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!
Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.
California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.
“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”
The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”
Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.
The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.
A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.
Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.
“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”
It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.
“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”
On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.
“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”
According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.
More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.
But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.
“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”
CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.
Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.
“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”
Of Singapore's 1,096 locally transmitted infections in the last 28 days, 484, or about 44 percent, were in fully vaccinated people, while 30 percent were partially vaccinated and just over 25 percent were unvaccinated, Thursday's data showed.
Plus, Singapore is one of the most highly vaccinated countries, so it makes sense that they are seeing a lot of breakthrough cases. I don't know which vaccines they are using, though.
Pfizer, Moderna, and Sinovac. Though I believe at some point recently they said no more Sinovac, because they realized it sucks. [Reply]
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- People who received Sinovac Biotech shots are excluded from Singapore's count of total vaccinations against COVID-19, officials in the city state said, citing inadequate efficacy data for the Chinese-made vaccine, especially against the contagious delta variant.
"We don't really have a medical or scientific basis or have the data now to establish how effective Sinovac is in terms of infection and severe illnesses on delta," health minister Ong Ye Kung said during a media briefing on Wednesday.
The delta variant has become the most prevalent strain of COVID-19 in Singapore since a cluster of infections was identified at the airport in May. The government subsequently moved back to stricter curbs on social gatherings and public activities, though it has begun relaxing some of those restrictions.
Only people who participated in the national immunization program, which currently uses the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech/Cominarty shots, are counted in the tally for vaccinations.
More than 3.7 million people have received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, covering about 65% of the population, and nearly 2.2 million have completed the two-dose regimen.
Singapore has set a target for two-thirds of its people to be fully vaccinated by around Aug. 9.
Following an emergency use approval by the World Health Organization (WHO), Singapore began allowing designated private clinics to offer the Sinovac shot, CoronaVac, from mid-June. Singapore had a stock of 200,000 CoronaVac doses which the clinics could draw on.
ADVERTISING
As of July 3, just over 17,000 people had received one dose of CoronaVac, and authorities say that demand for the vaccine appeared to taper off after an initial rush.
Last month, Kenneth Mak, Singapore's director of medical services, said evidence from other countries showed people who had taken CoronaVac were still getting infected, posing a significant risk.
And Singapore has said that people vaccinated with CoronaVac would still need to be tested for COVID-19 before attending certain events or entering some venues, unlike people vaccinated under the national program.
Singapore has reported 62,652 infections since the pandemic first erupted last year, with most found in foreign worker dormitories. But there were only five new locally-acquired cases reported on Wednesday. COVID-19 related deaths stood at 36, one of the lowest rates in the world [Reply]
ChiliConCarnage 07-24-2021, 12:07 PM
This message has been deleted by ChiliConCarnage.
Reason: late
Originally Posted by wazu:
So 96% of people who were fully vaccinated died of COVID? Or is it the much better, but still absolutely horrible number of 4%?
The percentages are all comparisons to unvaccinated people. So you're 96% LESS LIKELY to die from COVID if you are vaccinated compared to someone who isn't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
Pfizer, Moderna, and Sinovac. Though I believe at some point recently they said no more Sinovac, because they realized it sucks.
Thanks. Any idea on percentages given on each? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
More than 3.7 million people have received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, covering about 65% of the population, and nearly 2.2 million have completed the two-dose regimen.
As of July 3, just over 17,000 people had received one dose of CoronaVac, and authorities say that demand for the vaccine appeared to taper off after an initial rush.
Thanks again. So, relatively very minimal. [Reply]
From the video regarding the waning of protection against infection/symptomatic infection in Israel and UK regarding Pfizer: Protection in the UK is about twice that of seen in Israel. For people vaccinated at the same time. Note protection against hospital/severe illness is still very high in Israel. Apparently a strong hypothesis for this is the timing of first to second jab. Which was different in each country.
A deeper explanation from another forum (not a known expert take of it what you will):
Originally Posted by :
This was implied back in May, when a study in the UK found people aged 80+ had 3.5x more antibodies when the interval between the first and second dosage was 12 weeks vs 3 weeks. (link). Antibodies are the first line of defense against infection - they bind to the virus before it has a chance to bind to an ACE2 receptor of a regular cell. If there are enough antibodies circulating at the time of the SARS-CoV-2 exposure then infection will be prevented.
The level of circulating antibodies of a given type goes down somewhat linearly over time - this is a natural response, otherwise our body would have enormous amounts of antibodies for every type of pathogen we've encountered in our lifetimes. When someone with reduced antibodies is exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus has a long enough time window to replicate to create symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), before the memory T and B cells are activated in sufficient quantities. That activation triggers the generation of antibodies, which along with other responses allows the body to overtake the virus sooner than it otherwise would, which in turn prevents the severe forms of COVID-19.
This matches a lot of stuff I've read about antibodies vs. memory cells. The problem (maybe) with losing antibodies is that a person becomes infectious even if vaccinated or they got sick before. But the memory cells are still there to crank up antibody creation when needed to prevent severe disease. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
So 96% of people who were fully vaccinated died of COVID? Or is it the much better, but still absolutely horrible number of 4%?
Here's what I think it means.
Imagine that you have 1 million people who have been vaccinated and 1 million people who haven't. They all get exposed to covid at the same rate. Some of them repel the virus, some get mildly sick, some get really sick.
At the end of the line, 1,000 of the unvaccinated group eventually dies as a result.* 40 people in the unvaccinated group eventually dies.
1-40/1000 = 96 percent fewer deaths.
So the 96 percent doesn't relate to actual deaths or death rates. It's the ratio of deaths that you get by comparing two populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
* - This is just a hypothetical number. I don't know the actual expected deaths. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Here's what I think it means.
Imagine that you have 1 million people who have been vaccinated and 1 million people who haven't. They all get exposed to covid at the same rate. Some of them repel the virus, some get mildly sick, some get really sick.
At the end of the line, 1,000 of the unvaccinated group eventually dies as a result.* 40 people in the unvaccinated group eventually dies.
1-40/1000 = 96 percent fewer deaths.
So the 96 percent doesn't relate to actual deaths or death rates. It's the ratio of deaths that you get by comparing two populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
* - This is just a hypothetical number. I don't know the actual expected deaths.
I think a lot of people aren't aware of what efficacy actually means, and I was one of the them for a while, maybe still am?
From what I gather, Pfizer saying that their vaccine efficacy of 95% doesn't mean that 5% of the trial participants would got jabbed developed COVID-19. It means that of the trial participants who developed COVID-19, the vaccinated group had a 95% reduction in risk of developing COVID-19, I think.
The numbers:
Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group
So, 162/170 = 95% and 8/170 = 4.7%
Right? If so, "95% efficacy" doesn't mean that 5% of the people who get vaccinated will get COVID-19. In the trial had 43,000 participants, of whom 21,500 got stuck. Eight developed COVID-19. So that's 8/21,500 = .037%
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
I think a lot of people aren't aware of what efficacy actually means, and I was one of the them for a while, maybe still am?
From what I gather, Pfizer saying that their vaccine efficacy of 95% doesn't mean that 5% of the trial participants would got jabbed developed COVID-19. It means that of the trial participants who developed COVID-19, the vaccinated group had a 95% reduction in risk of developing COVID-19, I think.
The numbers:
Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group
So, 162/170 = 95% and 8/170 = 4.7%
Right? If so, "95% efficacy" doesn't mean that 5% of the people who get vaccinated will get COVID-19. In the trial had 43,000 participants, of whom 21,500 got stuck. Eight developed COVID-19. So that's 8/21,500 = .037%
Yes?
Someone can correct me in this example if I'm wrong, but I think it's calculated as follows, assuming that the two groups are the same size.
162 got the virus without the vaccine (Study Group 1 - Control Group).
8 got the virus with the vaccine. (Study Group 2 - Intervention Group)
Therefore, we can say that the Intervention Group should have had 162 cases and it had eight, presumably due to the vaccine. 8/162 = .049, which meant that the vaccine prevented 95.1 percent of the expected cases, therefore the efficacy is 95.1 percent.
There's a little extra math if the two study groups are not the same size, but it's straightforward. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Someone can correct me in this example if I'm wrong, but I think it's calculated as follows, assuming that the two groups are the same size.
162 got the virus without the vaccine (Study Group 1 - Control Group).
8 got the virus with the vaccine. (Study Group 2 - Intervention Group)
Therefore, we can say that the Intervention Group should have had 162 cases and it had eight, presumably due to the vaccine. 8/162 = .049, which meant that the vaccine prevented 95.1 percent of the expected cases, therefore the efficacy is 95.1 percent.
There's a little extra math if the two study groups are not the same size, but it's straightforward.
I'm not sure about the "should have had 162 cases and it had eight" part. The Pfizer numbers just show that of the 43,000 total participants, both vaccinated and placebo, 170 confirmed cases were noted. 162 of the cases were among the placebo group and 8 were among the vaccinated group. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
I'm not sure about the "should have had 162 cases and it had eight" part. The Pfizer numbers just show that of the 43,000 total participants, both vaccinated and placebo, 170 confirmed cases were noted. 162 of the cases were among the placebo group and 8 were among the vaccinated group.
If the vaccine was useless, you'd expect 162 cases in that group, right? And if the vaccine was 100 percent effective, you'd expect zero. What would you expect if the vaccine was 50 percent effective? 81. [Reply]
I don’t think the vaccine is useless though. Regardless if you get covid, your symptoms are much less regardless. Even if 162 cases happened to those vaccinated [Reply]