Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[mill]

Open. Schools. Everywhere in the world. Our kids deserve better!

also here’s a thread on transmission in schools backed by ONS data which debunks the theory that children can’t spread the virus.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

A recent study from Catalonia shows that masks pose 'no association of risk of transmission'

 

[Deleted member 48881]

also here’s a thread on transmission in schools backed by ONS data which debunks the theory that children can’t spread the virus.

So you want schools to be shut forever, mate?

 

[mill]

So you want schools to be shut forever, mate?

Can you point out where I said I wanted schools to be shut forever?

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Can you point out where I said I wanted schools to be shut forever?

Good then.

 

[mill]

A recent study from Catalonia shows that masks pose 'no association of risk of transmission'

Did he read this? They literally say they can’t make inferences on mask use as they didn’t collect enough data.

‘Second, we did not find any evidence of decreased risk of transmission in individuals who reported mask use. Although this finding collides with the evidence reported elsewhere,
8 we did not have fine-grained data on type of mask (surgical vs FFP2) or use of other measures of personal protective equipment (PPE) or other infection control practices, thus limiting our ability to make clear inferences about the effect of PPE on transmission risk.’

the whole study is talking about how viral load is correlated with how infectious someone is, and that there is a modest statistical significance between age and how it’s spread.

Also the household transmission is more likely than other indoor settings.

none of which is groundbreaking.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Did he read this? They literally say they can’t make inferences on mask use as they didn’t collect enough data.

‘Second, we did not find any evidence of decreased risk of transmission in individuals who reported mask use. Although this finding collides with the evidence reported elsewhere,
8 we did not have fine-grained data on type of mask (surgical vs FFP2) or use of other measures of personal protective equipment (PPE) or other infection control practices, thus limiting our ability to make clear inferences about the effect of PPE on transmission risk.’

the whole study is talking about how viral load is correlated with how infectious someone is, and that there is a modest statistical significance between age and how it’s spread.

Also the household transmission is more likely than other indoor settings.

none of which is groundbreaking.

yes, someone pointed out, and his response is very convincing;

The vast majority of masks used by the general population do not filter fine aerosols to a meaningful extent, but can even aerosolize larger droplets. So mechanistically it’s perfectly plausible that net effect is null.

 

[Brennan]

No, you aren't talking about that - which is kind of relevant here.

As for this vaccine, it is of a new type and the manufacturer still recommends a dosing schedule that is not the one we are giving. I am not a vaccine expert; they are.

It is a new type which still has the same effect on the body, that is to trigger an immune response and the creation of antibodies. Pfizer’s vaccine has always been intended to trigger an immune response after one dose, the question was how strong that response would be and the efficacy as a result.

I’ll phrase it another way. Once the body has created antibodies against a virus which provide for 85% efficacy after 4 weeks, what evidence is there to suggest the body would not be able to offer a notable level of protection after 12 ?

Im not sure there is any evidence.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

 

[mill]

yes, someone pointed out, and his response is very convincing;

The vast majority of masks used by the general population do not filter fine aerosols to a meaningful extent, but can even aerosolize larger droplets. So mechanistically it’s perfectly plausible that net effect is null.

They literally say that they can’t make inferences from the data they collected.

And then he makes an inference.

i can make an inference too. there is a strong incidence level of household transmission in the study and masks are likely to be less effective in that setting for obvious reasons.

its probably one of the reasons why they say they CANNOT MAKE INFERENCES FROM THE DATA.

 

[arminisgod]

The Swiss reject the lockdown proposal, again.

that simply isn't true. My sister lives there..

 

[Deleted member 48881]

that simply isn't true. My sister lives there..

Go to previous page mate. I was wrong!

 

[toffee82]

NZ did a great job of looking after themselves.
Similar to Australia they have a geographical advantage being so isolated and easy to cut off but they didn't mess about with half lockdowns and open borders.

Not been as impressed with their international efforts. They have only contributed about 5% of what we have to COVAX and they are actually getting about 250,000 doses sent via this scheme (only 4 out of 38 "developed" countries have done this).

Is this nationalism?

 

[Chris O'Connor]

No, it doesn't. You say "a long time" and then "for some time", which kind of demonstrates that we do not know at what rate the protection from a first dose will decline, how long it will take to decline and so on. I'd have hoped that a government would want to find that out before deciding a policy, but it seems not

We already knew one dose of it would give a decent amount of protection - thats what the first studies found - but how long it lasts is still the unknown.

You can be very confident of something because of available results and your experience in the field of immunology, without necessarily having all the data to hand.

Experience of similar virus types does inform likely scenarios for lasting immunity as well as knowledge of the body's immune system and how it functions.

In the midst of a global pandemic with infections spiralling out of control difficult decisions have to be made based on the overwhelming likelihood of something being the case. When urgency is desperately needed, time to take ideal options or the go slow and stop alternative isn't always better but very often far worse.

Imagine the criticism if our vaccine response had mirrored those in France? It might be ok for Professor Macron but it certainly wasn't for here.

 

[tsubaki]

It is a new type which still has the same effect on the body, that is to trigger an immune response and the creation of antibodies. Pfizer’s vaccine has always been intended to trigger an immune response after one dose, the question was how strong that response would be and the efficacy as a result.

I’ll phrase it another way. Once the body has created antibodies against a virus which provide for 85% efficacy after 4 weeks, what evidence is there to suggest the body would not be able to offer a notable level of protection after 12 ?

Im not sure there is any evidence.

That is surely to have it entirely backward, though. Does one jab of Pfizer offer a notable level of protection after 12? We do not know; there has still (unaccountably) been no published study into answering this question. Noone knows.

I'd have hoped the requirement for evidence would have been aimed at the people who took the decision impacting more than a million people, but it seems not.