b4b63de9897

  18. #11518
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    we're very happy to count our blessings alone at home this year so we can count them with a lot of friends next year.

  19. #11519
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    To be fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    So, apparently the half dose followed by full dose from AstraZeneca was a mistake... They never intended to do it but it was a manufacturing error and then they just rolled with it. And now people are questioning the numbers on that piece because it was a relatively small number of people, nobody over 55 got the half dose followed by full dose, and they pooled the results. Could be statistical fluke. Nobody really knows why a smaller dose up front would be more effective if it's even true at all.

    The Associated Press: AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results.
    https://apnews.com/883e783962dc562a99864b4b63de9897
    There are theories as to why the smaller dose might be more effective. For one, it's possible that with the larger dose, the immune system reacts more aggressively to the adenovirus component of the vaccine, and makes the response to the spike protein weaker. Here's a good analysis: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipelin...-efficacy-data

  20. #11520
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    So, apparently the half dose followed by full dose from AstraZeneca was a mistake... They never intended to do it but it was a manufacturing error and then they just rolled with it. And now people are questioning the numbers on that piece because it was a relatively small number of people, nobody over 55 got the half dose followed by full dose, and they pooled the results. Could be statistical fluke. Nobody really knows why a smaller dose up front would be more effective if it's even true at all.

    The Associated Press: AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results.
    https://apnews.com/883e783962dc562a99864b4b63de9897
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/b...ca-oxford.html

    Yes, some fears that missteps are going to reduce the chances of an early approval...not helpful...

Similar Threads

  1. Lacrosse: The 2020 Season
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: 04-15-2020, 12:13 AM
  2. 2020 Final Four
    By szstark in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-09-2020, 12:00 PM
  3. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  4. FB: 2020 Schedule is out
    By nocilla in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-22-2020, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •