COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,234 comments
  • 551,961 views
@Joey D & @Touring Mars , what have you guys been hearing? I'm still a few months out from a 3rd booster, but I appreciate ya'll's expertise.
I'm curious what will happen in a week when the 3rd shot becomes allowed after 8 months. Based on this news, wouldn't shock me if they delay it. Problem is the confusion all of this is causing. If there is no chance at herd immunity AND the amount of people getting newly vaccinated is stagnating if not going down....
 
Federal judge in Iowa has blocked the Iowa executive's ban on mask mandates by public school districts, with no impact on prohibition of mandates by Iowa county governments.
It's a step in the right direction, of course, but because dead kids don't deter these ****ers, they're definitely going to appeal.
 
Last edited:
Unless we start to see a significant waning of protection against hospitalisation, I'm not enthusiastic about booster doses for over 50s. There simply aren't huge numbers of cases in that age group; they clearly aren't driving the number of infections...


1631571773394.png
 
Last edited:
@Joey D & @Touring Mars , what have you guys been hearing? I'm still a few months out from a 3rd booster, but I appreciate ya'll's expertise.
I had a meeting regarding the news this afternoon. In short, we don't know and right now we're proceeding as if everything is going to get approved.

Part of me thinks that they will get approved with some sort of age restriction along with similar criteria we had when the vaccines first rolled out. So things like obesity, whether or not you're a health care worker, and other stuff along those lines.

However, another part of me thinks it's going to be political. Having a third dose is going to push people who are already anti-vaccine to become more anti-vaccine. They'll have a rally cry like "How many shots are enough" or some BS like that. So any work that had been done to get anti-vaxxers onboard will be right back to square one.

Supposedly, the study regarding the Israeli vaccine and booster program is set to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine soon. I'll be curious to see that since they concluded that a third dose was needed.

I'm of the mindset that a third dose is needed for certain populations right now and probably needed for a broader range of people this winter. Really though, I wish the FDA would focus more on getting the vaccine approved for kids instead of figuring out a third dose.
 
Really though, I wish the FDA would focus more on getting the vaccine approved for kids instead of figuring out a third dose.
Does one have anything to do with the other? I'm actually asking here because I'd have imagined different heads are thinking about each of these things.
 
Really though, I wish the FDA would focus more on getting the vaccine approved for kids instead of figuring out a third dose.
It was the only thing I could think about when reading through your post, so I'm glad you said it. I can't even begin to take boosters seriously while there are still so many unvaccinated kids.
 
However, another part of me thinks it's going to be political. Having a third dose is going to push people who are already anti-vaccine to become more anti-vaccine. They'll have a rally cry like "How many shots are enough" or some BS like that. So any work that had been done to get anti-vaxxers onboard will be right back to square one.
It's already happening. "They're already pushing for a third dose. See the vaccine doesn't work."



I came across this study about mask effectiveness posted somewhere, but I'm not sure if I should put any stock in it:

Extract from the conclusion:
The results show that a standard surgical and three-ply cloth masks, which see current widespread use, filter at apparent efficiencies of only 12.4% and 9.8%, respectively. Apparent efficiencies of 46.3% and 60.2% are found for KN95 and R95 masks, respectively, which are still notably lower than the verified 95% rated ideal efficiencies. Furthermore, the efficiencies of a loose-fitting KN95 and a KN95 mask equipped with a one-way valve were evaluated, showing that a one-way valve reduces the mask's apparent efficiency by more than half (down to 20.3%), while a loose-fitting KN95 provides a negligible apparent filtration efficiency (3.4%). The present results provide an important practical contrast to many other previous experimental and numerical investigations, which do not consider the effect of mask fit when locally evaluating mask efficiency or incorporating mask usage in a numerical model. Nevertheless, if worn correctly, high-efficiency masks still offer significantly improved filtration efficiencies (apparent and ideal) over the more commonly used surgical and cloth masks, and hence are the recommended choice in mitigating the transmission risks of COVID-19.

A few comments I saw from Reddit, which seem reasonable:
Community masking is for source control of droplets (>10um), not for small aerosols (<1um). Any filtration of aerosols is really just an added bonus. So the study design itself is odd - not measuring the right thing.
Incidentally, filtration of droplets also reduces total aerosol load in the air, by preventing evaporation of larger droplets into smaller particles that can remain suspended. Coupling that with reduction in droplet load, any bonus reduction in aerosol filtration from the mask, and multiplying that across all the people in the room, spaced apart - it’s definitely a significant effect. In an indoor, crowded space with poor ventilation though (where aerosols can really build up), source control w masks alone isn’t enough - there needs to be air exchange and reduced crowding if people are going to be indoors for extended periods of time.
Limitation 1: They used olive oil as the base of exhalation aerosol mixture. This confuses me since respriatory aerosols are water based, this would impact how they then move through the humid air upon dispersal. This is movement IRL will also be impacted by the humidity in the air and have both an impact on distance traveled and trajectory (whether the droplet gets heavy and falls or floats up high for extended periods of time. Humid air will make water droplets grow heavy as water attaches to them and they will fall out faster.
Limitation 2: The masks tested weren't designed for oil mist use and the oil base could mess with the efficiency of filtration. This is a pretty big flaw. NIOSH has a special designation for oil proof filters for these environments. Now in the workplace a lot of these oil mists are going to contain VOCs that have solvent properties, but the hydrophobic nature of oil will be very different in interaction with the filter than water would. If the olive oil is damaging the masks then it will interfere with the results.
Based on this I don't think this study is showing the full story. It's also not peer reviewed, correct?
 
It's already happening. "They're already pushing for a third dose. See the vaccine doesn't work."



I came across this study about mask effectiveness posted somewhere, but I'm not sure if I should put any stock in it:

Extract from the conclusion:


A few comments I saw from Reddit, which seem reasonable:


Based on this I don't think this study is showing the full story. It's also not peer reviewed, correct?
Real-world studies is what really matters for masking, because controlling for all of the variables is really too hard.

https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/139282-lab-efficacy-of-respirators-over-masks-undermined-by-real-world-use
“No significant difference in risk of laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection was detected between healthcare workers using N95 respirators and those using surgical masks in the meta-analysis of the randomized trials,” the authors concluded. “It was not surprising to find that N95 respirators were generally more efficient filters with better face-seal characteristics than surgical masks when tested in the laboratory. However, transmission of acute respiratory infections is a complex process that may not be appropriately replicated by surrogate exposure studies.”

I can't find the study that was discussed earlier in this thread, but it tracked nurses that wore a specific type of mask and were exposed to various respiratory illnesses, and found that N95s only had a slightly better real-world effect than surgical masks. With zero masking being far worse than either. Again, can't find the link.
 
Does one have anything to do with the other? I'm actually asking here because I'd have imagined different heads are thinking about each of these things.
Sort of. To my understanding, there's one committee, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, that oversees this stuff and the meetings are kind of sporadic. They're meeting on the 17th about the booster doses and then again on the 30th to talk about a bunch of stuff I don't understand and flu shots. After that, they don't have anything on the books for the rest of the year. This isn't to say they can't call another meeting, but it's still a government agency and all the red tape that goes along with it.

Also, if they don't have a meeting prior to Thanksgiving, I suspect there won't be one until after the start of 2022. By then, kids will have had a really rough go of it. In Utah alone, we're seeing 400-500 pediatric cases a day and that's just what's been tested and reported. It's more likely we're seeing 1,000+ pediatric cases a day and our PICU is completely full and has been for a couple of weeks now. Couple this with a higher than expected RSV and flu season, and well, you can see where it gets dicey. Assuming we're at 1,000 cases per day for kids and we have roughly 250,000 kids ages under 12 in Utah, it's likely that a portion of them have already gotten COVID or have immunities from their mother. So let's say it's 200,000, which means we'd burn through the entire population by April 2nd at this rate.

It's honestly ludicrous that the vaccine wasn't rolled out for kids prior to the start of school. It's the FDA's fault too since after the data was submitted by Pfizer and Moderna, the FDA asked them in July to provide more data, which effectively started the process over again. They typically need six months' worth of data too, so even if they started immediately, that puts us at January at the earliest. However, after the data is submitted, we need to wait for the committee to convene, go over the data, and issue a EUA. This process can take upwards of six weeks. So now we're at the end of February/beginning of March at the earliest. This is also assuming that the trials started in July, which they didn't because as of last month they were still recruiting. So using Utah as an example, we're on track for the entire population of ineligible kids to get COVID before they can be fully vaccinated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is pretty fed up with it too.

What the FDA needs to do is approve EAU for kids, publish the data, and let parents make the decision along with their kid's pediatrician. I would 100% get my nearly 3-year-old son vaccinated immediately if this was the case, like make an appointment with his doctor the same day as approval kind of immediately. I know his doctor would be on board too since she's very pro-vaccine and won't take kids on as patients if they don't follow the vaccine schedule, which is something I appreciate.

Schools shouldn't mandate it until it's fully approved though. So really for the 2022-2023 school year, the COVID vaccine should be a requirement for your kid to attend school.
 
Last edited:
Sort of. To my understanding, there's one committee, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, that oversees this stuff and the meetings are kind of sporadic. They're meeting on the 17th about the booster doses and then again on the 30th to talk about a bunch of stuff I don't understand and flu shots. After that, they don't have anything on the books for the rest of the year. This isn't to say they can't call another meeting, but it's still a government agency and all the red tape that goes along with it.

Also, if they don't have a meeting prior to Thanksgiving, I suspect there won't be one until after the start of 2022. By then, kids will have had a really rough go of it. In Utah alone, we're seeing 400-500 pediatric cases a day and that's just what's been tested and reported. It's more likely we're seeing 1,000+ pediatric cases a day and our PICU is completely full and has been for a couple of weeks now. Couple this with a higher than expected RSV and flu season, and well, you can see where it gets dicey. Assuming we're at 1,000 cases per day for kids and we have roughly 250,000 kids ages under 12 in Utah, it's likely that a portion of them have already gotten COVID or have immunities from their mother. So let's say it's 200,000, which means we'd burn through the entire population by April 2nd at this rate.

It's honestly ludicrous that the vaccine wasn't rolled out for kids prior to the start of school. It's the FDA's fault too since after the data was submitted by Pfizer and Moderna, the FDA asked them in July to provide more data, which effectively started the process over again. They typically need six months' worth of data too, so even if they started immediately, that puts us at January at the earliest. However, after the data is submitted, we need to wait for the committee to convene, go over the data, and issue a EUA. This process can take upwards of six weeks. So now we're at the end of February/beginning of March at the earliest. This is also assuming that the trials started in July, which they didn't because as of last month they were still recruiting. So using Utah as an example, we're on track for the entire population of ineligible kids to get COVID before they can be fully vaccinated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is pretty fed up with it too.

What the FDA needs to do is approve EAU for kids, publish the data, and let parents make the decision along with their kid's pediatrician. I would 100% get my nearly 3-year-old son vaccinated immediately if this was the case, like make an appointment with his doctor the same day as approval kind of immediately. I know his doctor would be on board too since she's very pro-vaccine and won't take kids on as patients if they don't follow the vaccine schedule, which is something I appreciate.

Schools shouldn't mandate it until it's fully approved though. So really for the 2022-2023 school year, the COVID vaccine should be a requirement for your kid to attend school.
Awesome. Thank you. And thank you and others for generally taking the time here to provide good information as well as to counter bad information.
 
There's no plans in the UK to provide boosters for anyone under the age of 50, and even then there's more concern about the rollout of the flu vaccine this winter AFAIK, but the plan is to provide both in the same visit to over 50's should they request it.

Meanwhile, 46 y.o.'s are not going to be eligible for boosters, so they are being urged to enjoy the next 3 months in the pub before their immunity wears off. Or so I heard.
lookaround.gif
Well if those fully vaccinated 46 year olds keep going to the pub they'll pick up Covid naturally which will help their immune system. ;)

I wonder when we will see the next round of new vaccines that are modified to include Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta variants, rather than just having a 3rd dose of the first round of SARS-COV2 vaccines?
 
Last edited:
I wonder when we will see the next round of new vaccines that are modified to include Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta variants, rather than just having a 3rd dose of the first round of SARS-COV2 vaccines?
Right now, Pfizer/BioNTech believe their vaccine provides sufficient protection, especially with a booster dose of BNT162b2 (the name for the vaccine). I'm not 100% sure about the science so I might be incorrect here, but because of how mRNA vaccines work unless SARS-CoV-2 mutates to change the spike protein the vaccine should be effective. If the virus were to change its spike protein, there's a likelihood it wouldn't be able to infect humans as easily, so it wouldn't be a good mutation. Due to this, I don't suspect it will evolve that way, which means the vaccines should remain effective. @Touring Mars probably knows more though.

I don't know enough about the Janssen vaccine (J&J) though, but to my understanding, the way it works is more similar to traditional vaccines but instead of an inert virus, it uses a modified adenovirus. My guess here is that it will need to be modified into a Gen II at some point.

With that said, there are new generations in the works.
 
In NL we're not all getting a booster shot just yet: https://www.ad.nl/gezond/nederland-...euw-naar-prikstraat-voor-derde-prik~a0e3cf3a/ Motivation for this is that we see dropping efficiency of the vaccines over time with regards to infection, but not with regards to severity. At the same time, booster shots are being considered for folks with severe lack of immune response (e.g. transplant patients, etc.)

So as long as hospitalisations don't go up significantly over time, I think most of us will not get a booster here in NL.
 


At what point do those who purport to believe in God consider that He might think they're ****ing assholes who don't deserve to live?

What makes someone an indelible talk show host? Was he like a stain you just can't wash out or something? :confused:
 
Right now, Pfizer/BioNTech believe their vaccine provides sufficient protection, especially with a booster dose of BNT162b2 (the name for the vaccine). I'm not 100% sure about the science so I might be incorrect here, but because of how mRNA vaccines work unless SARS-CoV-2 mutates to change the spike protein the vaccine should be effective. If the virus were to change its spike protein, there's a likelihood it wouldn't be able to infect humans as easily, so it wouldn't be a good mutation. Due to this, I don't suspect it will evolve that way, which means the vaccines should remain effective. @Touring Mars probably knows more though.

I don't know enough about the Janssen vaccine (J&J) though, but to my understanding, the way it works is more similar to traditional vaccines but instead of an inert virus, it uses a modified adenovirus. My guess here is that it will need to be modified into a Gen II at some point.

With that said, there are new generations in the works.
Valneva have been working on a vaccine using inactivated virus, which should be likely to give a broader protection against variants... but UK gov has just cancelled its order. Reasons appear to be mostly financial / logistical, with the excuse that preliminary trials didn't have as good results as hoped, and it looked unlikely to gain approval. Valneva had apparently done work to address variants.

My layman understanding is that variants have changes in the spike protein (and only/mainly the spike), explaining why Delta has increased transmissibility (and, possibly by dint of that, increased severity), and how it slightly evades the current vaccines. The risk is that since Delta is suppressed by vaccination, an otherwise less fit variant could become dominant if it can evade the vaccine response more (as in, its transmission rate would be lower than delta in a naive population, but higher than delta in a vaccinated population). Haven't seen anything that suggests this couldn't happen, but it's not like I read everything!

No idea why it's Valneva that was looking hard at variants, when an inactivated virus based vaccine would give the immune system a look at the whole virus, while we've heard very little about such efforts from the other manufacturers. Dare I say these are mainly commercial decisions at this point?! Not that that would be entirely unjustified - why waste time and money tweaking for Delta if it would be far better to wait, and tweak for a variant that evades vaccines a lot more.
 
Last edited:


At what point do those who purport to believe in God consider that He might think they're ****ing assholes who don't deserve to live?

Mocking AIDS victims after they died? Who was this loser, Rush Limbaugh's protégé?
 
Evaluating the efficacy of social distancing, masks & vaccines - first, second & booster doses - & everything else, still seems to be a somewhat uncertain science. However, I continue to look at the difference between infection rates & death rates in the US & Canada, as that seems to be the most realistic comparison between different approaches to Covid. In Canada, although there has been an anti-vacc & anti-lockdown movement, it has remained somewhat at the fringes of society & the pandemic has not been politicized to any significant degree.

Active cases in Canada are currently around 42,000 (having spiked considerably over the last couple of months). For comparison, active cases in Florida, which has approximately half the population of Canada, currently stand at over 1 million. That means Florida's current infection level is around 50 times what it is in Canada. Overall, the death rate in the US has been fairly consistently 2.5 times that of Canada, but is edging close to 3 times.

Assuming that these figures are fairly accurate, I suppose they provide an indication of the cumulative effect of the various Covid mitigation measures.
 
Last edited:
One day into the new term and four working days before teaching resumes at my work, the University have decided to reverse their (idiotic) policy of not requiring students to wear masks in all classes unless they are medically exempt.

I'm finding it hard to fathom why they ditched the requirement in the first place, and are now boasting of having COVID safety measures that go 'above and beyond' Scottish government guidance...

The irony is, the only reason I'm doing F2F teaching this semester is because of the University's COVID safety policy. Because classes are limited to a certain size, my boss's class must be split into two and hence there needs to be two teaching staff for the class instead of one*. The fact that this could easily be avoided by doing the classes online is a source of quite major annoyance to me. (* of course, this is being repeated across the entire country, and sounds like a sure-fire way of doubling the amount of staff absences to me...)

In a doubly ironic twist, the course I'm supposed to be teaching is a final year Physics course - which my boss wrote and has taught for years, but that I've only been handed the lecture notes and teaching materials on Friday (the classes start two weeks today...)... I'm not a Physics graduate and hence I've not even studied some of this stuff myself. F2F teaching is really all about 'optics' for the University, and being seen to be providing an 'authentic' teaching experience that students have missed out on for 18 months already - and I sympathise with that. F2F teaching is better than online in most cases. But... if that means that half the class get a teacher who isn't familiar enough with the course, then arguably that half would probably be better off watching a live video stream of the other half than attending my class, which negates the value of doing F2F completely, and also destroys the rationale behind splitting the class in the first place (since if half the class are online, the whole class could be too.)
 
Last edited:
So due to inept planning and co-ordination from our governments it is still relatively difficult to get a vaccine here unless you're in the age group to get AZ.

Previously we had discussed with our youngest son (15) what his thoughts were on getting the vaccine when it is available for his age group and he said yeah he wants to get on board. On Monday the Pfizer was made available for 12-15 year olds and I told him I'd do my best to get him a booking but I couldn't spend all day on the computer at work trying to book it.

About an hour after the bookings opened up I get a text from him saying "don't worry about booking me in dad I've been spamming F5 on the booking page and have booked in for Tuesday morning, I hope you don't mind".
Today I get home from work and he says "I've managed to get my second shot booked for a Sunday so you can take me if you don't mind".

So within two days of the shot being available to him he's had his first shot and got himself booked for the second.
And no I don't mind, you little legend.
 
Last edited:
It's incredible to see how governments are failing basic tasks everywhere. It shows how inept the people we're voting for actually are.

But then again, we've also seen how incredibly stupid an underestimated large part of the population is.


The world really needs a change.
 
It's incredible to see how governments are failing basic tasks everywhere. It shows how inept the people we're voting for actually are.

But then again, we've also seen how incredibly stupid an underestimated large part of the population is.


The world really needs a change.
Agreed. But how much of a reset is needed? Have we had 7 billion people doing everything wrong for the past 400 years?

Every X millennia, there is an extinction event after which life and civilization, if any, has to be rebuilt. Do we need one of those?
 
Since I don't have a subscription to the Financial Times were the report was initially published, here's the summary from Seeking Alpha (an investment site).


Now, it's worth noting that just because Pfizer submits an application for approval, doesn't mean they'll get approval or approval in a timely manner. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, but remember this is the government we're dealing with here, and clearly holidays and time off (I'm looking at you Congress) trumps doing something for the country.

====

Also, this is just grim:

 
Horse dewormer is so last week, all my homies are now drinking iodine:

Also, fun fact, povidone iodine is also used in douches as well...like the feminine hygenie products, not the anti-vaxxers.

It's worth noting that povidone iodine does have medical uses, even when used orally. It's sometimes gargled when you have a sore throat, but it says in big letters that you should not swallow the stuff. It's also used during surgery to clean the incision site (if you've ever had surgery, it's that brown stuff they smear on you).
 
Last edited:
These people are like that little kid who eats a meal and there's something on their plate they don't like..

"Mummy I don't like peas"

"They're good for you. Eat them you'll be strong."

Proceeds to eat/drink chicken dippers, potatoes, 2 black puddings, a whole bottle of cough mixture, 7 Welsh cakes, a wardrobe, an entire Tom Clancy novel, the cast of Cheers, and a Rover 75

"See Mummy? That's just as good as peas"

Moments later

"Mummy I don't feel so well"

Projectile vomits steering wheel across the room
 
Back