COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:59:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 ... 456
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 115

Author Topic: COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron  (Read 526304 times)
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2175 on: January 08, 2021, 07:57:32 PM »

Does anyone know if the vaccine is supposed to give lasting immunity, or if we’ll have to get a vaccine every year like the flu?
My gut feeling is that the COVID vaccine will be ineffective against the new strains of the disease, which might mean that we will have to deal with permanent lockdowns and millions of deaths per year until 2034 or 2035.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,558
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2176 on: January 08, 2021, 07:58:28 PM »

Does anyone know if the vaccine is supposed to give lasting immunity, or if we’ll have to get a vaccine every year like the flu?
My gut feeling is that the COVID vaccine will be ineffective against the new strains of the disease, which might mean that we will have to deal with permanent lockdowns and millions of deaths per year until 2034 or 2035.

Not if President DeSantis has anything to not do about it!
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,353


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2177 on: January 08, 2021, 07:59:04 PM »

Does anyone know if the vaccine is supposed to give lasting immunity, or if we’ll have to get a vaccine every year like the flu?
My gut feeling is that the COVID vaccine will be ineffective against the new strains of the disease, which might mean that we will have to deal with permanent lockdowns and millions of deaths per year until 2034 or 2035.

Saw something today that said at least one of the vaccines IS effective against the new strains.  Can't find the citation now.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2178 on: January 08, 2021, 08:01:15 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2179 on: January 08, 2021, 08:05:12 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.

If you actually look at the data day-by-day, the 52% figure comes from analyzing the the whole period after receiving the first dose but before receiving the 2nd dose.  The vaccine is basically totally ineffective for the first few days, and rises steadily thereafter.  If you just look at the period 14 days after receiving the first dose but before recieving the 2nd, I believe the vaccine was about 90% effective.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2180 on: January 08, 2021, 08:05:40 PM »

Does anyone know if the vaccine is supposed to give lasting immunity, or if we’ll have to get a vaccine every year like the flu?
My gut feeling is that the COVID vaccine will be ineffective against the new strains of the disease, which might mean that we will have to deal with permanent lockdowns and millions of deaths per year until 2034 or 2035.

Saw something today that said at least one of the vaccines IS effective against the new strains.  Can't find the citation now.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/health/pfizer-vaccine-variant-strain-mutation/index.html
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2181 on: January 08, 2021, 08:12:07 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.

If you actually look at the data day-by-day, the 52% figure comes from analyzing the the whole period after receiving the first dose but before receiving the 2nd dose.  The vaccine is basically totally ineffective for the first few days, and rises steadily thereafter.  If you just look at the period 14 days after receiving the first dose but before recieving the 2nd, I believe the vaccine was about 90% effective.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_research-summary.pdf

Just to support my earlier post, look at the graph on p. 1 of the link with “Days after dose 1” on the x-axis.  You can see that for the first week, infections in the placebo group and vaccine group are nearly indentical.  However, after Day 14, there are almost no infections anymore in the vaccine group, despite the fact that subjects didn’t get the 2nd dose until Day 21.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,285


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2182 on: January 08, 2021, 08:56:41 PM »

In the meantime... today was the first day with more than 300k new cases in the United States. Just like the recent 4k daily deaths milestone, it's going largely unreported (NYT did talk briefly about the 4k deaths; we'll see if they comment on 300k cases).
Logged
It’s so Joever
Forumlurker161
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,945


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2183 on: January 08, 2021, 09:02:03 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.

If you actually look at the data day-by-day, the 52% figure comes from analyzing the the whole period after receiving the first dose but before receiving the 2nd dose.  The vaccine is basically totally ineffective for the first few days, and rises steadily thereafter.  If you just look at the period 14 days after receiving the first dose but before recieving the 2nd, I believe the vaccine was about 90% effective.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_research-summary.pdf

Just to support my earlier post, look at the graph on p. 1 of the link with “Days after dose 1” on the x-axis.  You can see that for the first week, infections in the placebo group and vaccine group are nearly indentical.  However, after Day 14, there are almost no infections anymore in the vaccine group, despite the fact that subjects didn’t get the 2nd dose until Day 21.
Maybe...let’s the actual people studying the vaccine come to that conclusion...
I’m not arguing with you but there is a reason they are doing this.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2184 on: January 08, 2021, 09:08:47 PM »

What evidence do we have that the dose that is being administered is the most efficient dosage? 
(The mere fact that it was the only dosage fully tested is not, by itself, evidence of that.)

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/why-does-the-covid-19-vaccine-need-two-shots/

This suggests that one dose of the Pfizer vaccine is around 50% effective, but acknowledges that analysis is flawed.

In the Phase 3 trials they gave a bunch of people the vaccine, and an equal number a placebo. The study participants were demographically.

Only a very small percentage of those who were given the placebo contracted COVID-19. The tests weren't that long and most people have not contracted COVID-19 (perhaps 7% in the USA over 10 months). There would be no reason to encourage participants to be promiscuous. It is possible that if the risks were explained to participants they would be more cautious than non-participants. There may well have been frequent testing.

There were 43,000 participants in the Pfizer Phase 3 trials, presumably evenly split between the two groups. 162 placebo recipients contracted COVID-19 (0.75%). That is 99.25% of the placebo recipients remained uninfected.

But only 8 of the vaccinated recipients contracted COVID-19 (0.04%). The 95% efficacy came from this difference 162 vs. 8. There is some good/bad luck here.

If they did another study with 21,500 persons in each group, would they get the same results? Quite, unlikely. There might be only 6 persons in the vaccine group, or 10 persons. But it is quite unlikely that it is an extreme outlier and there would be 105.

Likewise in the placebo group it might be 173 or 157.

Now back to one-dose results. They didn't give 21,500 persons one dose. Some number only got one dose for some reason. They might have been in a severe auto accident. They might have had an illness unrelated to the vaccine (which they might have attributed to the vaccine). "I don't remember when I had diarrhea this bad", doesn't mean they don't recall, but simply that they did not keep a journal of their bowel movements. "June 27, 2017 ..." Oh yeah, that was worse. Some might not liked the weekly test, or the shot did make them feel bad. I have vaccinations where I'd noticed the soreness in my shoulder, and others where I didn't remember, except when I reached over and felt the bandaid. I think the COVID-19 is more like the former. It is not symptomless.

Some might have only got one dose because they were infected before the second dose. There must of been some screening. They would not want study participants who already were heath compromised or drug addicts. They probably wanted those who had good medical records, etc. They wanted persons who were likely to show up for the weekly COVID-19 test, and would come back in 3 weeks for the second dose.

So lets say 95% did get the second dose. That would mean 2150 did not. Apparently, 0.75%/2 of these or 8 were infected. This might or note be very accurate due to the small sample size. But what if 98% did get the second dose. Then 430 only got one dose. If 0.75%/2 of those were infected, only two would be infected. The sample is quite small, and conclusions can not be made about the efficacy.

If infection occurred before the second dose could be administered, then the sample is biased. It is not expected that immunity is instantaneous. If the reason for no second dose is that you were already infected, it is not the same as those who received only one dose and would not have been infected during the next five years because they had become immune.

There must be some science behind developing a vaccine that requires two doses vs. one that requires one dose, just as there are reasons that require the vaccine to be kept at extremely cold temperatures. Different companies developed different strategies. They may have even been encouraged to do so by the CDC.

"Let's all do the same thing. If we get lucky we will be able to have lots of production in 6 months. If we don't it might be 2-1/2 years."

"If ours come in first, we will be rich! If not the government will at least pay our development costs."
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2185 on: January 08, 2021, 09:58:30 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.

If you actually look at the data day-by-day, the 52% figure comes from analyzing the the whole period after receiving the first dose but before receiving the 2nd dose.  The vaccine is basically totally ineffective for the first few days, and rises steadily thereafter.  If you just look at the period 14 days after receiving the first dose but before recieving the 2nd, I believe the vaccine was about 90% effective.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_research-summary.pdf

Just to support my earlier post, look at the graph on p. 1 of the link with “Days after dose 1” on the x-axis.  You can see that for the first week, infections in the placebo group and vaccine group are nearly indentical.  However, after Day 14, there are almost no infections anymore in the vaccine group, despite the fact that subjects didn’t get the 2nd dose until Day 21.
Maybe...let’s the actual people studying the vaccine come to that conclusion...
I’m not arguing with you but there is a reason they are doing this.


There is indeed a reason they are doing this.
The reason is that the field of medical research is wedded to an outdated orthodoxy of frequentist statistics.

This orthodoxy demands that you can't make a claim unless you have established an prior null hypothesis and then gathered enough evidence through controlled experiments to reject the null hypothesis with a 95% level of statistical confidence.

This is what we all learn in our first semester of statistics class.  But it is fundamentally the wrong way to be interpreting statistical evidence.

The people conducting the vaccine studies are unwilling to advocate for a 1-dose regime because the never explicitly tested a 1-dose regime, and the evidence that they coincidental gathered about the effect of receiving one dose may not rise to a 95% level of confidence in any case.

However, the the data that was gathered does contain -some- evidence of the effect of receiving just one dose.  And the evidence suggests that it is almost as effective as receiving two doses.  And if one does is -almost- as effective as two doses, giving one does to everyone will be much, much, more effective at producing rapid herd immunity than two doses.

We certainly can't be 95% confident that one dose is more efficient than two doses.  But we shouldn't have to be 95% confident; we should just need to be 50.01% confident.  

I am way more than 50.01% confident of this just based on a cursory glance of the data.  And my confidence is dramatically enhanced by the fact that a lot of medical professionals now are advocating for one dose based on this same data, and the ones who are advocating for it tend to be the ones whose statistical approach I trust more.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2186 on: January 08, 2021, 11:06:04 PM »

I agree we don’t have the same certainty about a half dosage as we do about a full dosage.  But the data seems to suggest that a half dosage is more than half as effective as a full dose.  And in that case, under these circumstances, we should be willing to tolerate some more uncertainly in exchange for what is likely much more efficiency.

This is not accurate. The data in this case is not robust enough to be making statistical conclusions.

Instead of the effective rate, look at the ineffective rate.

Compared to non-immunized (placebo) participants, the placebo participants are 20 times as likely to be infected. Meanwhile those with one dose are 10 times a likely to be infected.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2187 on: January 08, 2021, 11:07:22 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

They can manufacture more vaccines for a 2nd dose.  A booster is probably more effective if you wait a while anyway.   The priority right now should be getting a first dose to as many people as possible.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2188 on: January 08, 2021, 11:21:45 PM »

I agree we don’t have the same certainty about a half dosage as we do about a full dosage.  But the data seems to suggest that a half dosage is more than half as effective as a full dose.  And in that case, under these circumstances, we should be willing to tolerate some more uncertainly in exchange for what is likely much more efficiency.

This is not accurate. The data in this case is not robust enough to be making statistical conclusions.

Instead of the effective rate, look at the ineffective rate.

Compared to non-immunized (placebo) participants, the placebo participants are 20 times as likely to be infected. Meanwhile those with one dose are 10 times a likely to be infected.


What I’m saying is that just by making statements like “robust enough to be making statistical conclusions”, you are buying into the outdated frequentist orthodoxy.  Modern Bayesian statistics doesn’t think like that.  The question shouldn’t be a binary “ is this enough to change our conclusion”?  All additional data we get should change our conclusion, the only question is how much it should change it.

And the people who got one does are only 10 times more likely to be infected when you measure them within the first few days after getting the vaccine.  When measured 14-21 days after getting the first dose, they are less than twice as likely to get infected.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2189 on: January 08, 2021, 11:31:49 PM »

Friday's report from the CDC is the first in which new vaccinations exceeded newly distributed doses.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations

This would indicate that any delays are not due to the federal government holding back on distribution, but rather on injecting them. But only 30% of distributed doses have been injected.

24 States have now exceed vaccination to 2% of their populations.

16 of 27 states (59%) with a Republican governor have exceeded 2%.
8 of 23 states (35%) with a Democratic governor have exceeded 2%.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2190 on: January 08, 2021, 11:46:18 PM »

The updated numbers for COVID-19 in the U.S. are in for 1/8 per: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I'm keeping track of these updates daily and updating at the end of the day, whenever all states finish reporting for that day.

ΔW Change: Comparisons of Weekly Day-to-day Growth or Decline of COVID-19 Spread/Deaths.
  • IE: Comparing the numbers to the same day of last week, are we flattening the curve enough?

Σ Increase: A day's contribution to overall percentage growth of COVID-19 cases/deaths.
  • IE: What's the overall change in the total?

Older Numbers (Hidden in spoiler mode to make the post more compact)
Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.



12/27: <Sunday>
  • Cases: 19,573,847 (+140,000 | ΔW Change: ↓26.24% | Σ Increase: ↑0.72%)
  • Deaths: 341,138 (+1,217 | ΔW Change: ↓17.10% | Σ Increase: ↑0.36%)

12/28: <M>
  • Cases: 19,781,624 (+207,777 | ΔW Change: ↑0.80% | Σ Increase: ↑1.06%)
  • Deaths: 343,182 (+2,044 | ΔW Change: ↑7.41% | Σ Increase: ↑0.60%)

12/29: <T>
  • Cases: 19,977,704 (+196,080 | ΔW Change: ↓7.03% | Σ Increase: ↑0.99%)
  • Deaths: 346,579 (+3,397 | ΔW Change: ↓16.16% | Σ Increase: ↑0.99%)

12/30: <W>
  • Cases: 20,216,991 (+239,287 | ΔW Change: ↑2.91% | Σ Increase: ↑1.20%)
  • Deaths: 350,778 (+4,199 | ΔW Change: ↑23.72% | Σ Increase: ↑1.21%)

12/31 (Holiday/Last Þ Holiday): <Þ>
  • Cases: 20,445,654 (+228,663 | ΔW Change: ↑17.76% | Σ Increase: ↑1.13%)
  • Deaths: 354,215 (+3,437 | ΔW Change: ↑20.68% | Σ Increase: ↑0.98%)

1/1 (Holiday/Last F Holiday): <F>
  • Cases: 20,617,346 (+171,692 | ΔW Change: ↑73.71% | Σ Increase: ↑0.84%)
  • Deaths: 356,445 (+2,230 | ΔW Change: ↑86.30% | Σ Increase: ↑0.63%)

1/2: <S>
  • Cases: 20,904,701 (+287,355 | ΔW Change: ↑28.47% | Σ Increase: ↑1.39%)
  • Deaths: 358,682 (+2,237 | ΔW Change: ↑34.92% | Σ Increase: ↑0.63%)

1/3: <Sunday>
  • Cases: 21,113,528 (+208,827 | ΔW Change: ↑49.16% | Σ Increase: ↑1.00%)
  • Deaths: 360,078 (+1,396 | ΔW Change: ↑14.71% | Σ Increase: ↑0.39%)

1/4: <M>
  • Cases: 21,353,051 (+239,523 | ΔW Change: ↑15.28% | Σ Increase: ↑1.13%)
  • Deaths: 362,123 (+2,045 | ΔW Change: ↑0.05% | Σ Increase: ↑0.57%)

1/5: <T>
  • Cases: 21,578,606 (+225,555 | ΔW Change: ↑15.03% | Σ Increase: ↑1.06%)
  • Deaths: 365,620 (+3,497 | ΔW Change: ↑2.94% | Σ Increase: ↑0.97%)

1/6: <W>
  • Cases: 21,857,616 (+279,010 | ΔW Change: ↑16.60% | Σ Increase: ↑1.29%)
  • Deaths: 369,990 (+4,370 | ΔW Change: ↑4.07% | Σ Increase: ↑1.20%)

1/7 (Yesterday/Last Þ Holiday): <Þ>
  • Cases: 22,132,045 (+274,429 | ΔW Change: ↑20.01% | Σ Increase: ↑1.26%)
  • Deaths: 374,124 (+4,134 | ΔW Change: ↑20.28% | Σ Increase: ↑1.12%)

1/8 (Today/Last F Holiday): <F>
  • Cases: 22,456,902 (+324,857 | ΔW Change: ↑89.21% | Σ Increase: ↑1.47%)
  • Deaths: 378,149 (+4,025 | ΔW Change: ↑80.49% | Σ Increase: ↑1.08%)
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2191 on: January 08, 2021, 11:57:27 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

They can manufacture more vaccines for a 2nd dose.  A booster is probably more effective if you wait a while anyway.   The priority right now should be getting a first dose to as many people as possible.

June, at minimum, is the earliest point this would occur. Any immunity from the first dose would likely have weakened without that boost occurring when it's supposed to, putting us right back where we are presently.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2192 on: January 09, 2021, 03:17:12 AM »

I agree we don’t have the same certainty about a half dosage as we do about a full dosage.  But the data seems to suggest that a half dosage is more than half as effective as a full dose.  And in that case, under these circumstances, we should be willing to tolerate some more uncertainly in exchange for what is likely much more efficiency.

This is not accurate. The data in this case is not robust enough to be making statistical conclusions.

Instead of the effective rate, look at the ineffective rate.

Compared to non-immunized (placebo) participants, the placebo participants are 20 times as likely to be infected. Meanwhile those with one dose are 10 times a likely to be infected.


What I’m saying is that just by making statements like “robust enough to be making statistical conclusions”, you are buying into the outdated frequentist orthodoxy.  Modern Bayesian statistics doesn’t think like that.  The question shouldn’t be a binary “ is this enough to change our conclusion”?  All additional data we get should change our conclusion, the only question is how much it should change it.

And the people who got one does are only 10 times more likely to be infected when you measure them within the first few days after getting the vaccine.  When measured 14-21 days after getting the first dose, they are less than twice as likely to get infected.
There were 39 infections between the 1st and 2nd doses (1.857 per day)
There were 2 infections within 7 days of 2nd dose (0.286 per day).
There were 9 infections within the (average) next 41 days (0.220 per day)

The rate within 7 days after the the 2nd dose may be close to that for the 7 days before the 2nd dose, but perhaps not. It may be possible that the second dose begins to take effect quicker than the first if the immune system is already triggered.

Among the placebo group:

There were 82 infections between the 1st and 2nd doses (3.905 per day)
There were 21 infections within 7 days of the 2nd dose (3.000 per day)
There were 172 infections within the (average) next 39 days (4.410 per day*).

*It appears that there was variation in the infection rate over the surveillance period coincident with increased community prevalence (if there are more people who may transmit the infection to you, you are more likely to become infected).

I agree with your conclusion that there was little difference in infections in the first eleven days or so between the placebo group and the vaccine group.

We can agree that one dose is more effective than one or two placebo doses.

But it is not clear that one dose is as effective as two doses, or if there is variation among population groups. 20 μg might be enough in some persons, and 60 μg might be barely enough in others.

And only 30% of doses that have been distributed to states has actually been injected into arms (there may be some reporting lag as well as distribution lag).
Logged
Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist
darthpi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2193 on: January 09, 2021, 11:31:15 AM »

I really had thought that things were plateauing in the new case numbers in December. Obvious now that that isn't the case.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2194 on: January 09, 2021, 04:32:18 PM »

I really had thought that things were plateauing in the new case numbers in December. Obvious now that that isn't the case.

We're starting to get the people who were infected during Christmas now.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2195 on: January 09, 2021, 08:32:36 PM »


Two doses are absolutely needed for there to be any real effectiveness. Hopefully somebody who actually knows what they're doing will convince Biden to backtrack on this.

What is your evidence of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

52% isn't enough to make a difference as far as spread, and 50/50 chance of getting it for general population means that higher risk patients will likely not have any real benefit.

If you actually look at the data day-by-day, the 52% figure comes from analyzing the the whole period after receiving the first dose but before receiving the 2nd dose.  The vaccine is basically totally ineffective for the first few days, and rises steadily thereafter.  If you just look at the period 14 days after receiving the first dose but before recieving the 2nd, I believe the vaccine was about 90% effective.

Moderna found a single dose to be 80-90% effective. Holding back doses for a second dose is dumb.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,149


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2196 on: January 09, 2021, 09:18:24 PM »

How did Israel get access to so much vaccine?  They’ve already vaccinated 20% of their population; not other major country is over 2%.  Even if we had actually used all our supply, we’d only be at 6%.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2197 on: January 10, 2021, 12:26:14 AM »

The updated numbers for COVID-19 in the U.S. are in for 1/9 per: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I'm keeping track of these updates daily and updating at the end of the day, whenever all states finish reporting for that day.

ΔW Change: Comparisons of Weekly Day-to-day Growth or Decline of COVID-19 Spread/Deaths.
  • IE: Comparing the numbers to the same day of last week, are we flattening the curve enough?

Σ Increase: A day's contribution to overall percentage growth of COVID-19 cases/deaths.
  • IE: What's the overall change in the total?

Older Numbers (Hidden in spoiler mode to make the post more compact)
Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.



12/27: <Sunday>
  • Cases: 19,573,847 (+140,000 | ΔW Change: ↓26.24% | Σ Increase: ↑0.72%)
  • Deaths: 341,138 (+1,217 | ΔW Change: ↓17.10% | Σ Increase: ↑0.36%)

12/28: <M>
  • Cases: 19,781,624 (+207,777 | ΔW Change: ↑0.80% | Σ Increase: ↑1.06%)
  • Deaths: 343,182 (+2,044 | ΔW Change: ↑7.41% | Σ Increase: ↑0.60%)

12/29: <T>
  • Cases: 19,977,704 (+196,080 | ΔW Change: ↓7.03% | Σ Increase: ↑0.99%)
  • Deaths: 346,579 (+3,397 | ΔW Change: ↓16.16% | Σ Increase: ↑0.99%)

12/30: <W>
  • Cases: 20,216,991 (+239,287 | ΔW Change: ↑2.91% | Σ Increase: ↑1.20%)
  • Deaths: 350,778 (+4,199 | ΔW Change: ↑23.72% | Σ Increase: ↑1.21%)

12/31 (Holiday/Last Þ Holiday): <Þ>
  • Cases: 20,445,654 (+228,663 | ΔW Change: ↑17.76% | Σ Increase: ↑1.13%)
  • Deaths: 354,215 (+3,437 | ΔW Change: ↑20.68% | Σ Increase: ↑0.98%)

1/1 (Holiday/Last F Holiday): <F>
  • Cases: 20,617,346 (+171,692 | ΔW Change: ↑73.71% | Σ Increase: ↑0.84%)
  • Deaths: 356,445 (+2,230 | ΔW Change: ↑86.30% | Σ Increase: ↑0.63%)

1/2: <S>
  • Cases: 20,904,701 (+287,355 | ΔW Change: ↑28.47% | Σ Increase: ↑1.39%)
  • Deaths: 358,682 (+2,237 | ΔW Change: ↑34.92% | Σ Increase: ↑0.63%)

1/3: <Sunday>
  • Cases: 21,113,528 (+208,827 | ΔW Change: ↑49.16% | Σ Increase: ↑1.00%)
  • Deaths: 360,078 (+1,396 | ΔW Change: ↑14.71% | Σ Increase: ↑0.39%)

1/4: <M>
  • Cases: 21,353,051 (+239,523 | ΔW Change: ↑15.28% | Σ Increase: ↑1.13%)
  • Deaths: 362,123 (+2,045 | ΔW Change: ↑0.05% | Σ Increase: ↑0.57%)

1/5: <T>
  • Cases: 21,578,606 (+225,555 | ΔW Change: ↑15.03% | Σ Increase: ↑1.06%)
  • Deaths: 365,620 (+3,497 | ΔW Change: ↑2.94% | Σ Increase: ↑0.97%)

1/6: <W>
  • Cases: 21,857,616 (+279,010 | ΔW Change: ↑16.60% | Σ Increase: ↑1.29%)
  • Deaths: 369,990 (+4,370 | ΔW Change: ↑4.07% | Σ Increase: ↑1.20%)

1/7 (Last Þ Holiday): <Þ>
  • Cases: 22,132,045 (+274,429 | ΔW Change: ↑20.01% | Σ Increase: ↑1.26%)
  • Deaths: 374,124 (+4,134 | ΔW Change: ↑20.28% | Σ Increase: ↑1.12%)

1/8 (Yesterday/Last F Holiday): <F>
  • Cases: 22,456,902 (+324,857 | ΔW Change: ↑89.21% | Σ Increase: ↑1.47%)
  • Deaths: 378,149 (+4,025 | ΔW Change: ↑80.49% | Σ Increase: ↑1.08%)

1/9 (Today): <S>
  • Cases: 22,699,938 (+243,036 | ΔW Change: ↓15.42% | Σ Increase: ↑1.08%)
  • Deaths: 381,480 (+3,331 | ΔW Change: ↑48.90% | Σ Increase: ↑0.88%)
Logged
Edu
Ufokart
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,864
Argentina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2198 on: January 10, 2021, 12:29:44 AM »

I still remember the not so long ago time (after the "first wave") where deaths on sundays where like 300
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2199 on: January 10, 2021, 01:01:21 AM »

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 ... 456  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.126 seconds with 13 queries.