Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, The Football Freak said:

Let’s hope some people read and comprehend. 

this from a guy who a little up thread, stated the vaccinated have a greatly reduced chance of a breakthrough case.

glass houses.

spoiler: the vaccinated have an infinitely greater chance of a breakthrough case, by definition of breakthrough case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

“Look, I’m just asking questions here.  It’s just a total coincidence that everything I post makes it seem like a conspiracy or doctors don’t know what they are talking about or the vaccines don’t work.  Don’t call me anti-vax!”

 

"Look, you just need to listen to the side that says Covid vaxxes are just like any other vaxxes, even if they aren't, because the medical establishment led by esteemed Dr. Tony Fauci's funding apparatus says so. He's the good doctor. Consider the source!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LawFitz said:

 

"Look, you just need to listen to the side that says Covid vaxxes are just like any other vaxxes, even if they aren't, because the medical establishment led by esteemed Dr. Tony Fauci's funding apparatus says so. He's the good doctor. Consider the source!"

Yeah....anyone making this argument as you post it is merely the opposite side of the coin from you. Those people deserve to be admonished. 

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LawFitz said:

 

"Look, you just need to listen to the side that says Covid vaxxes are just like any other vaxxes, even if they aren't, because the medical establishment led by esteemed Dr. Tony Fauci's funding apparatus says so. He's the good doctor. Consider the source!"

Yes, we listen to the medical establishment when it is 99% to 1%. Why you choose the 1% is mind boggling.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Yes, we listen to the medical establishment when it is 99% to 1%. Why you choose the 1% is mind boggling.

It isn't. A pool of our humanity wants to believe x is the answer and our current information age allows them the opportunity to find a source that says whay they want to believe. It's nonsense and it would behoove all of us to not engage those with such a motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

It isn't. A pool of our humanity wants to believe x is the answer and our current information age allows them the opportunity to find a source that says whay they want to believe. It's nonsense and it would behoove all of us to not engage those with such a motivation.

Yep and make these threads easier to read to boot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
17 hours ago, Doug B said:

But again ... so what? Is this really meaningful?

In the context of we don't know the long term effects, I would say it is a valid argument. 


I would strenuously disagree with any take that disregards rates of bad-outcome occurrence. From a debate standpoint, there's really nowhere further to go with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jobarules said:

####in ridiculous 

So YOU don't approve the article so it's not a legit stat. GTFO here with this nonsense 


My fault -- I gave you a hasty take. For the house's sake, let me offer a more complete response.

It wasn't a matter of me disapproving of the articles -- it was a matter of major elements of both articles not supporting your takeaway despite that the 50% figure was, indeed, cited in both.

The researchers cited in the Nature article equivocate. On the one hand they're giving worrisome results of long-COVID studies. On the other hand, they're stressing that the studies are too small, too preliminary, too narrow, and that much more work needs to be done to even begin offering meaningful information about long COVID in the vaccinated. It wasn't just the one paragraph I quoted -- there's a lot more:

Quote

Putrino has noticed that even being fully vaccinated doesn’t necessarily protect against long COVID ... “It is noticeably less common than in unvaccinated people, but it’s still there,” he says. He thinks that clinics could see more such cases as the months tick by.

...

Vaccination could reduce the likelihood of [long COVID] scenarios. If a vaccine induces high levels of antibodies and T cells capable of recognizing SARS-CoV-2, the immune system could stop the virus during its first few replications before it can establish hidden reservoirs in the body, says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

...

Both anecdotes and data suggest that such protection against long COVID is partial at best, but it is difficult to tease out exactly how common long COVID is in breakthrough infections. One Facebook poll of about 1,950 fully vaccinated people found 44 breakthrough cases, 24 of whom reported long-COVID symptoms. The survey was done by the long-COVID patient-advocacy group Survivor Corps, and the results are reported in a preprint. But because the poll was not a random sampling of people, the findings cannot be used to estimate the rate of long COVID after vaccination — they show only that such cases exist.

Another study in Israel, of around 1,500 vaccinated health-care workers, found that 7 (19%) of the 39 breakthrough infections produced symptoms that lingered for more than 6 weeks5. However, the numbers of infections studied are too small for firm conclusions to be drawn about the absolute risk.

...

As vaccination programmes continue, researchers will gain a better sense of how vaccines and variants affect long-COVID rates and severity. It’s also possible that vaccination might help to reduce long COVID in those who already have the condition. In October, the UK Office for National Statistics, which is collecting data on long COVID, reported that the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a 13% decrease in self-reported long-COVID symptoms among those who already had the condition. The second dose yielded a further 9% drop relative to the first.

The study followed people for only about two months, so it’s unclear how long the effects will last, says Iwasaki, who has been studying how vaccination affects long-COVID symptoms. But it is largely in line with other findings, she adds. One survey conducted by Survivor Corps found that about 40% of respondents with long COVID reported an improvement in their symptoms after vaccination. Another 14%, however, said that their symptoms got worse.

 


The Nature article also summarizes and cites the UK's COVID Symptom Study -- the one with 1.2 million self-reporting symptoms and the commonly-cited one that found  around 50% lower risk of long COVID in vaccinatedpeople. The Healthline article you linked is focused on the COVID Symptom Study itself -- here are some further excerpts besides the one I posted on the previous page:

Quote

 

[UK researchers] evaluated reports from people who had been given at least one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca mRNA COVID-19 vaccine between December 2020 and July 2021.

Researchers included a control group of unvaccinated people for comparison.

According to the findings of 971,504 fully vaccinated people, only 0.2 percent went on to develop a breakthrough infection. (previously quoted - db)

When this data was compared with reports from unvaccinated people who got COVID-19, it was found that breakthrough cases were associated with a 49 percent lower risk of symptoms lasting 4 weeks or more after infection.

...

According to the study, frailty was significantly associated with breakthrough infection in older adults after their first vaccine dose.

Two possible reasons researchers gave for this finding are that adults with frailty are often in long-term care facilities, where there’s increased risk of contracting respiratory illness, and that they have weakened immune systems due to older age.

“This increased risk might therefore reflect increased exposure: unlike non-frail older adults, frail older adults might require carer visits or attendance at health-care facilities,” the study authors wrote.

...

Vaccination still best protection against long-haul COVID-19 

Hirschwerk said it’s important for every eligible person to get vaccinated.

“There are so many important reasons,” he said. “But emerging data supports that vaccination can also reduce the likelihood of individuals developing long COVID if they develop breakthrough infection, compared to becoming infected while not vaccinated.”

Gut, who specializes in treating people with long-haul COVID-19, agrees that the best strategy to reduce the risk of all COVID-19 complications, “including long COVID syndrome and death,” remains vaccination.

 


One thing about that UK study that gives me some pause -- even with 1.2 million self-reports -- is that people with only one shot are thrown into the same bucket as those with two shots. But we don't know how the infected one-shot folks fared with long COVID versus the fully-vaccinated folks. We also don't have a control for time (which is missing from far too many vaccination studies). Was there a difference in long COVID rate between infected two-shot folks that were six months away from their second shot versus, less than three months? Researchers may have parsed this out, but it's not given in the Healthline article.

Lastly, it's interesting to me that both articles report the "50% reduction in long COVID among the vaccinated" as a positive thing, in line with BassNBrew's take last page. Are we quite sure that 50% is not "good enough"? Where are we drawing that line and what are we basing that on? I mean, yes, we want it at 100% if at all possible ... but heck: looking at the UK COVID Symptom Study, their fully vaccinated respondents got a 99.8 reduction in infection rate before their long COVID rate reduction even kicked in.

Going back to your risk equation from the previous page:

(Long term risks of unvaccinated covid) > (x% * Long term risks of covid) + (long term risks of vaccine)

Just going from the UK study respondents -- which I concede is not the be-all-end-all, just the big one from both your Nature and Healthline links:

(Long term risks of unvaccinated covid) > (0.002 * 0.51 [Long term risks of vaccinated covid]) + (long term risks of vaccine)

Where 0.002 (= 0.2%) is the UK study's reported breakthrough infection rate and 0.51 (= 49% reduction) is the reported rate change of long COVID symptoms among the breakthroughs compared to the unvaccinated control group. I would prefer that the 0.51 figure be a raw rate, but we'll go with the figures we have for the nonce.

And somehow ... this all ties back to the same repeated refrain "You can still get COVID if vaccinated." That's where this all started yesterday morning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jobarules said:

@Doug B can you honestly say with a straight face the breakthrough infection rate is 0.2%? You're being disingenuous citing that stat.


I'm not saying the breakthrough infection rate is 0.2% -- and no, I don't believe it's that low as a one-size-fits-all rate. I took care to point out that that was specifically the figure from the UK's COVID Symptom Study -- quoting myself:

Quote

Just going from the UK study respondents -- which I concede is not the be-all-end-all, just the big one from both your Nature and Healthline links


Let's consider, then, that I was plugging into your equation figures from a study your Healthline link was written about and your Nature link cited. There was nothing wrong with you citing those links. Just think about, though, why one figure might seem acceptable at a glance (the 50% reduction in long COVID for vaccinated people) and another figure from the same study might seem disingenuous to cite (0.2% breakthrough infection rate). What are we bringing with us when we read these articles?

...

The breakthrough infection rate, I believe, changes over time. The breakthrough rate is lower closer to a person's second vaccination and higher as the second vaccination recedes in time. It's apparently higher for Delta than for the earlier strains/variants, though the time decay of the vaccines somewhat confounds approaching an exact breakthrough percentage for Delta.

I believe the results of the various mRNA vaccine trials last year approximated the breakthrough rate of pre-Delta COVID ~3 months post-vaccination: ~10%. Add more percentage points as time passes and/or for Delta and probably Omicron. Deduct back some of those percentage points for boosted individuals. The breakthrough rate will continue to fluctuate depending on these factors and many others.

...

Given all that, let's multiply that UK study's breakthrough infection rate by 50 -- making it an even 10% -- and see what your equation looks like:

(Long term risks of unvaccinated covid) > (0.1 [breakthrough rate] * 0.51 [Long term risks of vaccinated covid]) + (long term risks of vaccine)

I still think your equation, as written, bears out: the long-term risks of unvaccinated COVID are greater than the risks described on the right side of the greater-than symbol.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Doug B said:

(Long term risks of unvaccinated covid) > (0.1 [breakthrough rate] * 0.51 [Long term risks of vaccinated covid]) + (long term risks of vaccine)

We both know the equation is far more complicated, something like:

Risk of contracting SARS over time * ((short and long term morbidity and mortality from covid-19) + societal risks of remaining unvaccinated (ie. risk of contracting and spreading the virus, overwhelming healthcare systems and promoting mutation)) > (short and long term morbidity/mortality from vaccination) + chance of breakthrough infection * (short/long Covid risks + societal impact of being vaccinated)

And that ignores the economic consequences of both sides of the debate.

Nearly two years into the pandemic, 800,000+ (mostly unvaccinated) people dead, and a more contagious variant circulating, it’s a tough sell to suggest the numbers on the left aren’t far, far worse than the vaccinated side of the equation. Certainly one greater-than sign doesn’t do it justice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

Nobody is even close to saying anything like this.

It feels like it sometimes. Only certain people and entities can have opinions on coronavirus. In a period of uncertainty these entities are right until proven wrong. 

Dissenting opinions are ridiculed and dismissed. We try to tell ourselves we're in a better place than a year ago and have this under control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Max Power said:

It feels like it sometimes. Only certain people and entities can have opinions on coronavirus. In a period of uncertainty these entities are right until proven wrong. 

Dissenting opinions are ridiculed and dismissed. We try to tell ourselves we're in a better place than a year ago and have this under control. 


I’ve read every page of all the Covid threads - there’s been plenty of room for dissenting opinions on masks, fomites, treatments, vaccine efficacy, government mandates, company mandates, boosters, kids in school, HVAC and on and on.  The problem has always been folks listening to non-experts and fitting data to their narrative while ignoring data that doesn’t.  I had no issues when I said I wanted my kids in school last Fall. People disagreed.

Most of us undeniably are in a better place than last year - I’m not scared of Covid.  And while it’s sad, I don’t really care too much if people choose to be unvaccinated and end up dying - that’s there choice.  It’s when there choice impacts the rest of us.

Edited by AAABatteries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:


I’ve read every page of all the Covid threads - there’s been plenty of room for dissenting opinions on masks, fomites, treatments, vaccine efficacy, government mandates, company mandates, boosters, kids in school, HVAC and on and on.  The problem has always been folks listening to non-experts and fitting data to their narrative while ignoring data that doesn’t.  I had no issues when I said I wanted my kids in school last Fall. People disagreed.

Most of us undeniably are in a better place than last year - I’m not scared of Covid.  And while it’s sad, I don’t really care too much if people choose to be vaccinated and end up dying - that’s there choice.  It’s when there choice impacts the rest of us.

Non experts in what sense? Plenty of "experts" have dissenting opinions. Especially when some leaders claim to know best only to be undermined later. 

Penn university just implemented more restrictions when they are one of the most covid preventive universities there is. Vaccine and mask mandates just to enter campus and they are having an outbreak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

It feels like it sometimes. Only certain people and entities can have opinions on coronavirus. In a period of uncertainty these entities are right until proven wrong. 

Dissenting opinions are ridiculed and dismissed. We try to tell ourselves we're in a better place than a year ago and have this under control. 

Actually... In a period of uncertainty these entities are right until they just say the science changed

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

Can you tell us which indications were ignored and what should have been done differently?

Do you not think the people that said you cant vaccinate your way out of a pandemic should have been listened to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Ivermectin type treatments.  

I mean sure, we could have tried that and the world eventually get out of a pandemic... with many 10s of million dead and a lot of people permanently injured.

I think I prefer the every six month booster over that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I mean sure, we could have tried that and the world eventually get out of a pandemic... with many 10s of million dead and a lot of people permanently injured.

I think I prefer the every six month booster over that. 

allowing unfettered spread is a strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Max Power said:

Do you not think the people that said you cant vaccinate your way out of a pandemic should have been listened to? 

So the people who torpedoed things by opting out of vaccination were proven right……because by sabotaging things they ensured we would lose the Covid battle?   Some really bizarre logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

So the people who torpedoed things by opting out of vaccination were proven right……because by sabotaging things they ensured we would lose the Covid battle?   Some really bizarre logic.

When you say torpedoed things do you mean that the US and the world would be in a vastly different position if our vaxx rate was 90%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

So the people who torpedoed things by opting out of vaccination were proven right……because by sabotaging things they ensured we would lose the Covid battle?   Some really bizarre logic.

Breaking things and then blaming the people trying to clean up the mess for not doing it right or fast enough has a strong history.  Iraq/Afghanistan, the Financial Crisis, COVID.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djmich said:

When you say torpedoed things do you mean that the US and the world would be in a vastly different position if our vaxx rate was 90%?

This seems beyond obvious, yes.  Had the US reached 90%+ vaccination rate back in, say, July when we were operationally capable of doing so, a lot fewer Americans would be dead.  This really isn't debatable.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

This seems beyond obvious, yes.  Had the US reached 90%+ vaccination rate back in, say, July when we operationally capable of doing so, a lot fewer Americans would be dead.  This really isn't debatable.

Yah, I’m not debating that, I think this may just be me jumping in late but the use of the word “torpedoed” stood out to me.

I think things would be better if we had a higher vaccination rate, primarily in terms of relieving pressure in hospitals.  But other than that I and the people I know are going about their lives.

The unvaccinated have torpedoed themselves, not me, at least the ones that have died have.

At a countrywide level Omnixron would still exist and be materially the same threat to me today, regardless of overall US vaccination rate.

I’m not sure anything would really be materially different, other than less unvaccinated deaths…which would be nice but they have made their choices and accepted the risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being maxxed on your COVID vaccines reduces fatalities something like 93% and that's more like 98% when you account for the fact that the unvaccinated are younger and healthier than the vaccinated generally.

IOW, roughly 70% of today's deaths are preventable.

ETA:  in Virginia, where they show vax status by age range, the average age of a vaxxed person is 62, while the average age of an unvaxxed person is 31.  So when you see 90-some percent of deaths are in unvaxxed people, keep in mind that the chances of dying from COVID as a 62 year old are something like 10x the chances of dying as a 31 year old.  The protection provided is even greater than it looks from the raw numbers.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty scary news out of Britain right now. If certain scientists there are to be believed: 

1. Omicron is just as deadly, in terms of hospitalization and death rates, as other forms of Covid. Perhaps even more deadly. 

2. Omicron spreads much faster than other variants of Covid; it’s far more contagious. 

3. Our current vaccines, including the booster shots, don’t protect well against Omicron. 
 

Hopefully this stuff isn’t true. If it is, we’re ####ed. More shutdowns coming. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

I’m having trouble with my phone right now with links. Google Omicron news out of England. There’s several reports. 


Well, below are some of the first ones that popped up -- I didn't have to cherry-pick. So far, the totality of the reporting looks equivocal. Disclosure: I'm not convinced that the pessimistic modeling is going to be borne out:

Boosters significantly restore protection vs Omicron, UK says (Reuters, 12/11/2021)

Quote

 

Booster COVID-19 shots significantly restore protection against mild disease caused by the Omicron variant, in part reversing an otherwise steep drop in vaccine effectiveness, the UK Health Security Agency said on Friday.

The early findings from a real-world analysis are some of the earliest data on the protection against Omicron outside of lab studies, which have shown reduced neutralising activity against Omicron.

 

 

UK raises COVID alert level as Omicron advances (Reuters, 12/12/2021)

Quote

 

Britain raised its COVID alert level on Sunday in response to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant of the virus, as medical authorities warned that hospitalisations are likely to rise sharply over the coming weeks.

The chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland recommended an increase to alert level 4 from level 3 on its 5-point scale, which means they judge transmission of the virus to be high.

 

 

Omicron Wave Heads for UK, but It's Not Clear How Bad It'll Be (NY Times, 12/9/2021) -- might be paywalled for some readers

Quote

With cases of the Omicron variant doubling every three days and the government doing an about-face on restrictions it had long resisted, Britain is bracing for a new coronavirus surge, unsure if it will be a relatively minor event or a return to the dark days of earlier pandemic waves.



UK scientists urge more restrictions to fight omicron surge (ABC News/AP, 12/11/2021)

Quote

 

Modeling released Saturday by scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine suggested omicron is likely to cause a large wave of infections by January, and could cause between 25,000 and 75,000 deaths in England in the next five months if no other measures are taken.

The most pessimistic scenario foresees half a million people hospitalized with the virus by the end of April and says daily hospital admissions could be double the previous peak in January 2021. The study by the scientists, who help advise the British government, has not been peer reviewed.

The number of infections will depend on how much the variant escapes protection from vaccines, and how effective booster shots are at bolstering immunity, both of which remain unclear.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Even if our vaccines ARE effective against Omicron, if the rest is true then we might be looking at shutdowns anyhow if we’re unwilling to force the 40% of us who aren’t vaccinated to get the shot. 


We need to see and learn A LOT more about Omicron before talking about spring 2020-style business shutdowns. I see a lot of sensationalism in the Omicron reporting right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug B said:

We need to see and learn A LOT more about Omicron before talking about spring 2020-style business shutdowns. I see a lot of sensationalism in the Omicron reporting right now.

+1  

People have been saying "milder" when it's way too early to know.  But it's also way too early to know it's worse than Delta on anything except transmissibility (which it is).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is being cited in most of the recent articles about Omicron's potential track in the UK. They've put out a pre-print which describes modeling a range of Omicron outcomes in the UK. The London School also put out this press release, from which they describe a probable range of outcomes as opposed to focusing on the worst modeled outcomes:

Quote

 

The results [of the modeling] project a wave of COVID-19 transmission for all scenarios considered, with varying levels of infections, hospital admissions, and mortality depending on the assumptions made.

Under the most optimistic scenario (low immune escape of Omicron and high effectiveness of boosters), a wave of infection is projected which could lead to a peak of over 2,000 daily hospital admissions, with 175,000 (95% CI: 139,000–198,000) hospitalisations and 24,700 (19,500–28,700) deaths between 1st December 2021 and 30th April 2022, if no additional control measures are implemented over and above the current ‘Plan B’ policy in England.

In this scenario, bringing in control measures early in 2022 which are equivalent in stringency to Step 2 of the roadmap — which involved restrictions on indoor hospitality, closure of some entertainment venues, and restrictions on gathering sizes — would be sufficient to substantially control this wave, reducing hospitalisations by 53,000 and deaths by 7,600.

The most pessimistic scenario (high immune escape and lower effectiveness of boosters) projects a wave of infection which is likely to lead to a peak in hospital admissions around twice as high as the peak seen in January 2021, if no additional control measures are taken, with 492,000 (418,000–537,000) hospitalisations and 74,800 (63,500–82,900) deaths.

In this scenario, the team estimates that stronger measures may be required to keep the peak number of hospital admissions below the January 2021 peak.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:


Well, below are some of the first ones that popped up -- I didn't have to cherry-pick. So far, the totality of the reporting looks equivocal. Disclosure: I'm not convinced that the pessimistic modeling is going to be borne out:

Boosters significantly restore protection vs Omicron, UK says (Reuters, 12/11/2021)

 

UK raises COVID alert level as Omicron advances (Reuters, 12/12/2021)

 

Omicron Wave Heads for UK, but It's Not Clear How Bad It'll Be (NY Times, 12/9/2021) -- might be paywalled for some readers



UK scientists urge more restrictions to fight omicron surge (ABC News/AP, 12/11/2021)

 

Good stuff Doug B.  Also important to ask which vaccines we are look at data for, since we now know that all vaccines weren’t created equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...