Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      14
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      14
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      3
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      2


Recommended Posts

On 7/17/2020 at 11:19 AM, Todd Allen said:
On 7/17/2020 at 8:37 AM, Gordo said:

I found Moderna is also doing vaccine trials for CMV (I want this!)

Do you know you don't already have it?

I was only tested once, and was negative, but that was years ago.

In other news, we are hitting records:
For first time, world records one million coronavirus cases in 100 hours: Reuters tally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, corybroo said:

Whether to be first, middle, last in line for a vaccine depends upon trust.  I remember the swine flu from nearly ½ century ago where the vaccination program did not survive.

Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program

Some interesting quotes:

Barack Obama and Richard Lugar, New York Times, June 6, 2005 (2)

"It has been 37 years since the last influenza pandemic, or widespread global epidemic, so by historic patterns we may be due for another."

Soon, however, NIIP received the first of 2 crippling blows to hopes to immunize "every man, woman, and child." The first was later in 1976, when instead of boxes of bottled vaccine, the vaccine manufacturers delivered an ultimatum—that the federal government indemnify them against claims of adverse reactions as a requirement for release of the vaccines. The government quickly capitulated to industry's demand for indemnification. 

What NIIP did not and could not survive, however, was the second blow, finding cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) among persons receiving swine flu immunizations.

  [The following is a significant difference between then and now  CB]

Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored. 

 

So for myself, I’m planning on trying to get in the second half of the line.  I realize that everyone will calculate the odds differently depending upon personal circumstances.

 

Same for me, as I wrote in my previous post. I'm in no hurry whatsoever. Apple is transitioning to ARM processors, and I need a new iMac - but now with this transition, I'm waiting until at least the second generation of ARM iMacs - if I'm not anxious to be the bleeding edge early adopter of novel chip architecture computers, why would I want to do it with this vaccine? I'm in a fortunate position where I can afford to wait, and this is exactly what I intend to do. Not to mention my generalized distrust of commercially driven companies that have a big incentive to hype their product - how often have we seen this before, where pharma companies are looking at all the ways to *not* find negative side effects to their products rather than the opposite. Moderna is just another one in my book. Count me out, until there is a heck of a lot more data and clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit ironic how people who see the 0.26% risk of death from Covid-19 as worthy of a lockdown and collapsing of the economy are exuberant about a new technology tested on a total of 45 people (with some skirting of the guidelines), which may not be widely available for a long while. 

There is a lot of political pressure both from both sides of the aisle.  The Left (and the media) are maintaining the Covid-19 hysteria in the hope that it will topple Trump and they can then offer a vaccine as the key to simultaneously justifying and ending the lockdowns, and be seen as saviors.  Trump, on the other hand, is trying to outcompete the Democrats in dolling out free money practically for the asking, hoping that it will keep him afloat through the elections, without a coherent message.  What a mess, for which we as a society will pay dearly.

There is a lot of money to be made in a fear-driven market, and I certainly hope that a vaccine (or multiple vaccines) will emerge out of the huge pile of money being invested, even though the T-cell studies and the follow-up research may render it somewhat less vital for the vast majority.  The research should also provide broader benefits than just for Covid-19, presumably.

And, to correct the record, much of Europe has generally lower flu vaccination rates than the US (although states like NY and CA are at the bottom of the US).  Italy is lower, and countries like Belgium and Denmark have rates multiple times lower than the US.

Just to keep it fun, here are some more sobering stories on the Moderna vaccine:

Exclusive: Moderna spars with U.S. scientists over COVID-19 vaccine trials

But the company - which has never produced an approved vaccine or run a large trial - has squabbled with government scientists over the process, delayed delivering trial protocols and resisted experts’ advice on how to run the study, according to three sources familiar with the vaccine project. The sources said those tensions, which have not been previously reported, have contributed to a delay of more than two weeks in launching the trial of the Moderna’s vaccine candidate, now expected in late July....

Some of the disagreements have stoked concerns over the young biotech firm’s relative inexperience and what the sources described as its lack of staff and expertise to oversee the most critical phase of human trials. The U.S. government is not facing similar problems with established drugmakers, such as AstraZeneca Plc and Johnson & Johnson, working on other leading vaccine candidates, the sources said....

Moderna outsourced the handling of data collection to the contract research firm PPD Inc. At one meeting set up with the leading companies and government officials, Moderna did not allow PPD to share details of the trial plans, as other companies had done, the sources said. PPD did not respond to request for comment.

Moderna disputed that it withheld information, calling the complaint a misunderstanding about the company’s presentation at the meeting, which was not as detailed as others.

Moderna delayed submitting its clinical trial protocols by several weeks, the sources said. The protocols lay out goals and detailed procedures for researchers to manage the trial safely. While Moderna maintained it made the call to delay the trial launch, the sources said Moderna lacked enough staff to complete the protocols on time.

Moderna also initially sought a lower threshold for proving whether its vaccine worked than what was ultimately set by the FDA, one of the sources said. The company says it has aligned with the FDA’s guidance after discussions with the agency...."

 

Full Results From Moderna's Coronavirus Vaccine Study Will Take 2 Years, at Least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course when I say first in line that would certainly be after I was satisfied that the vaccine was a good bet. I would look closely at the data. 
 

Ron Putt said:

“It's a bit ironic how people who see the 0.26% risk of death from Covid-19 as worthy of a lockdown and collapsing of the economy are exuberant about a new technology tested on a total of 45 people (with some skirting of the guidelines), which may not be widely available for a long while.”

that number as you already know is quite misleading. It’s probably closer to .5% overall. The key word is overall. People in our age group have considerable more risk than that. Add to that the fact that many folks are coming down with some very serious long term effects from this little bugger, especially the folks over 60 or so.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/from-lung-scarring-to-heart-damage-covid-19-may-leave-lingering-marks/

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mike41 said:

that number as you already know is quite misleading. It’s probably closer to .5% overall.

Mike, how is the 0.26% misleading, exactly?  It's based on the "most likely" scenario by the CDC and while it may not fit the political narrative of some, it's most likely even lower, according to newer studies (I posted one from a Penn team earlier, which would get us closer to 0.2%).  It also jives almost exactly with the Stanford model, also posted earlier:  The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

I have no idea where you get the 0.5% number, but assume it's a bumped-up version of the CDC's most likely estimate of mortality for symptomatic cases:

CDC: Coronavirus death rate likely just 0.26%

"The updated CDC figures show a 0.4% death rate for symptomatic cases of coronavirus, down-grading the estimated fatality rate from 1% of symptomatic cases.

With the CDC now estimating that more than a third (35%) of coronavirus cases are completely asymptomatic, the total fatality rate for the coronavirus is now believed to be 0.26%."

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Mike, how is the 0.26% misleading, exactly?  It's based on the "most likely" scenario by the CDC and while it may not fit the political narrative of some, it's most likely even lower, according to newer studies (I posted one from a Penn team earlier, which would get us closer to 0.2%).  It also jives almost exactly with the Stanford model, also posted earlier:  The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

I have no idea where you get the 0.5% number, but assume it's a bumped-up version of the CDC's most likely estimate of mortality for symptomatic cases:

CDC: Coronavirus death rate likely just 0.26%

"The updated CDC figures show a 0.4% death rate for symptomatic cases of coronavirus, down-grading the estimated fatality rate from 1% of symptomatic cases.

With the CDC now estimating that more than a third (35%) of coronavirus cases are completely asymptomatic, the total fatality rate for the coronavirus is now believed to be 0.26%."

.026 and .05 either way very misleading because if your 80 years old you might say WTF is all the fuss. I’m gonna go party! Also a young person who is exposed may visit their grandparents/ parents and think hey this thing is way overblown to heck with a mask! The death rates include everyone even infants. No Ron this virus can be a bastard especially in older people with chronic condition. Also it’s not just about dying. The virus can cause long term damage.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

AGE
DEATH RATE
confirmed cases 
DEATH RATE
all cases
80+ years old 
21.9%
14.8%
70-79 years old 
 
8.0%
60-69 years old 
 
3.6%
50-59 years old 
 
1.3%
40-49 years old 
 
0.4%
30-39 years old 
 
0.2%
20-29 years old 
 
0.2%
10-19 years old 
 
0.2%
0-9 years old 
 
no fatalities
Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 20, 2020 05:39 AM EDTUpdated 06:08 AM R&DCoronavirus
UK biotech rock­ets up on Covid-19 'break­through' for in­haled in­ter­fer­on be­ta — can its small study live up to the boast?
Amber Tong
https://endpts.com/uk-biotech-rockets-up-on-covid-19-breakthrough-for-inhaled-interferon-beta-can-its-small-study-live-up-to-the-boast/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlPater said:

July 20, 2020 05:39 AM EDTUpdated 06:08 AM R&DCoronavirus
UK biotech rock­ets up on Covid-19 'break­through' for in­haled in­ter­fer­on be­ta — can its small study live up to the boast?
Amber Tong
https://endpts.com/uk-biotech-rockets-up-on-covid-19-breakthrough-for-inhaled-interferon-beta-can-its-small-study-live-up-to-the-boast/ 

Wow, it’s almost like a disinfectant spray for the lungs, where have I heard that? 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another hydroxychloroquine study published: Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Fun times we live in, today my son had a fever of 103.6, body aches, chills, reduced blood oxygen saturation and I’m up in the middle of the night because he’s hallucinating... Maybe I’ll be one of the lucky 40% with no symptoms? Oh and it’s my birthday 🎁😉

28CD92E5-2136-4B35-884A-F64B21E042AB.jpeg.05616fb1608339f392d55ab17cc57510.jpeg

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On MedicalXpress  Autopsies reveal surprising cardiac changes in COVID-19 patients

the damage to the hearts of COVID-19 patients is not the expected typical inflammation of the heart muscle associated with myocarditis, but rather a unique pattern of cell death in scattered individual heart muscle cells.

Their previously reported results revealed diffuse alveolar damage (DAD)—damage to the small airspaces of the lung where gas exchange occurs—along with blood clots and bleeding in the small blood vessels and capillaries of the lung, were the major contributors to death.

"These findings, along with severely enlarged right ventricles, may indicate extreme stress on the heart secondary to acute pulmonary disease,"

The autopsies … ten male and twelve female patients ranged in age from 44-79. Although there were other underlying conditions, the majority had high blood pressure, half had insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and about 41% had obesity.

also found viral infection of some of the cells in the lining of the smaller blood vessels (endothelium). Although at low levels, it may be enough to cause dysfunction leading to individual cell death. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a postivie note, MedicalXpress  Nitric oxide may slow progression of COVID-19

Nitric oxide is an antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory molecule with key roles in pulmonary vascular function in the context of viral infections and other pulmonary diseases. In SARS-CoV-1 infection, which led to the outbreak of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003, nitric oxide inhibited viral replication by cytotoxic reactions through intermediates such as peroxynitrite. It is one of several potential COVID-19 treatments included in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's emergency expanded access program.

The authors highlight the potential for inhaled nitric oxide contributing to better clinical outcomes and alleviating the rapidly rising strain on health care capacity due to COVID-19.

The authors suggest that if nitric oxide's efficacy is illustrated for COVID-19, its use as a treatment can be pivotal in the fight against the pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gordo said:

Fun times we live in, today my son had a fever of 103.6, body aches, chills, reduced blood oxygen saturation and I’m up in the middle of the night because he’s hallucinating... Maybe I’ll be one of the lucky 40% with no symptoms? Oh and it’s my birthday 🎁😉

Hi Gordo!

Happy birthday!  Hopefully, despite the high temperature, it may not be COVID-19.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gordo said:

Fun times we live in, today my son had a fever of 103.6, body aches, chills, reduced blood oxygen saturation and I’m up in the middle of the night because he’s hallucinating... Maybe I’ll be one of the lucky 40% with no symptoms? Oh and it’s my birthday 🎁😉

Happy birthday, Gordo and sorry about your son, I hope he's already better (it's unlikely to be Covid-19).

 

On 7/20/2020 at 9:01 AM, Mike41 said:

026 and .05 either way very misleading because if your 80 years old you might say WTF is all the fuss.

It's about as misleading as saying that the average non-pandemic flu season has a 0.1% death rate, as close to 90% of all ILI-related seasonal deaths occur among the elderly.  See this, for example:

Seasonal Influenza Infections and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality

 

---------

And for those curious, here is an informative view of how Covid-19 deaths are counted, from the Governor of the College of American Pathologists:
 

U.S. COVID-19 Death Toll Is Inflated

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ron Put said:

U.S. COVID-19 Death Toll Is Inflated

Yes, it's inflated a lot more than it should be.  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries says it was 1,119 yesterday.  ICUs overcrowded, bodies piling up.  This despite a weak semblance of virus control from a viral infection in July.  How many deaths from flu in a bad flu season in July?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Put said:

And for those curious, here is an informative view of how Covid-19 deaths are counted, from the Governor of the College of American Pathologists:

U.S. COVID-19 Death Toll Is Inflated

For those who read carefully, the above link is to a RealClearPolitics article that is nearly 2 months old (published May 29th). It claims a "0.26%" infection fatality rate which is unsurprisingly the same as the article Ron posted three days ago, which is also two month's out of date. Here is the operative paragraph from the RealClearPolitics article:

The latest Centers for Disease Control data show that the COVID-19 fatality rate is 0.26% -- four times higher than the worst rate for the seasonal flu over the past decade. That is dramatically lower than the World Health Organization’s estimate of 3.4% and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s initial guess of about 2%.

The first thing that's wrong with this paragraph is that it's comparing apples to oranges. The 0.26% is an estimate of infection fatality ratio (IFR), while the 3.4% and 2% are estimates of the confirmed case fatality ratios (CFRs). Since confirmed infections are much lower than actual infections, you would expect the CFR to be much higher than the IFR.

But the really embarrassing thing about this paragraph is that the link pointed to by the 0.26% is this CDC page, which was updated on July 10th, long after the RealClearPolitics article which links to it was written. Of particular relevance is the fact that the 0.26% best estimate for the IFR has since been revised upward by the CDC by a factor of 2.5x to 0.65%. Oops. Here is a screen shot of the up-to-date CDC table from that page with the current best estimate IFR highlighted:

20200722_141301.jpg

So the CDC is saying that the infection fatality ratio for Covid-19 is 0.65%, which is very close to the estimate several of us have been saying since mid April, which is at least 7x the seasonal flu.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

For those who read carefully, the above link is to a RealClearPolitics article that is nearly 2 months old (published May 29th). It claims a "0.26%" infection fatality rate which is unsurprisingly the same as the article Ron posted three days ago, which is also two month's out of date. Here is the operative paragraph from the RealClearPolitics article:

The latest Centers for Disease Control data show that the COVID-19 fatality rate is 0.26% -- four times higher than the worst rate for the seasonal flu over the past decade. That is dramatically lower than the World Health Organization’s estimate of 3.4% and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s initial guess of about 2%.

The first thing that's wrong with this paragraph is that it's comparing apples to oranges. The 0.26% is an estimate of infection fatality ratio (IFR), while the 3.4% and 2% are estimates of the confirmed case fatality ratios (CFRs). Since confirmed infections are much lower than actual infections, you would expect the CFR to be much higher than the IFR.

But the really embarrassing thing about this paragraph is that the link pointed to by the 0.26% is this CDC page, which was updated on July 10th, long after the RealClearPolitics article which links to it was written. Of particular relevance is the fact that the 0.26% best estimate for the IFR has since been revised upward by the CDC by a factor of 2.5x to 0.65%. Oops. Here is a screen shot of the up-to-date CDC table from that page with the current best estimate IFR highlighted:

20200722_141301.jpg

So the CDC is saying that the infection fatality ratio for Covid-19 is 0.65%, which is very close to the estimate several of us have been saying since mid April, which is at least 7x the seasonal flu.

--Dean

Thank you Dean. So it’s even  considerably higher than 0.5% and close to triple the 0.26% from the earlier estimates that Ron is quoting.

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlPater said:

Yes, it's inflated a lot more than it should be.  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries says it was 1,119 yesterday.  ICUs overcrowded, bodies piling up.  This despite a weak semblance of virus control from a viral infection in July.  How many deaths from flu in a bad flu season in July?

Here is a screeshot of Worldometer today.  452 deaths is sad, but on an average day about 7500 people die in the US (considerably higher during the flu season).  During the peak of the average flu season, approximately 10% of the aggregate deaths are flu-related.  The explanation of how deaths are counted is relevant to all of this and places it in perspective, especially in light of the push for "possibles" in places like NY and the dramatic drop in reported heart attack and stroke deaths.

428313629_ScreenShot2020-07-22at11_08_18.png.a983a4147efece62f3cb611dc081cacc.png


As to the July comment, epidemiologists warned that the lockdown will only delay, but not end the pandemic, and that reopening will increase infections.  The good news is that the death rate is considerably lower than during the peak, despite the increased number of positive tests.  It is also very likely that many more have been exposed to the virus and have either T-cell or antibody immunity. See this:

Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported

 

---
Finally, to answer your question about "how many deaths in a bad flu season" during the summer, try over 200,000 adjusted for population in 1969, when it barely made the news and instead of locking down, we had Woodstock and went to the Moon.

How a 'filthy' Woodstock still went ahead during 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic that killed 100,000 Americans and infected everyone from President Lyndon Johnson to the the Apollo 8 crew - and even Shamu the killer whale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

You said, "Here is a screeshot of Worldometer today.  452 deaths is sad, but ..."

Are you aware that you quoted a value (452) which represents only a small portion of the day's total? Perhaps you haven't used worldometer very much -- or else you would have been aware of this. You can look at the "Yesterday" value to see an actual day's total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Ron,

Better yet -- look at the "Daily New Deaths in the United States" chart to see the many daily values -- and optionally the 3-day or 7-day averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Todd S said:

Are you aware that you quoted a value (452) which represents only a small portion of the day's total? Perhaps you haven't used worldometer very much -- or else you would have been aware of this.

No, I don't stare at worldometer every day, they report once daily for most countries.  But you are missing the point that even at over a thousand deaths, this is only a fraction of the deaths in a country of 340 million.  I see that Texas is showing the highest number of deaths, but even so, the total number of Covid-19 deaths in Texas so far, with all the lax distancing for which they've been repeatedly denigrated by the media, is at just over half of the deaths from the 2018 flu season.

Similarly, the worldwide deaths from Covid-19 is still at just over 600,000, which is the upper range of an average flu year, and considerably less than the 1 million dead from the 2018 flu.  And about a quarter of the severe flu which killed over the equivalent of 2 million people (adjusted for population) in 1969.

While the politicized narrative counts every suspected death as Covid-19, it is highly unlikely for it to be overestimated.  The piece I posted earlier, coauthored by the Governor of the College of American Pathologists makes a reasonable case for why it so, despite the updated CDC page.  It is also supported by the dramatically lower numbers reported for deaths from heart attacks and strokes, as well as many terminal cancers.

The CDC has been under enormous political pressure and it was relentlessly attacked from the Left over the 0.26% most likely mortality statement, so I wouldn't place all that much stock in the updated numbers, especially as studies from Europe and the Penn study I posted earlier appear to indicate much higher infection rates than what the CDC based even the 0.26% on.  Note also how the CDC reversed its long-standing recommendation stating that masks are ineffective in protecting healthy people or generally reducing the spread of flu-like diseases after it came under sustained attacks from "experts" touted by the Left questioning CDC's competency.

But the main point which gets lost in the fog of lower and lower mortality rate numbers is that ultimately there is no medical justification for the lockdown and the destruction of the economy.  There is no evidence that strict lockdowns had a measurable long-term effect on deaths. It was a political act and the continuing and rather successful spreading of fear will do far greater damage to us as a society than Covid-19 ever could.

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxford epidemiologists: suppression strategy is not viable

Good interview providing sensible information. 

It also includes a discussion touching on the "fever wards" which largely disappeared from much of the Western world in the 1980s, at least partially for political reasons. 

The current hospital structures are not designed to contain infections and neither are the aged care homes where most of the deaths occurred. In fact, New York State, as well as California and Michigan, mandated that active Covid-19 cases be admitted by nursing homes, which greatly contributed to the large number of deaths.

Similarly, Sweden is reevaluating its aged care home facilities, which are generally very large and make it difficult to contain infections -- this is where the bulk of Sweden's deaths occurred.  The smaller neighboring countries don't have their elderly population concentrated in large centralized facilities.

Some good lessons we should all learn from. 

 

 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww, Gordo, sorry about your kid - hopefully it's *not* CV-19, kids catch all sorts of bugs all the time - plus, isn't there some talk about kids being relatively less likely to catch CV-19, or has that been debunked? Presumably, there is less obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and other things in kids which all argue for lower numbers.

And happy B-day, may you have a good supply of those far into the future :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×