Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 2020

[M Malice]

Fully on board eye rolling and derision of claims that the numbers were skewed/manufactured to suit a narrative. There was a reason for COVID deaths to be counted that way, and globally dying from substantially outweighed dying with as could be determined by any basic analysis of death rate increases. I never saw those claiming otherwise ever providing anything other than third hand blog posts, fake numbers, and flu references.

Australia is a bit funnier because of our very low death numbers - I haven't dug into our numbers specifically but it's possible that ours were disproportionately one way or another. However I haven't seen anyone offer any actual evidence until about February this year, when state and national health authorities starting talking about a transition due to the high vaccination rates.

The vast majority of people who have died form/with Covid have been in the very aged, obese and those with comorbidities... IMO not that much of a stretch to extrapolate out that there may have been other factors involved in the cause of death, in some it would have been a significant factor and some others to varying degrees.

Anyway I should leave it there, it has been subtly suggested to me from someone very high up in authority on Big Footy that I need to stick in my lane ie. footy if I want to keep posting at all on big footy.

 

[dlanod]

The vast majority of people who have died form/with Covid have been in the very aged, obese and those with comorbidities... IMO not that much of a stretch to extrapolate out that there may have been other factors involved in the cause of death, in some it would have been a significant factor and some others to varying degrees.

And...?

Initial data is what could be obtained quickly and reasonably accurately.

Post-hoc analysis should be based off excess deaths, as that captures both COVID deaths and deaths caused as a by-product of COVID, e.g. patients missing out on life-saving treatment because of COVID. Looking at the USA, it increases the totals by about 10% but these stats are only available much later.

You seem to be hunting for a "gotcha" in an area that is pretty straightforward to see why things were done the way they were.

 

[M Malice]

And...?

Initial data is what could be obtained quickly and reasonably accurately.

Post-hoc analysis should be based off excess deaths, as that captures both COVID deaths and deaths caused as a by-product of COVID, e.g. patients missing out on life-saving treatment because of COVID. Looking at the USA, it increases the totals by about 10% but these stats are only available much later.

You seem to be hunting for a "gotcha" in an area that is pretty straightforward to see why things were done the way they were.

Anyway I should leave it there, it has been subtly suggested to me from someone very high up in authority on Big Footy that I need to stick in my lane ie. footy if I want to keep posting at all on big footy.

 

[M Malice]

Interesting that Fages said in his presser that it makes it very difficult when the rest of society is living life normally and we aren't, also said that he has been living life much like a hermit and he still got Covid... he then had a terrible thought that he caught it at the club... unfortunately he was right.

I also listen to a few NRL footy chat shows, and one I had on in the background today with Andrew Johns, Sam Thaiday and Darren Lockyer they were talking about the NRL protocols and were saying it must change because society has learnt to largely live with Covid.... they were pushing for it to be an individual doctor/player decision.... ie. let players play if they have no symptoms and feel fine.

I think the narrative going forward will change if a big Melbourne club suffers significant losses due to asymptomatic Covid cases, it wont change this year but Covid will be around for ever so it must in 2023.

The best we can do as a society now is be fully vaccinated, have a healthy diet, lose weight, exercise and get tested if you have symptoms and isolate if positive.... as well as wear a mask if you are in an at risk group + limit social interaction if you think that is warranted for you.

 

[M Malice]

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

 

[MacMum]

Wish you had posted this two weeks ago.....sick of having injections!

4 Covid x 1 Flu

 

[briztoon]

Wish you had posted this two weeks ago.....sick of having injections!

4 Covid x 1 Flu

Let’s wait for some of our medical people to read it and give their opinion.

If there were genuine concerns this would be all over the media, and the government would happily stop handing out free vaccines they’re paying millions for.

 

[dlanod]

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

The Lancet study appears to show nothing of the sort. Assuming the study they're describing is their top reference, which it should be, the interpretation is "We found progressively waning vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but the rate of waning differed according to vaccine type. With respect to severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness seemed to be better maintained, although some waning became evident after 4 months. The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

So uhhh... no? Someone dug deep into the stats until they found some subset they could make claims about that nothing else supports?

 

[M Malice]

The Lancet study appears to show nothing of the sort. Assuming the study they're describing is their top reference, which it should be, the interpretation is "We found progressively waning vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but the rate of waning differed according to vaccine type. With respect to severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness seemed to be better maintained, although some waning became evident after 4 months. The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

So uhhh... no? Someone dug deep into the stats until they found some subset they could make claims about that nothing else supports?

I thought that PubMed.gov was a reputable medical research material source? The text I linked was their abstract..... I stand corrected it could be disinformation.

 

[Jivlain]

The Lancet study appears to show nothing of the sort. Assuming the study they're describing is their top reference, which it should be, the interpretation is "We found progressively waning vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but the rate of waning differed according to vaccine type. With respect to severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness seemed to be better maintained, although some waning became evident after 4 months. The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

So uhhh... no? Someone dug deep into the stats until they found some subset they could make claims about that nothing else supports?

Yeah, that's the conclusion of the Lancet article. Yamamoto's claim, I believe, relates to its table/figure 2.

So, first off, let's understand the study.

They take everyone in Sweden who'd gotten at least a single dose up to May 26, 2021; or a infection before May 24 of that year. From this cohort, they retrospectively matched individuals who'd had two doses and no previous infection, to those who'd never previously been vaccinated or infected, with matching birth year and sex.

Now, the table divides matched two-dose vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, who were subsequently infected, into bins of how long after the vaccinated individuals got their second dose. They then measured their rates of infections over a nine month period from Jan -> October of that year. The population reduces significantly over this period, because Sweden's vaccination program only started 14 days before the study started.

The covid rate within Sweden also varied widely over the period, with about 6000 new infections per day at the start of January, quickly dropping to 3000 per day, climbing again to 5-6k per day over March/April, then dropping again in May to <1000/day, where it (more or less) remained for the rest of the period.

(note my highlighting here is approximate)

Over the period, the vaccinated cohort were infected 12294 times, while their unvaccinated matches were infected 43542 times. However the vaccination benefit, which held for the first four months at around 80-90%, declined sharply after that, to ~50% after 6 months, ~40% after 7 months, and pretty marginal beyond that (they estimate 23% from a range of -2% to 41%). It's worth noting that we're getting into some pretty marginal data here, with 86% of the study population having 7 months or less of data, and because covid events are just going to inherently be a lot rarer in this period.

Perhaps against their better judgement, they then decide to graph this information.

This (and only this) appears to be the thing which has set the author of this comment (and the assemblage of cranks and denialists who have publicised it) off.

Again, 86% of the study population has been knocked out 7 months in. What we've got left is basically the people who managed to get two doses in the first three months of Sweden's vaccine rollout, and got infected in a period where coronavirus infections weren't all that likely. Fewer still have 7 months and 1 week of data. Fewer still have 7 months and 2 weeks of data. Etc etc. Let alone 9 months of data.

It would be bizarre and extraordinary to make strong conclusions specifically on the last few months of this data, so the authors of the Lancet study don't. Instead they conclude that the vaccines have reduced effectiveness from about 4 months onwards and that a booster program is in order, which is well supported by their data. If you wanted to make conclusions about long-term effectiveness you'd need another study which had a meaningful amount of data on a longer timescale.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

 

[Jivlain]

This is just Who's on First but without any actual jokes


But the thing about Who's on First is that both the characters are being unreasonable, and we can see that.

We, the audience, can easily discern the teamsheet Abbott is describing. Costello is unreasonable in getting angry instead of figuring it out. But we also start thinking of ways in which Abbott could better convey the information, so Abbott is also being unreasonable in not adapting to Costello's confusion.

But for his bit, he's using a mix of pretty simple information that merely applies to different time periods, or to probabilistic outcomes, or simply to all vaccines. Extending to a two man bit doesn't work though, because for the political point he wants to make you run afoul of the fact that scientists don't generally actually present a mishmash of all these things in the same sentence.

The only way this works is if the comedian, and all of us, are just Costello, sharing our collective frustration that those in charge won't name the pitcher Today.

 

[briztoon]

If you don’t work in a healthcare setting you’re probably oblivious to it.

We’re ramping back up to June levels of patients in our hospital with Covid.

We don’t treat patients with Covid. We treat patients with other illnesses, and they by and large contract Covid in hospital.

How.

Because their families come and visit, take their masks off, give them a hug, etc.

Then when a nurse, doctor or Physio walk in the room, they scramble to put their masks back on.

Well the damage is done.

The nurses are going to get it from the patient, and give it to their other patients.

Then the nurses are going to spend 7 to 10 days off work, and we’re going to be extremely short staffed.

This Christmas is going to be sh!t, with the amount of staff who have leave approved.

Hope none of you have family that need to go in to hospital this Christmas.

 

[trikster]

If you don’t work in a healthcare setting you’re probably oblivious to it.

We’re ramping back up to June levels of patients in our hospital with Covid.

We don’t treat patients with Covid. We treat patients with other illnesses, and they by and large contract Covid in hospital.

How.

Because their families come and visit, take their masks off, give them a hug, etc.

Then when a nurse, doctor or Physio walk in the room, they scramble to put their masks back on.

Well the damage is done.

The nurses are going to get it from the patient, and give it to their other patients.

Then the nurses are going to spend 7 to 10 days off work, and we’re going to be extremely short staffed.

This Christmas is going to be sh!t, with the amount of staff who have leave approved.

Hope none of you have family that need to go in to hospital this Christmas.

Royal Childrens Hospital here in Melbourne are already begging people not to come to the emergency unless absolutely necessary as they can't keep up with the demand.

 

[M Malice]

In this 20 minute video there are 2 clips from the House select committee on the origins of Covid and are just WOW! to me, they have testimony from among others the former CDC director Dr Robert Redfield which is jaw dropping. The testimony from a former Nature and Science magazines employee at the start of the 2nd clip is equally amazing... so much for peer reviewed scientific journals being open minded.

 

[MSB ROYS]

M Malice The Wuhan lab has been considered to be the most likely origin for quite a few months now.

As for peer review, it depends on the editors and the 2-4 referees chose by the editors, so nothing is perfect and it is open to abuse and cronyism. I have plenty of interesting anecdotes about 'peer review'.

 

[M Malice]

M Malice The Wuhan lab has been considered to be the most likely origin for quite a few months now.

As for peer review, it depends on the editors and the 2-4 referees chose by the editors, so nothing is perfect and it is open to abuse and cronyism. I have plenty of interesting anecdotes about 'peer review'.

There were scientists who thought the lab leak was the most likely origin of Covid well before a few months ago... the worrying part is they were silenced and/or ridiculed for spreading "disinformation".

The distribution of grants for scientific research and subtle pressure for predetermined results is the most problematic area of concern re peer review/journals.

 

[MSB ROYS]

There were a few factors in play IMO. (1) Precedence is strong in science with SARS-COV-1 and MERS having traceable zoonotic origins; therefore, it was considered that SAR-COV-2 was likely to also have an animal source at the time. (2) There was a focus on public health outcomes and the virus's origins did not matter. (3) I think that they were worried about upsetting China, which also would not have helped with the public health effort.

 

[dlanod]

@M Malice The Wuhan lab has been considered to be the most likely origin for quite a few months now.

FWIW it really isn't. A couple of US intelligence departments think it's possible with a low degree of confidence. About twice as many or more think it's most likely a naturally developing virus. Actual scientists still think the latter is more likely. The big issue is that China is still obfuscating attempts to investigate EITHER possibility.

 

[iBeng]

People never really read the article properly huh. The Department for US LABs said they had a LOW LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE it was from a lab and then all the right wing medias ran with BREAKING NEWS GOV DEPARTMENT SAYS ITS FROM A LAB!

 

[iBeng]

People ALSO forget the ones being "Shouted down" at the start of the pandemic were NOT advocated for the virus to be originated from a lab, the language they used was that it was MAN MADE FROM A LAB. Very different distinctions.