PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[Jeffrey]

What about Reddit?

-jk

Rich said Street, not Alley. The Alley Cats have seven lives and act accordingly.

[Jeffrey]

There's been a lot of recent media coverage discussing the benefits of layering 2 masks. Dr. Fauci recommended wearing 2 masks, calling it "common sense." I'm a big believer in masks and I don't enter any public indoor space without one, but I'm having a hard time understanding the science behind double masking.

I usually wear an n95 mask, but I have a beard so I know I'm not getting a good seal around my face. I figure that's still no worse than wearing a multi-layer cloth mask which also allows air gaps. In either case, how would adding a second mask help when my biggest risk remains the air gaps around the mask? Conversely, if I was wearing a properly sealed N95 mask, would adding a second cloth mask really add much more protection?

In short, intuitively, it seems that adding 8 layers of loose fitting filtration isn't any better than 4 layers of loose fitting filtration. I could even imaging a scenario where it's net-worse if it increases the airflow around the edges of the mask. But, I'm not a scientist or doctor and I realize I'm probably missing something. Would love to hear the thoughts of people who have a better understanding of the science than I do (which means pretty much all of you ).

I suspect Dr. Fauci is responding to the fact most people are wearing masks significantly inferior to your N95. I’d rather have one N95 than layering two bandanas.

[Jeffrey]

Up to 27.9 million doses administered as of this morning, a 1.7 million increase from yesterday. A tad over 25 million doses given since the morning of Dec 30. 22.8 million have gotten at least 1 dose. Definitely making progress. But still a LONG way to go obviously (~7% of the population with at least 1 dose).

I may be looking at the math differently than most, because I think 1.7 million a day is very good. If there are approximately 335 million Americans, and 75 million under 18 years of age, then I’m thinking the most possible is 260 million vaccinated. If 75% agree to be vaccinated (which seems optimistic), then 195 million Americans could get double doses and be fully vaccinated before the end of summer.

[CDu]

I may be looking at the math differently than most, because I think 1.7 million a day is very good. If there are approximately 335 million Americans, and 75 million under 18 years of age, then I’m thinking the most possible is 260 million vaccinated. If 75% agree to be vaccinated (which seems optimistic), then 195 million Americans could get double doses and be fully vaccinated before the end of summer.

You are doing the math right. 1.7 million per day is a very good pace. That would be like 50 million doses a month if sustained. Which would, indeed, get us to 400 million doses as of Sept.

And that is assuming 200 million vaccinated and everyone gets a 2-dose regimen. I bret only 150 million choose to get it at all, and some will get the 1-dose vaccine.

Now, it remains to be seen if the 1.7 million pace holds (or gets even better). But yes, that would be a fantastic pace. Especially since the most at-risk-for-severe-disease folks are getting it first.

[cato]

Yea, this brings up a dilemma that some people may face - If the J and J vaccine is available fairly soon but you have to wait longer for the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine (say a month or two or longer), do you wait for what may be the more effective vaccine or take the J and J now? I'm not sure what I would do.

I’m skeptical the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine will be available for me or my wife before 2022. It definitely will not be for my kids.

I don’t know that this would be available any earlier, but I do expect availability to be a key driver for me and mine actually getting vaccinated.

[richardjackson199]

yeah, I know, it's complicated, but it also seems (at first look) to be less effective vs the new mutations...if that's what's available when it's my turn, I'll gladly take it...

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is the J & J vaccine in the US will probably be less available due to supply for many of you than the Moderna/Pfizer for a good while (next few months).

So I don't think many of you will face the efficacy dilemma of choosing which vaccine to get in the short term (next few months) because the vaccine most likely to be available to most of you will be Pfizer/Moderna over J&J.

[richardjackson199]

I’m skeptical the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine will be available for me or my wife before 2022. It definitely will not be for my kids.

I don’t know that this would be available any earlier, but I do expect availability to be a key driver for me and mine actually getting vaccinated.

I'm hopeful that vaccines will be available to most adults by this spring at the latest. Sadly, many who can get the vaccine will choose not to do so. But that will increase supply for those who want it in the upcoming months.

I'm optimistic, but I'm still hopeful vaccines will be available to kids 12 and over by very late summer (bigger maybe there).

[CDu]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is the J & J vaccine in the US will probably be less available due to supply for many of you than the Moderna/Pfizer for a good while (next few months).

So I don't think many of you will face the efficacy dilemma of choosing which vaccine to get in the short term (next few months) because the vaccine most likely to be available to most of you will be Pfizer/Moderna over J&J.

It may depend on your age/risk group. We only have contracts for 200 million doses of Moderna and Pfizer. For someone like me, that means there aren’t enough doses to get to me. So it will likely be the JnJ or AstraZeneca vaccines that are available by the time I am eligible.

But for those over 50, it will probably be Pfizer or Moderna.

[Stray Gator]

It may depend on your age/risk group. We only have contracts for 200 million doses of Moderna and Pfizer. For someone like me, that means there aren’t enough doses to get to me. So it will likely be the JnJ or AstraZeneca vaccines that are available by the time I am eligible.

But for those over 50, it will probably be Pfizer or Moderna.

Actually, as of now, the United States has ordered a total of 600 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines:

"Pfizer and Moderna have agreed to deliver another 200 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to the U.S., bringing the total on tap to 600 million, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people."

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/...-more-vaccines

[Jeffrey]

Actually, as of now, the United States has ordered a total of 600 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines:

"Pfizer and Moderna have agreed to deliver another 200 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to the U.S., bringing the total on tap to 600 million, or enough to vaccinate 300 million people."

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/...-more-vaccines

IMO, Trump was foolish not to buy the final 200 million doses when they were first offered. I’m glad Biden quickly placed the final 200 million order. Why would we not want the best available (95%) for all Americans? IIRC, we should have all 600 million by August. It’s one of the best investments our government will ever make!

[Jeffrey]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is the J & J vaccine in the US will probably be less available due to supply for many of you than the Moderna/Pfizer for a good while (next few months).

So I don't think many of you will face the efficacy dilemma of choosing which vaccine to get in the short term (next few months) because the vaccine most likely to be available to most of you will be Pfizer/Moderna over J&J.

Agreed! I suspect the main US usage for J & J will be remote areas with sparse populations. Many of those areas may not have sufficient freezing resources and may also have lower desire levels, creating substantial Pfizer/Moderna wastage.

[CameronBlue]

Programming note: I pop in and out of this thread so perhaps this has been discussed extensively already but microbiologists/virologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss the pandemic and the likelihood Covid was synthesized in the lab (probable) and how a lab-synthesized virus now may respond to environmental pressure. Fascinating conversation. Heying and Weinstein host a podcast.

[LasVegas]

Programming note: I pop in and out of this thread so perhaps this has been discussed extensively already but microbiologists/virologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss the pandemic and the likelihood Covid was synthesized in the lab (probable) and how a lab-synthesized virus now may respond to environmental pressure. Fascinating conversation. Heying and Weinstein host a podcast.

Not to sound rude or anything but the lab origin of the virus has been shot down many times by many experts in the field. Angela Rasmussen, Kristian Andersen, and Fauci to name a few. I’m actually surprised Maher had these two guests on. The internet sure doesn’t put them in a good light. Maher really seems to be getting more into the weeds with this kind of stuff.

[CameronBlue]

If you haven’t watched the interview and I suspect you haven’t you should. Heying and Weinstein Didn’t state unequivocally that it was synthesized in the lab. They simply stated that probabilistically it could’ve been synthesized in the lab. I have no expertise to judge the soundness of their conclusions but again They were making the point that the issue was open to reasonable discussion.. They were merely pointing out that the Covid virus bears characteristics that don’t often evolve in “natural conditions“.Further they contend that the theory That the virus originated in a bat and then was transferred to a pangolin and then to a wet market has been debunked They make a compelling argument. It’s all very superficial unless you dive into the science and again I don’t have the expertise to do that. But they correctly point out that the issue was politicized from the start and the fact that Trump was the progenitor of the theory (As far as American audiences are concerned)that it was born in the lab immediately brought that theory discredit.

[budwom]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is the J & J vaccine in the US will probably be less available due to supply for many of you than the Moderna/Pfizer for a good while (next few months).

So I don't think many of you will face the efficacy dilemma of choosing which vaccine to get in the short term (next few months) because the vaccine most likely to be available to most of you will be Pfizer/Moderna over J&J.

What J&J hasn't announced is how many doses they have ready to ship once they get approval, so that's a major unknown...but they did note earlier they've had a production snafu (costing them a couple of months), so I agree, Richard, that those of us who think we're getting a shot within the next month or two, it's more likely to be Pfizer or Moderna...a bird in hand being a bird in hand, I'll take what they've got, because if you wait you might even get a newer less effective vaccine when your number comes up.

[mph]

If you haven’t watched the interview and I suspect you haven’t you should. Heying and Weinstein Didn’t state unequivocally that it was synthesized in the lab. They simply stated that probabilistically it could’ve been synthesized in the lab. I have no expertise to judge the soundness of their conclusions but again They were making the point that the issue was open to reasonable discussion.. They were merely pointing out that the Covid virus bears characteristics that don’t often evolve in “natural conditions“.Further they contend that the theory That the virus originated in a bat and then was transferred to a pangolin and then to a wet market has been debunked They make a compelling argument. It’s all very superficial unless you dive into the science and again I don’t have the expertise to do that. But they correctly point out that the issue was politicized from the start and the fact that Trump was the progenitor of the theory (As far as American audiences are concerned)that it was born in the lab immediately brought that theory discredit.

Here's a lengthy New Yorker article from a few weeks ago making a similar case. I have no idea whether COVID-19 is the result of gain of function research, but I think its misguided to call it a conspiracy theory. In either case, it's a good opportunity for our leaders to reevaluate the wisdom of GoF research, which is a ultimately a question of public policy.

And we were warned, repeatedly. The intentional creation of new microbes that combine virulence with heightened transmissibility “poses extraordinary risks to the public,” wrote infectious-disease experts Marc Lipsitch and Thomas Inglesby in 2014. “A rigorous and transparent risk-assessment process for this work has not yet been established.” That’s still true today. In 2012, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz warned that there was an 80 percent chance, given how many laboratories were then handling virulent viro-varietals, that a leak of a potential pandemic pathogen would occur sometime in the next 12 years.

A lab accident — a dropped flask, a needle prick, a mouse bite, an illegibly labeled bottle — is apolitical. Proposing that something unfortunate happened during a scientific experiment in Wuhan — where COVID-19 was first diagnosed and where there are three high-security virology labs, one of which held in its freezers the most comprehensive inventory of sampled bat viruses in the world — isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just a theory. It merits attention, I believe, alongside other reasoned attempts to explain the source of our current catastrophe.

[-jk]

Here's a lengthy New Yorker article from a few weeks ago making a similar case. I have no idea whether COVID-19 is the result of gain of function research, but I think its misguided to call it a conspiracy theory. In either case, it's a good opportunity for our leaders to reevaluate the wisdom of GoF research, which is a ultimately a question of public policy.

And we were warned, repeatedly. The intentional creation of new microbes that combine virulence with heightened transmissibility “poses extraordinary risks to the public,” wrote infectious-disease experts Marc Lipsitch and Thomas Inglesby in 2014. “A rigorous and transparent risk-assessment process for this work has not yet been established.” That’s still true today. In 2012, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz warned that there was an 80 percent chance, given how many laboratories were then handling virulent viro-varietals, that a leak of a potential pandemic pathogen would occur sometime in the next 12 years.

A lab accident — a dropped flask, a needle prick, a mouse bite, an illegibly labeled bottle — is apolitical. Proposing that something unfortunate happened during a scientific experiment in Wuhan — where COVID-19 was first diagnosed and where there are three high-security virology labs, one of which held in its freezers the most comprehensive inventory of sampled bat viruses in the world — isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just a theory. It merits attention, I believe, alongside other reasoned attempts to explain the source of our current catastrophe.

Isn't this how we got the Planet of the Apes reboot? Let's be careful out there!

-jk

[CameronBlue]

Here's a lengthy New Yorker article from a few weeks ago making a similar case. I have no idea whether COVID-19 is the result of gain of function research, but I think its misguided to call it a conspiracy theory. In either case, it's a good opportunity for our leaders to reevaluate the wisdom of GoF research, which is a ultimately a question of public policy.

Better stated...which is the point that Maher closed with--the dangers inherent in GoF research. Whatever Trump's motive (won't get into PPB territory) by promoting the theory he effectively killed off the opportunity for rational conversation on the topic.

[LasVegas]

If you haven’t watched the interview and I suspect you haven’t you should. Heying and Weinstein Didn’t state unequivocally that it was synthesized in the lab. They simply stated that probabilistically it could’ve been synthesized in the lab. I have no expertise to judge the soundness of their conclusions but again They were making the point that the issue was open to reasonable discussion.. They were merely pointing out that the Covid virus bears characteristics that don’t often evolve in “natural conditions“.Further they contend that the theory That the virus originated in a bat and then was transferred to a pangolin and then to a wet market has been debunked They make a compelling argument. It’s all very superficial unless you dive into the science and again I don’t have the expertise to do that. But they correctly point out that the issue was politicized from the start and the fact that Trump was the progenitor of the theory (As far as American audiences are concerned)that it was born in the lab immediately brought that theory discredit.

I’ll have to rewatch but I remember them saying that is was 90% likely that it was created in a lab. The leading experts in the field believe there really isn’t any evidence to back this up from what I’ve read. They strongly believe that it occurred naturally and I’m way more inclined to believe the scientific community as a whole. Just my two cents. Maybe others on this board who are closer to this than me can chime in.

Biological warfare is pretty scary stuff though.

[MChambers]

Here's a lengthy New Yorker article from a few weeks ago making a similar case. I have no idea whether COVID-19 is the result of gain of function research, but I think its misguided to call it a conspiracy theory. In either case, it's a good opportunity for our leaders to reevaluate the wisdom of GoF research, which is a ultimately a question of public policy.

That's NYmag.com, not the New Yorker. Neither one is perfect, but I'd generally be inclined to give a story in the New Yorker more weight.