PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[OldPhiKap]

Scott Atlas has resigned.

[Tripping William]

Scott Atlas has resigned.

Is this good news? Or bad news? Or will the thread gets locked if you say?

[dudog84]

Scott Atlas has resigned.

s'pose he's tire(d) of supporting the entire COVID response on his shoulders?

[tbyers11]

s'pose he's tire(d) of supporting the entire COVID response on his shoulders?

Even in light of the Titanic reference, I guess he didn't want to go down with the ship?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Scott Atlas has resigned.

*shrugs*

[dudog84]

Even in light of the Titanic reference, I guess he didn't want to go down with the ship?

But is he getting away Scot(t) free?

[Kdogg]

Is this good news? Or bad news? Or will the thread gets locked if you say?

It’s one more step to eventually getting a unified, consistent message from varies government departments.

[OldPhiKap]

*shrugs*

Paging JohnGalt . . . .

[sagegrouse]

Scott Atlas has resigned.

Is this good news? Or bad news? Or will the thread gets locked if you say?

It's good news. He has been denying reality and opposing almost everything that sensible medical authorities have proposed.

I am not sure he is welcome back at Stanford.

[OldPhiKap]

It's good news. He has been denying reality and opposing almost everything that sensible medical authorities have proposed.

I am not sure he is welcome back at Stanford.

I’ll guess “not.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/quick...st-scott-atlas

[JasonEvans]

It is worth noting that Atlas was in a position where he was only allowed to serve for 130 days and that term was due to expire this week, so he sorta had to resign.

[OldPhiKap]

It is worth noting that Atlas was in a position where he was only allowed to serve for 130 days and that term was due to expire this week, so he sorta had to resign.

Thanks, I did not know that.

A good easy-read article this morning on vaccine distribution, priorities, timelines, side effects, etcetera:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...ehp&li=BBnb7Kz

[JasonEvans]

A good easy-read article this morning on vaccine distribution, priorities, timelines, side effects, etcetera:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...ehp&li=BBnb7Kz

At the end of that article is a poll. I know online polls like this are self-selective and not at all scientific. I also know that a poll about vaccine usage after an article about how a vaccine will be distributed is going to skew pro-vaccine in a pretty big way. Still, I took some hope from these results:

If / when a coronavirus vaccine were made available to the general public, would you opt to receive it immediately, after a little while, or not at all?

I'd opt to receive it immediately - 59%
I'd opt to receive it after a little while - 28%
I wouldn't opt to receive it at all - 10%
Something else - 2%
Other / No opinion - 1%

I think "after a little while" is confusing because folks could think they will not be eligible to get it right away and check that box because they are not in one of the "get the vaccine first" groups

-Jason "I mean, no matter how eager I am to get it, I won't be anywhere close to the front of the line and will have to wait 'a little while' no matter what " Evans

[budwom]

At the end of that article is a poll. I know online polls like this are self-selective and not at all scientific. I also know that a poll about vaccine usage after an article about how a vaccine will be distributed is going to skew pro-vaccine in a pretty big way. Still, I took some hope from these results:

If / when a coronavirus vaccine were made available to the general public, would you opt to receive it immediately, after a little while, or not at all?

I'd opt to receive it immediately - 59%
I'd opt to receive it after a little while - 28%
I wouldn't opt to receive it at all - 10%
Something else - 2%
Other / No opinion - 1%

I think "after a little while" is confusing because folks could think they will not be eligible to get it right away and check that box because they are not in one of the "get the vaccine first" groups

-Jason "I mean, no matter how eager I am to get it, I won't be anywhere close to the front of the line and will have to wait 'a little while' no matter what " Evans

The numbers are getting better because more individuals are comfortable, post election, that some trash vaccines won't be rushed to market.

[rsvman]

The numbers are getting better because more individuals are comfortable, post election, that some trash vaccines won't be rushed to market.

Even though all the vaccine development and testing happened under Trump's watch. People are so irrational.

[MChambers]

Interesting news about the AstraZeneca vaccine, the one that supposedly is more effective if you only get a half dose first:

"The dose of AstraZeneca Plc’s Covid vaccine that showed the highest level of effectiveness was tested in a younger population than a bigger dose that showed less efficacy, according to the head of the U.S. Operation Warp Speed program.

The vaccine being developed with Oxford University was 90% effective when a half-dose was given before a full-dose booster, the partners said on Monday. However, that regime was administered to participants in a group whose age was capped at 55, Warp Speed’s Moncef Slaoui said Tuesday in a phone call with reporters."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ger-population

I'm very glad we have two other vaccines that seem to be effective and more in the pipeline.

[jimsumner]

Even though all the vaccine development and testing happened under Trump's watch. People are so irrational.

Not really. Trump so politicized vaccine production that there was a genuine concern that he would convince someone, somewhere, somehow to bypass protocols and prematurely announce an untested vaccine in a bid to bolster Trump's re-election bid. Given Trump's frequent touting of dubious treatment options, this did not seem unrealistic to many of us.

Now that the election is over and we know that all of the drug companies did indeed follow established protocols, those concerns have largely disappeared. Doesn't mean they weren't legit three months ago when it looked like the politicians had squeezed out the experts.

[JasonEvans]

Interesting news about the AstraZeneca vaccine, the one that supposedly is more effective if you only get a half dose first:

"The dose of AstraZeneca Plc’s Covid vaccine that showed the highest level of effectiveness was tested in a younger population than a bigger dose that showed less efficacy, according to the head of the U.S. Operation Warp Speed program.

The vaccine being developed with Oxford University was 90% effective when a half-dose was given before a full-dose booster, the partners said on Monday. However, that regime was administered to participants in a group whose age was capped at 55, Warp Speed’s Moncef Slaoui said Tuesday in a phone call with reporters."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ger-population

I'm very glad we have two other vaccines that seem to be effective and more in the pipeline.

As I am sure most of you know, the half dose thing was a mistake, not intentional: https://www.businessinsider.com/astr...xperts-2020-11

On Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of the US vaccine program Operation Warp Speed, said in a call with reporters that participants receiving the half-strength initial dose were under 55 years old, per The New York Times.

If the half-dosage wasn't tested in older patients, this raises questions about the effectiveness of AstraZeneca's vaccine, since older people are generally at greatest risk of severe infection.

In addition, efficacy results were pooled from clinical trials in Britain and Brazil that were designed differently, per The Times.

John LaMattina, a former president of Pfizer's global research-and-development unit, said in a tweet it was "hard to believe" the Food and Drug Administration would issue emergency authorization for a vaccine whose most efficacious dose has been given to 2,300 people.

John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, told The Times: "The press release raised more questions than it answered."

Natalie Dean, a biostatistician specializing in vaccine study design at the University of Florida, posted on Twitter: "Astrazeneca/Oxford get a poor grade for transparency and rigor when it comes to the vaccine trial results they have reported." She questioned how AstraZeneca had monitored the trials.

It is entirely possible that some other nations may approve the AZ/Oxford vaccine based on the latest trial, but I bet the US FDA wants to look at a lot more data and may even ask for another round of Phase three testing with tens of thousands of participants. I suspect we won't see US approval of the British vaccine for several months, at least.

[Mike Corey]

Not really. Trump so politicized vaccine production that there was a genuine concern that he would convince someone, somewhere, somehow to bypass protocols and prematurely announce an untested vaccine in a bid to bolster Trump's re-election bid. Given Trump's frequent touting of dubious treatment options, this did not seem unrealistic to many of us.

Now that the election is over and we know that all of the drug companies did indeed follow established protocols, those concerns have largely disappeared. Doesn't mean they weren't legit three months ago when it looked like the politicians had squeezed out the experts.

This is correct.

To be clear: Nothing on this front happened under Trump's "watch." It is accurate to say, however, that vaccines have been developed concurrent with his time in the White House.

[aimo]

The hospital where I work expects to get Pfizer vaccine within a couple of weeks. Frontline workers and high-risk patients are the first to get it. I am far from a frontline worker, so I know it will be later before I am offered it. I plan to get it as soon as I can.