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

[FuriousDemon]

Yeah the way the UK government has decided to open up is concerning for me.
Most of my family is still in the UK and a cousin spent 4.5 months with the first two weeks on life support in a Glasgow hospital with Covid. At the time there was a bit of a lull in cases so the hospital's weren't at capacity.

Hopefully for the country it doesn't get there and the rate of vaccinated people helps keep the severe cases down.

Hope your cousin is doing well now.

It's hard to say because from my brief understanding it sounds like Pfizer is basing the whole thing off of a single set of data from Israel that says immunity goes from about 90% to 64%. While I'm sure the Israeli data is good, it only represents a very small percentage of somewhat genetically similar people.

I think a booster is needed eventually, but this seems pretty early and is going to pose a huge challenge for countries like the US. I mean we're not even at the year mark yet from when people outside the testing cohort received their first dose. However, since so many people are unwilling to get vaccinated, maybe the best strategy is to continue to boost the immunity of those who are willing to be vaccinated.

I haven't seen anything from Moderna either. It'll be interesting to see what their plan is going forward. If it's just the Pfizer one that requires three doses that's really going to make for a good old cluster.

Since it seems like you may know a bit more than others, I got a question I wanted to ask:
Why is it that most data and studies are focused on Pfizer and not Moderna? I kind of assume that Pfizer data applies to Moderna as well since they both are mRNA but it is a bit puzzling.

 

[Stotty]

This was not the news I wanted to be hit with at the end of the day:

Pfizer says it's time for a Covid booster; FDA and CDC say not so fast | CNN

Pfizer says it is seeing waning immunity from its coronavirus vaccine and says it is picking up its efforts to develop a booster dose that will protect people from variants.

www.cnn.com

I have no idea how we're going to convince people to get a third dose of the vaccine, let alone how we're going to do it logistically. I mean, job security I guess...so hooray?

I always knew boosters were going to happen, but we were anticipating them to be available around October/November, not August. I think many organizations were thinking the same thing too and that they'd just run their COVID booster shot with the annual flu shot, but looks like that's not going to happen. Hopefully, kids are still a priority too since opening it up to 6-12 months and up would do some good.

How are Pfizer going to fill the revenue and profit hole as vaccine uptake numbers decline?

Drug companies gotta make money.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's my plot of the most recent data from Scotland.

I've plotted TPR (test positivity rate - cases/tests as a %, raw data in gray, shifted +1wk in blue) versus hospital admissions (scaled to overlap the TPR data peaks from the 2nd wave)

The idea is to show how much the 'case to hospitalisations' ratio has changed from the second wave (Days 0-200) and the current wave (Day 275 onward).

If the admissions are scaled to give an approx 1:1 overlap for the second wave, there is now a clear difference between cases/TPR and admissions. Hospitalisations relative to cases are now running at about 1/3rd of their previous level, which means that I guess we can expect to see hospitalisations starting to match 2nd wave levels if/when cases reach about 3x the previous peak of cases.

For Scotland, the previous peak was 2355 cases a day, and hospitalisations peaked a week later at 198 a day (1 admission for every 12 cases). Now, Scotland is at 58 hospitalisations a day, which corresponds to 2800 cases per day a week ago. (1 admission for every 48 cases, or just 25% admissions for the same number of cases) Unlike the plot above, however, this doesn't account for increased testing.

My take: Scotland will be looking at '2nd wave peak hospitalisation levels' at around 9500 cases per day. Unfortunately, the UK government predict that we will see around 100,000 cases per day in the UK, corresponding to around 9000 cases per day in Scotland by the time this wave peaks...

The link between cases and hospitalisations is now different, but it is clearly still there... weakened, but definitely not broken.

 

[Outspacer]

It's hard to say because from my brief understanding it sounds like Pfizer is basing the whole thing off of a single set of data from Israel that says immunity goes from about 90% to 64%. While I'm sure the Israeli data is good, it only represents a very small percentage of somewhat genetically similar people.

64% is very far from the estimates we've had based on the UK spread of Delta, which vary but one given was 88%. Still highly effective (>90%) at avoiding hospitalisation, and also a typically lower viral load for those who do get ill, so less spread.

It seems a bit of a waste to use up so many doses - of the original formula - for marginal effect, when that would be enough to double-dose all Australian adults and somewhere else of similar size as well!

(Of course I'm concerned about more general issues around vaccine availability globally, but Australia gives a tidy example of the profligacy of this triple dose idea).

A recent study showed very little waning of the protection given by Pfizer over time, so nearly all of the reduction is down to Delta, as far as I can tell - calling it 'waning' is perhaps misleading.

 

[Joey D]

Since it seems like you may know a bit more than others, I got a question I wanted to ask:
Why is it that most data and studies are focused on Pfizer and not Moderna? I kind of assume that Pfizer data applies to Moderna as well since they both are mRNA but it is a bit puzzling.

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to this outside some speculation, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. Pfizer is a much larger company with better brand recognition, so I'm guessing it can afford to fund studies through grants and whatnot. It was also the first vaccine released en masse, so I'm sure that has something to do with it as well.

A recent study showed very little waning of the protection given by Pfizer over time, so nearly all of the reduction is down to Delta, as far as I can tell - calling it 'waning' is perhaps misleading.

I have seen that study and tend to agree. The only thing I don't think anyone knows besides Pfizer at the moment is what it's seeing with patients who were a part of Phase III clinical trials. If they have some evidence that shows people who received the vaccine last summer have waning immunity then maybe they have a case. As of right now though, the only thing I'm seeing is them citing the Israeli data, which seems like poor science.

I have a meeting later today to find out more, so maybe there's new information I just haven't seen, but I think we're all pretty much in the dark at this point. Hopefully, Pfizer releases more comprehensive data in the coming weeks leading up to its August filing for EUA. I'll be curious to see if Moderna follows suit or not as well, so far they're being mum on the situation and only saying that they believe a booster may be necessary in the future.

I do think boosters will be needed and likely will be needed before the end of the year, but having Pfizer come out and say boosters in August seems premature and isn't going to do anything to help convince those who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated. There's also the big lingering question regarding mixing vaccines too. If you got the Moderna vaccine, will you/should you get the Pfizer booster? I'm not sure I'd mix without some pretty good evidence to support that.

 

[Outspacer]

I have seen that study and tend to agree. The only thing I don't think anyone knows besides Pfizer at the moment is what it's seeing with patients who were a part of Phase III clinical trials. If they have some evidence that shows people who received the vaccine last summer have waning immunity then maybe they have a case. As of right now though, the only thing I'm seeing is them citing the Israeli data, which seems like poor science.

I have a meeting later today to find out more, so maybe there's new information I just haven't seen, but I think we're all pretty much in the dark at this point. Hopefully, Pfizer releases more comprehensive data in the coming weeks leading up to its August filing for EUA. I'll be curious to see if Moderna follows suit or not as well, so far they're being mum on the situation and only saying that they believe a booster may be necessary in the future.

I do think boosters will be needed and likely will be needed before the end of the year, but having Pfizer come out and say boosters in August seems premature and isn't going to do anything to help convince those who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated. There's also the big lingering question regarding mixing vaccines too. If you got the Moderna vaccine, will you/should you get the Pfizer booster? I'm not sure I'd mix without some pretty good evidence to support that.

I've no issue with Pfizer putting forward the relevant safety and efficacy data and getting authorization, it's the push that a third dose is broadly needed that seems a bit off.

Mix'n'match studies are showing decent results, mostly preliminary though. Certainly here there would be a decent benefit in those who have had AstraZeneca getting a dose of Pfizer or Moderna - but even then I'm not convinced that stopping those doses going elsewhere is the best thing to do.

Are these moves a sign that it's going to take quite a while longer to have a variant-tweaked vaccine? Early this year we were told it would be easy and quick, ready by Autumn... not heard much since.

 

[Outspacer]

View attachment 1066448

Here's my plot of the most recent data from Scotland.

I've plotted TPR (test positivity rate - cases/tests as a %, raw data in gray, shifted +1wk in blue) versus hospital admissions (scaled to overlap the TPR data peaks from the 2nd wave)

The idea is to show how much the 'case to hospitalisations' ratio has changed from the second wave (Days 0-200) and the current wave (Day 275 onward).

If the admissions are scaled to give an approx 1:1 overlap for the second wave, there is now a clear difference between cases/TPR and admissions. Hospitalisations relative to cases are now running at about 1/3rd of their previous level, which means that I guess we can expect to see hospitalisations starting to match 2nd wave levels if/when cases reach about 3x the previous peak of cases.

For Scotland, the previous peak was 2355 cases a day, and hospitalisations peaked a week later at 198 a day (1 admission for every 12 cases). Now, Scotland is at 58 hospitalisations a day, which corresponds to 2800 cases per day a week ago. (1 admission for every 48 cases, or just 25% admissions for the same number of cases) Unlike the plot above, however, this doesn't account for increased testing.

My take: Scotland will be looking at '2nd wave peak hospitalisation levels' at around 9500 cases per day. Unfortunately, the UK government predict that we will see around 100,000 cases per day in the UK, corresponding to around 9000 cases per day in Scotland by the time this wave peaks...

The link between cases and hospitalisations is now different, but it is clearly still there... weakened, but definitely not broken.

Good idea to use TPR. However, while number of detected cases will be somewhat increased by the amount of testing, it's also likely that the TPR will fall with an increase in testing. So neither is great, but perhaps they give us a min/max of some kind?

At any rate, directly comparing cases/12 to admissions gives broadly the same picture, just with a higher spike of recent cases. Even though testing was increasing throughout - notably higher in Jan than Nov - our graphs look effectively the same for those peaks (although I didn't offset by 7 days and used 7-day averages):

Side note: while this peak is now higher than Scotland saw in January, Scotland fared relatively well compared to England for that peak. So one shouldn't look at this and think it's a given that England will follow with a peak similarly higher than it saw in January.

The size of the cases peak is still alarming, and the apparent acceleration of admissions is too. I'd also estimate that vaccination has reduced admissions to about 25% of what they were, but still think the ratio is no longer as constant as it was.

I also updated my two rates-of-change graphs, and they've got interesting. There does appear to be a flattening off of cases and an increase in r-o-c of admissions to above 50%/week. Of course both may well just be temporary effects, being only a few days long each.

(The last couple of data points for cases, showing a decline, are based on incomplete data so should be ignored. The last reasonable point is at 3% week-on-week increase - still much much lower than it has been).

I wouldn't like to put any great probablity on it, but it is possible that this is now the peak in cases for Scotland. The predictions for this wave from Warwick were that the peak would be around the middle of July under most scenarios they looked at. (I don't know why they thought that though!) If they were correct, we would expect to see areas hit early to see a leveling of case rates around now, while the wave spreads across England keeping overall England rates rising.

 

[kikie]

This video might explain why some people develop blood clots.

 

[Nielsen]

I’ve had enough. I don’t subscribe to any of the vaccine conspiracies because they are based on nothing concrete, but I really do feel that the development time of the vaccines vs. the amount of people taking them is a cause for concern. I think we need some long-term statistics before rolling things out on this scale, and why I currently don’t feel like taking it myself. Entire populations have sort of become test subjects, if you ask me. I’m not even particularly afraid of getting the disease myself, primarily because the elderly people in my social circles already got two injections. After all, this was always the goal from the beginning - to protect the elderly.

What really pisses me off though, is how both media and health authorities advertize the vaccine to younger people like it’s a ticket back to freedom and normal life. Red flag in my opinion and no wonder younger people become vaccine sceptics when talked down to in this manner.

 

[Touring Mars]

The vaccines are voluntary in just about every country that is lucky enough to have them, so I don't see what the problem is.

But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why they think vaccination is more risky than infection by the virus - it clearly isn't.

I've seen loads of people argue that there's 'no long-term data on the vaccine(s)'... well, there's no long-term data on the virus either, but the data that is becoming available is extremely concerning.

Early estimates indicate that as many as 10% of infections - seemingly irrespective of whether they caused any initial impact i.e. includng asymptomatic infections - may give rise to 'long Covid' - that is long term debilitation or injury to organs including the brain.

Swathes of people use social media to demonise vaccines and/or believe that the virus is 'harmless' to younger people. It most definitely is not, and aside from permanent isolation, vaccines offer the only substantive protection against potentially life changing harms caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This is something I can't get my head round... people, not just the young 'uns, generally have no idea what goes into the development, certification or production of pretty much everything they put in their bodies... drugs, medicines, intravenous/invasive devices.. food, drink, and so on... we assume (mostly rightly, sometimes wrongly) that if something is available to us, it's suitable for our consumption (subject to any attached warnings), to treat the the Covid vaccine differently means you're pretty much already a skeptic.

I'm going for my second jab this afternoon, I don't know what's in it or how it was made, or how it was tested, and I'm assuming it's safe. This is no different to the cup of tea I just drank, the meal replacement shake I had for breakfast, the St. John's Wort tablets I take everyday, or the vitamin pills, or the magnesium supplement I take daily, or the paracetamol tablets I took when I woke up... or the Belgian beer I drank last night requiring the paracetamol this morning, or the Chinese takeaway that I had that required washing down with the Belgian beer in the first place, and at no point when I've used tap water for anything today, did I question its suitability for purpose... Why would I treat the Covid jab any differently?

 

[Dennisch]

Why would I treat the Covid jab any differently?

Because the smartest of people on social media tell you to.

 

[Outspacer]

I watched some of a video recently with the format of interviewer, interviewee, and expert. It was presented calmly and mostly came across as a reasonable discussion raising concerns about the mRNA vaccines. There were a few warning signs but nothing massively obvious (at least in the portion I watched). And after all, the 'facts' they were presenting were so obviously worrying that one could forgive the exasperation that nobody in authority would debate them, right?

The video had a collection of links to sources in its description, to support the claims made, and here the problems start. The 'paper' written by the interviewee is a mess of bullet listed claims and so on, with no real references to actual sources. It begins with a rant including the Democrats as a target (the mRNA vaccines were released under Trump, but whatever, and if you're going to bleat about ad hominems maybe it would be wiser not to use them yourself). Other links are either broken or link to studies that do not support the claims made in the video.

Oh, and the expert's claim to fame turns out to be effectively a falsehood.

To anyone giving it a moment's thought, it should be clear that any suppression of a problem with mRNA vaccines would have to be occuring everywhere they have been extensively used - Israel, Europe, UK, etc, etc. No attempt was made to support this claim other than in the US. That's a huge red flag that doesn't even require any attempt at fact-checking.

It's easy to stoke people's fears of the unknown. The solution is knowledge. These days we have an unprecedented amount of data made public. It is all at our fingertips thanks to the internet. But data is not knowledge, and can be readily misrepresented (this is being kind as at least one claim was a flat out lie). Somehow supposedly independent thinkers repeat such claims failing to apply even 10% of the critical thought to baseless claims as they purport to do regarding medical authorities.

(I've been deliberately vague, even though it's probably still possible to identify the video I saw. That said, maybe it describes more than one adequately enough - it wouldn't surprise me).

 

[Joey D]

I’ve had enough. I don’t subscribe to any of the vaccine conspiracies because they are based on nothing concrete, but I really do feel that the development time of the vaccines vs. the amount of people taking them is a cause for concern. I think we need some long-term statistics before rolling things out on this scale, and why I currently don’t feel like taking it myself. Entire populations have sort of become test subjects, if you ask me. I’m not even particularly afraid of getting the disease myself, primarily because the elderly people in my social circles already got two injections. After all, this was always the goal from the beginning - to protect the elderly.

What really pisses me off though, is how both media and health authorities advertize the vaccine to younger people like it’s a ticket back to freedom and normal life. Red flag in my opinion and no wonder younger people become vaccine sceptics when talked down to in this manner.

Almost every vaccine developed in the last 50 years had major side effects caught within 8 weeks of administration. So you really don't need a ton of long-term data to say if it's safe or not. Yes, there is a very minimal risk of complications that didn't turn up during trials, but if there was a major flaw with any of the vaccines, we'd know about it by now.

With COVID, we know that the virus can stick around for a long time and we're getting an understanding of what sort of complications some people will have.

If you compare COVID to vaccines, I can almost assure you that your risk of complications due to COVID is much higher.

 

[TB]

If you compare COVID to vaccines, I can almost assure you that your risk of complications due to COVID is much higher.

That's siimilar to my what my wife encounters at work. There's risk to every surgery (death is always a possibility) and risks to NOT doing a surgery (again, possibly death). The key is weighing that risk/benefit quotient.

Sometimes the best decision is to do nothing. More often than not, surgery is the safer bet.

Go get your shot(s).

 

[TexRex]

I’ve had enough. I don’t subscribe to any of the vaccine conspiracies because they are based on nothing concrete, but I really do feel that the development time of the vaccines vs. the amount of people taking them is a cause for concern. I think we need some long-term statistics before rolling things out on this scale, and why I currently don’t feel like taking it myself. Entire populations have sort of become test subjects, if you ask me. I’m not even particularly afraid of getting the disease myself, primarily because the elderly people in my social circles already got two injections. After all, this was always the goal from the beginning - to protect the elderly.

What really pisses me off though, is how both media and health authorities advertize the vaccine to younger people like it’s a ticket back to freedom and normal life. Red flag in my opinion and no wonder younger people become vaccine sceptics when talked down to in this manner.

If you've seen one anti-vaxxer take, you've seen them all. They're all about feelings with no foundation in reality.

If it was only them at risk from their dumb****ery, I'd be perfectly content pointing and laughing all the way up to when their lifeless bodies are stripped bare, plunked into a plywood box and shoved into the retort to be rendered to ash. Nothing of value lost.

 

[UKMikey]

Anti-vaxx nurse dies from COVID-19 in Louisiana

www.rawstory.com

 

[andrea]

Ignore the technobabble, when Picard starts mentioning the restrictions, it sounds not unlike the situation with covid. This whole scene is amusingly prescient.

 

[Joey D]

Anti-vaxx nurse dies from COVID-19 in Louisiana

www.rawstory.com

This person was an educated medical professional who went through around six years of schooling. How anyone can make it in the medical field and believe that vaccines alter your DNA is mindboggling. Her death was certainly preventable, but because she was into pseudoscience she died.

Although I guess the old saying that 49% of all medical professionals were in the bottom part of their class rings true.

Oh and this was some poor word choices:

"Your contagious laugh and smile will truly be missed Liv. Until we meet again sweet girl."

Contagious laugh? 😳

 

[TexRex]

Look at the bright side. The collective IQ of Louisiana may have ticked up as a result of the dumbass biting it.

Edit:

"Am I the only one thinking they are trying to see how much they can control us???" she posted July 11, 2020. "We are a straight up social experiment."

Entire populations have sort of become test subjects, if you ask me.

It's as if there's a list of anti-vaxxer talking points you gain access to when you friend/follow certain Facebook/Twitter/whateverothersocialnetwork accounts. There's no originality.

 

[UKMikey]

It's never a bright side when someone puts other people in danger. On the other hand at least any patients she may have come into contact with may be safer on balance.

I noticed her parents are both ill with coronavirus and wonder whether they're the cause or victims of her infection. I hope her pregnant sister doesn't catch it.

 

[Famine]

Ignore the technobabble, when Picard starts mentioning the restrictions, it sounds not unlike the situation with covid. This whole scene is amusingly prescient.

The restrictions lasted just about as long in Star Trek too. They were practically forgotten within four episodes - though warp nacelles were changed in design in pretty short order - including the variable geometry nacelles of the Intrepid-class ships - perhaps as a solution to the subspace damage problem.

 

[andrea]

The restrictions lasted just about as long in Star Trek too. They were practically forgotten within four episodes - though warp nacelles were changed in design in pretty short order - including the variable geometry nacelles of the Intrepid-class ships - perhaps as a solution to the subspace damage problem.

They fixed it by making new starships without that issue, the voyager ship is the first of those eco friendly ships
learn the lore m8

 

[TB]

This person was an educated medical professional who went through around six years of schooling. How anyone can make it in the medical field and believe that vaccines alter your DNA is mindboggling. Her death was certainly preventable, but because she was into pseudoscience she died.

I'd pare it down and say even if she doesn't fully understand HOW the vaccine works, how after going through nursing school can you be anti-vax?

I have a co-worker whose daughter is all about holistics despite going to school to be a NP. Seems like an odd combination to me. My wife (also a NP) knows her and said she's concerned for her patients that come in and have a health concern that instead of prescribing a medication that will help, she'll give them some plant to rub on it.

I noticed her parents are both ill with coronavirus and wonder whether they're the cause or victims of her infection.

Obviously we can't say for certain but it seems like a pretty safe bet that they would have gotten it from her.

Hopefully the hospital had a mask mandate and she was actually following it and wearing it correctly or every one of the patients she saw are/were at risk from her, too.

 

[Famine]

learn the lore m8

You... do know you just repeated what you quoted me saying, but added an error, right?

Voyager wasn't the first. The Intrepid was the first ship in the class, also called Intrepid. Voyager was the second Intrepid-class ship.

Learn the lore, m9.

 

[andrea]

Damn.

I propose we turn this into the star trek thread now (no discovery allowed).

 

[Famine]

Damn.

I propose we turn this into the star trek thread now (no discovery allowed).

We'll need Dr. Reyga's metaphasic shields: only way into a corona. And definitely no Discovery.


Aaaanyway, moving on.

 

[sirjim73]

We'll need Dr. Reyga's metaphasic shields: only way into a corona. And definitely no Discovery.


Aaaanyway, moving on.

The only way into a Corona, as everyone knows, is with a bottle opener.

As opposed to the anti-vaxxer discussion above, which opened a whole can of worms.

 

[TexRex]

The only way into a Corona, as everyone knows, is with a bottle opener.

Or a belt buckle. Or a spoon. Or the inside of a drawer in your college dorm room, but you'd better hope the inspection at the end of the semester to determine if you get your deposit back isn't that thorough.

 

[UKMikey]