ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2071 of 3903
« First < 1071157119712021206120672068206920702071 207220732074207520812121217125713071 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
petegz28 12:13 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Letting a virus run wild is not the answer for all viruses and at this point in time they are taking a cautious approach so it doesn’t get out of control to mitigate loss of life , I understand the economic impact as well , having a viruses run wild could potentially damage the economy as well they are trying to balance the two , in every Country not just yours , some are trying to find a political angle in this But I don’t think Norway or who ever is doing this with an American political agenda behind it.



What would you recommend Pete , a referendum? Flip a coin?
Dont get pissy because you had a bunk argument.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 12:18 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Post-marketing surveillance will bring forth rare issues you won't see in even large RCT. However, it's pretty simple to me: number needed to treat vs number needed to harm vs the fatality rate of the disease.

If the NNT is lower than NNH and the NNH translates to a lower percentage than the fatality rate for my cohort, I'd get the vaccine.
That’s not really simple because you’re not giving a timeline needed for research on all of the stats you’re looking for. All of those numbers will be completely provisional for the next few years. When will you be confident enough in those research numbers? Are you saying you’d feel safe if those numbers lined up today to take a vaccine?
[Reply]
R Clark 12:22 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Post-marketing surveillance will bring forth rare issues you won't see in even large RCT. However, it's pretty simple to me: number needed to treat vs number needed to harm vs the fatality rate of the disease.

If the NNT is lower than NNH and the NNH translates to a lower percentage than the fatality rate for my cohort, I'd get the vaccine.
Golly I must be a real dumb ass cause I ain’t got a fricken clue what you just said, but then you already knew that
[Reply]
DaFace 12:27 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by R Clark:
Golly I must be a real dumb ass cause I ain’t got a fricken clue what you just said, but then you already knew that
I had to Google it, but it makes sense. (Hamas, correct any of this if I'm off.)

NNT = Number of vaccines necessary to prevent one instance of the illness
NNH = Number of vaccines that result in one case of increased harm to someone who got it

(RCT = randomized, controlled trial)

So basically, if the vaccine is doing more good than harm, it's a positive overall.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:28 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
That’s not really simple because you’re not giving a timeline needed for research on all of the stats you’re looking for. All of those numbers will be completely provisional for the next few years. When will you be confident enough in those research numbers? Are you saying you’d feel safe if those numbers lined up today to take a vaccine?
The studies will have a follow up period. In the case of a dose of an inactivated virus, I'm not terribly concerned. Were it attenuated, a short follow-up would be sufficient as long as cGMP were followed in its production.

It's not a chronic medication and vaccines are remarkably safe for inactivated viruses. Assuming there is nothing novel in its synthesis, the RCT data will give you sufficient info.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:29 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I had to Google it, but it makes sense. (Hamas, correct any of this if I'm off.)

NNT = Number of vaccines necessary to prevent one instance of the illness
NNH = Number of vaccines that result in one case of increased harm to someone who got it

(RCT = randomized, controlled trial)

So basically, if the vaccine is doing more good than harm, it's a positive overall.
Bingo. Sorry for the jargon. I'm less verbose on my phone.
[Reply]
Monticore 12:30 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Dont get pissy because you had a bunk argument.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yes I am human I do get frustrated sometimes, not very often though so congrats Pete your long term commitment to ignoring the facts has managed to do what very few other people have done.
[Reply]
jdubya 12:30 PM 05-15-2020
So I`m due for my second round Shingrix vaccine.....all good? Or should I wait a bit lol
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:34 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by jdubya:
So I`m due for my second round Shingrix vaccine.....all good? Or should I wait a bit lol
You can get it from anywhere to 2-6 months after the first shot. Just be nice to the RPh and wear a mask.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 12:34 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The studies will have a follow up period. In the case of a dose of an inactivated virus, I'm not terribly concerned. Were it attenuated, a short follow-up would be sufficient as long as cGMP were followed in its production.

It's not a chronic medication and vaccines are remarkably safe for inactivated viruses. Assuming there is nothing novel in its synthesis, the RCT data will give you sufficient info.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Bingo. Sorry for the jargon. I'm less verbose on my phone.
Can you break it down one more time for us simpletons without a medical degree and give us an estimate on how long you think a vaccine will take best case scenario. I’m reading so many people thinking we can have one by the fall but I just don’t see how.
[Reply]
limested 12:35 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by jdubya:
So I`m due for my second round Shingrix vaccine.....all good? Or should I wait a bit lol
Shingles suck ass so get it. I had a mild case and it made me want to kill myself.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:38 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Can you break it down one more time for us simpletons without a medical degree and give us an estimate on how long you think a vaccine will take best case scenario. I’m reading so many people thinking we can have one by the fall but I just don’t see how.
I have no better idea than you do. I don't think fall is reasonable just from a scale perspective. Oxford isn't even in human trials yet.

Correction: Oxford is now in Phase I trials.
[Reply]
OnTheWarpath15 12:39 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by limested:
Shingles suck ass so get it. I had a mild case and it made me want to kill myself.
I had it across a nerve line in my face. Had to go to an ophthalmologist several times a week for several weeks to make sure it hadn't made its way to my eyes.
[Reply]
DaFace 12:40 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I have no better idea than you do. I don't think fall is reasonable just from a scale perspective. Oxford isn't even in human trials yet.
They say it's in Phase I fwiw, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what that means.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technolog...e-monkey-data/
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:42 PM 05-15-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
They say it's in Phase I fwiw, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what that means.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technolog...e-monkey-data/
Phase I is human, so I was mistaken. I'd only heard about the rhesus macaques.
[Reply]
Page 2071 of 3903
« First < 1071157119712021206120672068206920702071 207220732074207520812121217125713071 > Last »
Up