The end to COVID?

[Luv2play]

I have done many of the things Charlie enumerates but have been a little more adventurous, shall we say, since the pandemic was declared. I still practice all the basic routines which everyone is familiar with so I won’t repeat them. But starting in May, when I had a pretty good handle on our local situation, I started seeing a select few escorts, both old and new.

 

I knew this was taking on another level of risk exposure but I did select escorts carefully and asked about their practices (even the ones I already had hired), since the pandemic had been declared. Based on that assessment, I went ahead with overnight sessions with all of them ( some 7 since then), spaced apart by at least three weeks.

 

There was only one exception of an escort who joined us for a couple of hours but I knew him) And another who I saw separately for a two hour session.

 

Everthing turned out fine so no regrets and it helped my mental balance to be able to resume some normalcy in my life.

 

Going into the winter I am taking stock of th new situation of rising case numbers across Canada and so re-evaluating what I will do in the months ahead About hiring escorts. I am keeping very busy in other activities (tomorrow I an shooting a documentary) and so life will go on, God willing.

[+ IronMaus]

I wear a mask and social distance, but I am currently a Covid-19 antivaxxer. I am a resident of New York State, and I intend to resist the vaccine until Governor Cuomo gives it the green light. My resistance is fortified by my fearful mistrust of anyone/anything that aligns with Donald Trump.

Trump took credit for this vaccine then blamed Pfizer for delaying the announcement until after the election - but they actually denied help from Trump to develop the vaccine and are more interested in getting it out there than making Trump happy. He can take credit all he wants as long as he's doing SOMETHING to get it out there. Please don't let his involvement from this point forward sway you from taking it ? ?

[SirBillybob]

Moderna’s preliminary results are released and similarly promising.

 

Apparently their protocol specifies novel detecting coronavirus infection irrespective of symptoms, but Pfizer’s does not specify tracking asymptomatic cases. Yet the overall placebo arm infection rates reported are similar to each other and consistent with general community rates.

 

A bit confusing since only counting symptomatic cases biases results, and one would expect differences unless both candidates track the same way. Perhaps the two candidates have similar infection tracking after all and it is a question of wording in the Pfizer protocol. I suppose it hinges as well on frequency of visits because they would have to be spaced fairly closely to capture evidence of infection among the asymptomatic.

 

What the Moderna report suggests, however, is that greater case severity occurs in at least 10% of all cases including asymptomatic. That contradicts a lot of layperson claims that severely symptomatic cases are rare.

[Guest]

...

Apparently their protocol specifies novel detecting coronavirus infection irrespective of symptoms, but Pfizer’s does not specify tracking asymptomatic cases. Yet the overall placebo arm infection rates reported are similar to each other and consistent with general community rates.

....

Well, if, in those vaccinated, infections are down 90%, and none or almost none of those infected have severe disease, that's a pretty resounding success.

[Luv2play]

Well, if, in those vaccinated, infections are down 90%, and none or almost none of those infected have severe disease, that's a pretty resounding success.

I read the Moderna doesn’t need extreme refrigeration like the Pfizer does. That could make it more accessible.

[SirBillybob]

Well, if, in those vaccinated, infections are down 90%, and none or almost none of those infected have severe disease, that's a pretty resounding success.

 

It is generally good news. Cannot wait to read the published versions.

 

Among a subgroup of 5 vaxx arm participants that were infected, you would not expect any to have a severe case beyond coin-toss odds, given about 10% of those infected in placebo arm met severity criteria. Therefore, Moderna answered a question that is among those typically front of mind, but prematurely assessed at this stage.

 

This comes back to whether vaccination can mitigate severity even if infection occurs.

 

———

So far, Pfizer has conceded placebo participants can elect to be vaccinated when the product is approved and regulated. One of the reasons I am curious about severity is that Moderna’s severity rate is high enough that one would anticipate placebo participants in either of these two trials of a similar class of vaccine to pursue study unmasking and receive the two doses. The original long term durability assessment would then rest on a reduced placebo arm.

 

I wonder if we will see Pfizer’s 5-week results this week. If 20-25% more placebo arm are infected, adding the additional week to 4 weeks (1 additional week subsequent to second dose), the two study results are even more similar. If I recall correctly, Pfizer already reported that 2 weeks post final dose might confer better protection. What is strategically better for press release and attention-grabbing than 95% effectiveness at 5 weeks? ... 90% at 4 weeks followed by greater than 90% at 5 weeks.

Edited November 16, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[samhexum]

Thousands of Texas families hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic waited up to 12 hours to put food on the table this holiday season — as the state grapples with a surge in infections.

 

The normally quiet grounds of Fair Park in Dallas was home to the North Texas Food Bank’s largest giveaway of food since coronavirus spread through the state, the Dallas Morning News reported.

 

Saturday’s Thanksgiving-themed event handed out food to about 8,500 families facing financial stressfrom the growing crisis — 17 times more people than the annual event usually serves.

 

Photos from the event showed traffic backed up for miles as people waited for hours in their cars for a package containing a frozen turkey, 20 pounds of canned goods and 15 pounds of fruits and vegetables along with bags of bread.

 

Armando Castillo camped out overnight to get first dibs and waited more than 10 hours.

 

“We’re really appreciative of food drives because if this didn’t happen, I guess we’d be back home farming for ourselves,” Castillo told the Dallas Morning News.

 

“They also get food from their school — that’s why we have been able to make it lately,” he said of the family’s children.

 

Two hundred volunteers worked through the night to prepare the event and load deliveries to local churches into U-Hauls.

 

North Texas Food Bank president and CEO Trisha Cunningham said the pandemic has exposed previously hidden food insecurity in North Texas.

 

Since mid-March, the food bank has given out about 70.8 million pounds of food.

 

“So many people need it right now, and there is no stigma attached if you’re coming through this line. You will be served with dignity and respect,” Cunningham told the paper.

 

The seven-day moving average of COVID-19 cases in the Lone Star State is now 9,807, up from 3,932 a month ago, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from Saturday.

[Luv2play]

Moderna’s preliminary results are released and similarly promising.

 

Apparently their protocol specifies novel detecting coronavirus infection irrespective of symptoms, but Pfizer’s does not specify tracking asymptomatic cases. Yet the overall placebo arm infection rates reported are similar to each other and consistent with general community rates.

 

A bit confusing since only counting symptomatic cases biases results, and one would expect differences unless both candidates track the same way. Perhaps the two candidates have similar infection tracking after all and it is a question of wording in the Pfizer protocol. I suppose it hinges as well on frequency of visits because they would have to be spaced fairly closely to capture evidence of infection among the asymptomatic.

 

What the Moderna report suggests, however, is that greater case severity occurs in at least 10% of all cases including asymptomatic. That contradicts a lot of layperson claims that severely symptomatic cases are rare.

I’m confused by your last statement. I heard that it’s the Moderna vaccine, even those who have contracted the disease in the study group had less severe symptoms. And most who received the vaccine didn’t contract the disease. Sounded like a win-win to me. Am I wrong in my understanding?

[SirBillybob]

I’m confused by your last statement. I heard that it’s the Moderna vaccine, even those who have contracted the disease in the study group had less severe symptoms. And most who received the vaccine didn’t contract the disease. Sounded like a win-win to me. Am I wrong in my understanding?

I can try to answer your question but I am not sure what you mean by “it’s” (did you forget “that” later in the sentence, and I don’t know what you mean by “less severe” ... less compared to Pfizer? Less than some other thing?

 

I don’t know why you think I may be downplaying good news (if you are thinking that) in such a way that negates the idea of a win. The prospects for emergency authorization are good since the standard is 50% at 2-month follow-up. Sign me up.

 

I doubt any of us are reading the same stuff as it is so ubiquitous.

 

I did not catch any reports regarding infection severity in the Pfizer release and I have yet to understand whether they only counted symptomatic cases as incidents of infection. I am only going to pay attention to the company press releases and not try to second-guess too many comparisons or get caught up in the distortions that often occur by journalists’ interpretations. I can tell you that the Pfizer release does not mention infection severity.

 

Because greater severity is rare for something else that is already rare (ie, infection over the short duration), there is currently lacking statistical power to compare the two studies, or in fact the two arms within either study, according to a greater threshold of severity on the severity continuum.

 

Moderna reported that the small number of infections accompanied by greater disease severity were all in the placebo group, as would be expected since the number of infection cases therein was high enough to contain the low rate of greater severity that occurs in the general population. There were insufficient cases in the vaccinated group to stratify on a severity gradient or to mirror the rate of greater severity in the placebo group or gen pop.

 

That about ~10% of cases, so far, among the unvaccinated are considered severe, assuming all infection cases are captured, provides additional support for the benefit of vaccination uptake, and may sway some of the vaxx naysayers or the relative neutrals/fence-sitters that downplay how sick one can be if infected.

Edited November 17, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[Luv2play]

My question got garbled. The friggin auto correct feature on my IPad often changes my text to what it thinks I want to write when what I have written is correct. Sometimes I miss it before posting reply.

Anyway, not to worry. It will be some time before any vaccine hits the market and there will be plenty of time to assess its efficacy by then.

[former lurker]

I have done my best to respect the diverse opinions regarding COVID-19 over these past few months, however the ER nurse that posted this brilliantly sums up my train of thought :

 

Please just take politics out of it and read this with an open mind using common sense.

 

"Anyone out there who can tell me what our end game is with the covid 19?

 

What is the magic formula that is going to allow us to sound the all clear?

 

Is it zero cases?

 

The only way that will happen is if we just stop testing and stop reporting.

 

Is it a vaccine?

 

It took 25 years for a chicken pox vaccine to be developed.

The smallpox inoculation was discovered in 1796 the last known natural case was in 1977.

 

We have a flu vaccine that is only 40 to 60% effective and less than half of the US population choose to get one, and roughly 20,000 Americans will die of the flu or flu complications.

 

Oh, you'll mandate it, like other vaccines are mandated in order to attend school, travel to some foreign countries, etc.

 

We already have a growing number of anti vaxxers refusing proven, tested, well known vaccines that have been administered for decades but aren’t necessarily safe!

 

Do you really think people will flock to get a fast tracked, quickly tested vaccine, whose long term side effects and overall efficacy are anyone's best guess?

 

How long are we going to cancel and postpone and reconsider?

You aren't doing in person school until second quarter?

 

What if October's numbers are the same as August's?

 

You moved football to spring?

 

What if next March is worse than this one was?

 

When do we decide quality of life outweighs the risks?

 

I understand Covid can be deadly or very dangerous for SOME people, but so are strawberries and so is shellfish.

 

We take risks multiple times a day without a second thought.

We know driving a car can be dangerous, we don't leave it in the garage. Many speed and don't wear seat belts.

 

We know the dangers of smoking, drinking and eating fried foods, we do it anyway.

 

Is hugging Grandma really more dangerous than rush hour on the freeway?

 

Is going out with friends after work more risky than 4 day old gas station sushi?

 

Or operating a chainsaw?

 

When and how did we so quickly lose our free will and give up our liberty?

 

Is there a waiver somewhere I can sign that says, "I understand the risks, but I choose a life with Hugs and Smiles, and the State Fair and go to Church and go hug my Mom in her retirement home?

 

I understand that there is a minuscule possibility I could die, but I will most likely end up feeling like crap for a few days.

 

I understand I could possibly pass it to someone else, if I'm not careful, but I can pass any virus onto someone else.

 

I'm struggling to see where or how this ends.

 

We either get busy living or we get busy dying.

 

When God decides it's your time, you don't get any mulligans, so I guess I would rather spend my time enjoying it and living in the moment and not worrying about what ifs and maybes, and I bet I'm not the only one.

 

Reading this it strikes me how little some people are willing to sacrifice in the midst of a health crisis. It's been less than a year since the virus hit the U.S. and for months and months there have been complaints, protests, etc, over such impositions and disruptions as wearing a mask in public, standing 6 feet apart, working from home, etc. There are people who have suffered to be sure, but much of that has been offset by government stimulus spending. Now that the stimulus money has run dry, there will be real financial harm unless the Government acts to mitigate it. But what is the alternative? Pretend there's not a novel, highly infectious and deadly virus and ignore the best medical advice available?

 

I suppose you can find Jewish holocaust deniers, too, but it's disheartening to read a medical professional downplaying the dangers and overstating the sacrifices entailed in mitigating the disease. S/he should know better.

[+ sync]

I just watched a reporting on Covid-19 given by Laurie Garrett. She really deflated my vaccine enthusiasm. It seems all the information that has been released to the public about the successes of the vaccines comes from carefully crafted press releases from Pfizer and Moderna. She went on to say there has been no data released by the FDA or CDC. Further, no information is being shared with the Biden transition people, which means the people at the FDA and the CDC are being pressured to release data that conforms to the current White House's scenario.

[SirBillybob]

I neither know Garrett nor watch American stations but I just read an extensive piece she wrote on vaccination in Foreign Policy. She totally distorted the main clearly delineated finding Pfizer released ... cringeworthy ... then proceeded to grouse about the scarcity of additional details.

 

If she is a credible med science reporter, she could pay attention to how her wording in one sentence describing a central result contradicts the wording in another sentence, or get a skilled editor. Every one of her statements should accurately reflect the data.

 

Much of the lack of study results detail is attributable to the early stage of the research. Moreover, the companies are wise to be parsimonious at this point because if journalistic distortion is going to occur, best to reduce the bullet points and breadth of misinterpretation.

 

The few Infectious Diseases experts I have read a bit critically appraising the two studies’ early results are naming limitations that you will find in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Discussions sections when published. The authors won’t need to take cues from the input of experts interviewed by the press.

Edited November 17, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[jeezifonly]

An unparalleled mess.

 

National rejection of science, in favor of capitulation to one sick ego.

 

This is the new American Exceptionalism.

[nomad]

An unparalleled mess.

 

National rejection of science, in favor of capitulation to one sick ego.

 

This is the new American Exceptionalism.

Agent Orange will do everything he can to claim all the credit for whatever vaccine is eventually approved. Like usual and cast blame on anything that goes wrong with it on Biden and everyone else but him. I suspect that is one of the reasons why he is refusing to authorize the transition briefings.

 

EGO first. A shame the havoc his small hands insecurities is wrecking.

[SirBillybob]

Agent Orange will do everything he can to claim all the credit for whatever vaccine is eventually approved. [partial snip]

 

EGO first. A shame the havoc his small hands insecurities is wrecking.

 

Just throw it a bone, perhaps giving it credit for two versions of vaccine candidates undergoing clinical investigation: inactivated; subunit sub-particle virus.

[SirBillybob]

What is strategically better for press release and attention-grabbing than 95% effectiveness at 5 weeks? ... 90% at 4 weeks followed by greater than 90% at 5 weeks.

 

Boom! What did I tell you 5 days ago (re: Pfizer-BioNTech)?!

 

Though it’s clearer now that the add-on is number of participants at the same time point from baseline (that had not been reached a week ago at first release), not an additional week of surveillance. I had thought that the vaccinated that got infected might have been outliers that needed a bit of extra time to develop immunity.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[former lurker]

On NPR, they interviewed someone in charge of setting up distribution of the vaccines in Arkansas. The devil/god is in the details. The Pfizer vaccine requires storage in subzero conditions that will require either new refrigerators/freezers or a steady supply of dry ice. The vaccine has to be thawed for several hours, then diluted with saline. Once diluted, it can only be used during the following 5 hours. Each vial has 5 or six doses. Any of those doses not consumed within 5-6 hours will have to be discarded.

 

The Moderna vaccine doesn't need the same subzero conditions but can be refrigerated. It requires less thaw time, too. It's therefore a better candidate for transporting to remote locations that may not be equipped to store the vaccines for any length of time. There's some issue with the number of doses per vial and when they must be deployed or discarded.

 

The two vaccines aren't interchangeable and both require a second shot/dose, but on a different timetable. If someone receives a first Pfizer dose, s/he has to get the second Pfizer dose and not the Moderna dose.

 

There are still a lot of questions about the data as we've only got press release summaries. The Pfizer study (and perhaps Moderna, too) are timed to the occurrence of an event -- contracting corona. Part of the reason the vaccines reached the stage for application to distribute is the prevalence of corona in the country. Had the incidence of the virus been lower, the event would have taken longer to materialize in sufficient volume to reach trial conclusions.

 

Among the details I'd like to know are what protocols were in place w/r/t mitigation strategies. If, for example, the group getting the vaccine wore masks, isolated themselves, etc., and the placebo group did not it would make the data less impressive. That is, the effectiveness rate is based on 1 case of corona among the group receiving the vaccine for every 9 cases among the group receiving the placebo. I'm assuming that the only variable is whether you got the placebo or the vaccine, but that information hasn't been communicated yet.

 

Both vaccines are genetic -- RNA based. I don't know enough about the recipes to have a sense of whether there are resource limitations and timing lags or whether rapid, ramped up production is possible.

[SirBillybob]

Some of what people are suggesting is missing information is contained in the very lengthy study protocols. They are accessible in the public domain.

 

The primary endpoint variable is the binary: vaccination vs placebo among those without known prior infection. The assumption is that individuals as an overall group of 40,000 behave in the same manner with respect to behaviour, mitigation, etc.

 

I believe that similar results have been obtained thus far for one of the secondary endpoints that includes a composite of participants with or without prior infection. I do not know the percentage of prior infection scooped into recruitment but it was deliberate.

 

The updated (rounded) effectiveness ratio is 20:1, not 9:1, but what I want to know is the average time frame for the vaccination assignment group’s population-adjusted infection rate of 40 per 100,000 because total cases puts it on par with, for example, New Zealand’s total since the pandemic commenced. I believe the longest time frame begins at the end of August, a month following the study commencement.

 

One of the BioNTech’s scientists cautions that the current results translate to expectations of halving transmission patterns one might otherwise see a year from now.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SirBIllybob

[samhexum]