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

[Dean Pomerleau]

49 minutes ago, Todd Allen said:

There were 78,902 fully vaccinated person days among 2,479 people, so less than 32 days of vaccination on average.  Among all participants both vaccinated and unvaccinated in the study there were only 2 hospitalizations and 0 deaths which when compared to the greater than half million US deaths due to covid-19 gives a sense of the small size and short duration of the study. 

Todd,

If we were talking about hospitalizations and deaths you'd have a point. But we are talking about infections. Granted the study was short and the size of the study population was relatively modest and relatively healthy (as healthcare workers). So you wouldn't expect to see many hospitalizations or deaths.

Specifically, a half million deaths over a year in a population of 330M people works out to about 1 death per 8000 people per month.  So you wouldn't expect to see deaths in a one month study of 4000 relatively healthy people.

Given the large disparity in the number of infections between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (3 vs. 161), I think it is hard to criticize the study for being underpowered to answer the question it was intended to address - namely do the mRNA vaccines prevent infections.

--Dean

 

[Todd Allen]

4 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Given the large disparity in the number of infections between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (3 vs. 161), I think it is hard to criticize the study for being underpowered to answer the question it was intended to address - namely do the mRNA vaccines prevent infections.

I agree, it is strong evidence the vaccines reduce infection rate in the short term.  But the true benefit could easily be a 50% reduction versus the 90% reduction reported.  And it doesn't speak to the long term effects.

[Todd Allen]

12 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

So you wouldn't expect to see deaths in a one month study of 4000 relatively healthy people.

It was a 13 week study.  One month was the average duration of vaccination.  Still you wouldn't expect to see deaths among this cohort for this duration.  But when I compare 0 to 500,000+ in my gut there is a questioning of significance despite an intellectual ability to rationalize the importance of the finding. 

[Dean Pomerleau]

1 hour ago, Todd Allen said:

But the true benefit could easily be a 50% reduction versus the 90% reduction reported. 

That is a remote possibility, made more remote by an Israeli study that found an 86% reduction in the number infections among 9100 healthcare workers shortly after a subset of them received the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Here is the table from the Appendix of that paper with the details:

Note the 86% "adjusted rate reduction" highlighted in red. This was the authors accounting for exactly the issue you raised with the US healthcare worker study I posted earlier. Namely that a decreasing (or increasing) rate of infections over the course of the study could skew results, since the "exposure days" for the vaccinated group take place later in the period of the study when there was less (or more) covid in circulation and therefore less (or more) background risk of getting infected.

Unlike the US study where infection rates were dropping during the period of the study,  the infection rates were actually increasing rapidly in Israel over the duration of this study. Here is the daily new cases in Israel during period of the study with the green arrow marking the start (Dec 19) and the red arrow marking the end (Jan 24) of the data collection:

 

So basically infections were skyrocketing in Israel during the period of this study.

After adjusting for this increasing background risk of getting infected over the period of the study, the protection against infection afforded by the vaccine shortly after the second dose was increased from an estimated 76% (CI 59-98%) to 86% (CI 76%-99%). Here are the details of the adjustment algorithm they used to compensate for this issue, which they called "community exposure", for the mathematically inclined:

Note also that the second Pfizer vaccine dose was administered on day 21 or 22 for all the vaccinated subjects, so the period when there was an 86% reduction in infection risk (day 22-28 after the first dose), is a time when the full benefits of the second dose hadn't kicked in yet.

[Edit: Note also that this study was conducted during a time when the more infectious (and perhaps more deadly) British variant (B.1.1.7) was the dominant strain of covid in Israel and which is now the most common variant in the US.]

In summary, there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that at least the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) are highly effective at preventing all infections,  in addition to symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

--Dean

 

[Dean Pomerleau]

58 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

In summary, there are multiple lines of evidence suggesting that at least the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) are highly effective at preventing all infections,  in addition to symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

Not to beat a dead horse but...

Another, more recent study from Israel (discussed here), this time involving a substantial fraction of their population who got the Pfizer vaccine, found it to be 94% effective at preventing asymptomatic infections two weeks after the second dose:

Findings from the analysis were derived from de-identified aggregate Israel MoH surveillance data collected between January 17 and March 6, 2021, when the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine was the only vaccine available in the country and when the more transmissible B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 (formerly referred to as the U.K. variant) was the dominant strain. Vaccine effectiveness was at least 97% against symptomatic COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, severe and critical hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the analysis found a vaccine effectiveness of 94% against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. For all outcomes, vaccine effectiveness was measured from two weeks after the second dose.

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

7 hours ago, Gordo said:

Of course 2 days after I get the J&J vaccine it's use is now halted...

Gordo,

You are obviously at very low risk of experiencing one of the thrombosis events they are concerned about. But for the super cautious, this might be a good lesson. If you really want to make sure there aren't any undiscovered, low-probability, short-term risks associated with a vaccine, it might be a good idea to wait to get it until ~10 million people have had the vaccine for a few weeks. That way even 1-in-a-million level adverse events can be discovered or ruled out.

For what it's worth, my 22 year-old daughter got the J&J vaccine about a month ago. She obviously didn't have such a reaction (just a pretty high 24h fever). Further, given the very low probability of these thrombosis events, I don't think I would have discouraged her even if we knew about them at the time. But on the other hand, my hyper-cautious wife might have...

Speaking of side effects - did you have any from the J&J vaccine Gordo? My wife and I are getting our second Pfizer shots tomorrow. Fingers crossed we are among the lucky ones who don't experience much in the way of side effects from the second dose. 

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

21 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Gordo,

You are obviously at very low risk of experiencing one of the thrombosis events they are concerned about.

Here is an amusing risk calculus to put in perspective the ~2 in around 7 million risk of dying from a thrombosis in the first couple weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine (assuming that is approximately the risk based on the 1 fatality and 1 in critical condition among the 6.8 million J&J recipients so far).

The J&J is a single shot vaccine, while Pfizer and Moderna require two injections, and hence two round trips, presumably by car, to the vaccination center rather than just one.

What is your risk of dying in a car crash on the way to or from the vaccination center?

Let's do a very rough, back-of-the-envelope estimate.

In the ballpark of 33,000 people in the US die in car crashes each year, out of a population of 330M, or about 1 in 10,000. Since there are 365 days in a year, your chance of dying in a car crash on any given day is about 1/(10,000 * 365), or 1 in 3.65 million.

If we assume the round-trip drive to the vaccine center is approximately the distance you drive on a typical day and you drive a typical amount compared to the average US adult, then the extra round-trip to get the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine instead of the J&J vaccine would put you at an approximately 1 in 3.65 million risk of dying in a car crash on your way there or back. 

Amusingly, this is almost identical to the (alleged) extra risk of dying of a thrombosis from the single J&J shot vs. the other two (i.e. 1 in ~3.5 million).

Wish me luck. I've got an hour round-trip drive to the vaccine site tomorrow for my second Pfizer shot. 🙂

--Dean

[Ron Put]

4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

It's still a very rare occurance, but since the people who developed CVT after the J&J vaccine were relatively young women with relatively low risk of serious harm from covid and low baseline risk of CVT, it's understandable why the CDC and FDA would be concerned.

Hm, there is already a well-known increased risk of venous thrombosis for anyone taking birth control pills, which notwithstanding the current woke definitions, still includes predominantly "relatively young women." See this.

My guess is that this is more of a political calculation based on pounding media coverage than anything else, especially as Fauci is also saying it's just for "a few days," too short of a time for any meaningful reevaluation. But it will make an already jumpy public even jumpier.

The hysterical media coverage and politicization of the pandemic have completely obliterated whatever rational sense there was of relative risk in a large portion of the population. Blood clots form from prolonged sitting, most often on long flights, but also on long drives. I don't have the data, but it's not so uncommon and it's probably close to the likelihood of it occuring after the J&J or AZ shot.

I don't necessarily disagree with Todd's reasoning about young, healthy people, since this coronavirus is less likely to cause significant symptoms in most under 30s than a nasty strain of influenza. But all the vaccines available reduce transmission and thus help achieve herd immunity faster. This is another reason I think people should get a flu shot.

Additionally, the vaccines generate T-cell response and produce memory, which would be helpful for the next round, or even for a different, but similar coronavirus. So, I personally would opt for the shot.

[Ron Put]

And to place the J&J and AZ headlines in some perspective, here is another one:

Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination

In other words, they are all relatively safe and if you inject enough people with anything, some are bound to die shortly after... Back to rationally weighing relative risk.

[Gordo]

2 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Speaking of side effects - did you have any from the J&J vaccine Gordo? My wife and I are getting our second Pfizer shots tomorrow. Fingers crossed we are among the lucky ones who don't experience much in the way of side effects from the second dose. 

I like your car crash analysis 😉.  So for me, I basically just felt a little "off kilter" for most of the day after getting the J&J vaccine, and tired.  I was back to normal the next day.  I never had a fever or any serious side effects, I didn't even have any pain at the injection site.  Also note that I had heard a report on NPR that said people who do vigorous workouts on the day they get the vaccine, had better immune responses and higher long term antibody protection than people who did not.  So I took that info and kind of went nuts, haha, I did 3 different HIIT workouts from YouTube, pullups, crunches, bike riding, and a hike down and back up a mountain the day I got the shot.  So that might be why I felt tired, haha!   

Now in contrast, my wife got the Moderna vaccine, everything was pretty nominal after the first shot, but after the second shot, she felt sick for 3 days (mostly just tired, but also a little nausea and feverish).  She still went to work, but most of her coworkers took a sick day after they got their second shot.

[Gordo]

 

(source of last pic is MedCram)

Edited April 14, 2021 by Gordo

[Ron Put]

7 hours ago, Gordo said:

(source of last pic is MedCram)

Both of these make perfect sense and help place things in perspective, although the graphs might be including upper-range outliers to drive the point. In any case, as the meta-study I cited above points out, the risk of thrombosis increases about 7.5 times if one is on the pill. Which was my point about Dean's comment about the thrombosis found in "relatively young women" and about what is considered "acceptable risk" under normal circumstances.

I also found an old WHO report on thrombosis resulting from flights longer than 4 hours, and it pegs the chances at 1 in 6000. There are similar reports for long drives.

The AZ vaccine was pretty clearly the victim of some EU and UK bad blood, with the accompanying media chorus.

In the US, the thrombocytopenia reports related to Pfizer and Moderna were never much amplified by the media. I am not arguing that they should have been, but it's worth noting that Pfizer has been openly playing politics and among other things, Biden's campaign was chaired by one of their main lobbyists. 

I am guessing that J&J was a bystander victim to the politicized AZ hysteria across the pond, as was the Fauci reaction and the nonsensical US suspension.

The pandemic has been a crisis definitely not gone to waste.

[Saul]

Hi Gordo!

About blood clots in a small number of J&J vaccine takers in the US and Astrozenica vaccine takers in Europe:  My wife, who is an NP, notes that the victims were female and young:  She has the same problem with some of her young female clients (same kind of blood clot): It is a known rare side effect of birth control pills.

  --  Saul

[Ron Put]

Speaking of what drove the relentless COVID coverage, in addition to politics:
 

 

[corybroo]

Is project veritas reliable?  The American Federation of Teachers does not seem impressed with their work:    BACKGROUNDER - PROJECT VERITAS

Let us hope that they've learned not to doctor videos as they paid settlements for doing so in the past:

Litigation settlement payment: Litigation filed by Juan Carlos Vera of ACORN was settled by Project Veritas for $100,000; Vera objected to violations of state recording laws and sought damages for the impact of the deceptively edited videos

[rudolph marcus]

 

[Gordo]

9 hours ago, corybroo said:

Let us hope that they've learned not to doctor videos as they paid settlements for doing so in the past:

That is a lie, see: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/settling-acorn-lawsuit/

[Sibiriak]

12 hours ago, corybroo said:

Is project veritas reliable?  The American Federation of Teachers does not seem impressed with their work: 

I could care less what the AFT thinks.  Nor do I care if PV is "reliable", since  I wouldn't take any source with a political agenda simply on trust.   I would look at the material,  look for verification/ rebuttals and apply critical thinking.

You, however,  seem content dismissing the source (on a dubious basis) without making the slightest effort to evaluate the material itself.

[rudolph marcus]

10 hours ago, rudolph marcus said:

 

excuse for just posting a link, the message from this expert is alarming, still no-one in the field seems to be interested in the vaccination technique, though the troubling cases still rise and the vaccination itself is coming to a hold here in Europe, tragic because this will cause more death

[corybroo]

7 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

I could care less what the AFT thinks.  Nor do I care if PV is "reliable", since  I wouldn't take any source with a political agenda simply on trust.   I would look at the material,  look for verification/ rebuttals and apply critical thinking.

You, however,  seem content dismissing the source (on a dubious basis) without making the slightest effort to evaluate the material itself.

Actually, I looked at several sources before posting the above.  I did a google search for "project veritas reliable?" and received numerous results for repeated PVA supplying false and misleading information.  Granted that some of the accusations against PVA are based on informants recanting testimony, eg ,  Project Veritas and Illegality, I often apply the rule "Fool me once..." 

[corybroo]

I saw this comparison vaccine efficacy:

[Sibiriak]

2 hours ago, corybroo said:

...I looked at several sources before posting the above.  I did a google search for "project veritas reliable?"

But did you look at the video itself?   That's my point.    You  suggest it might be false and misleading,  fine,  but you make no   argument that addresses the actual material in the video.  What's false and misleading about it?  You don't tell us.   It's like you can't think for yourself,  and can only go with other people's  assessment of whether the source is "reliable".   

Edited April 17, 2021 by Sibiriak

[corybroo]

Ø   But did you look at the video itself? 

Yes, I started by watching the entire video and its style caused me to wonder if PV had an agenda.  Looking that up led to the numerous reports of previous falsehoods by PV. 

 

Ø  What's false and misleading about it?  

I wasn’t present on the five dates that “the staff member pretended to be a nurse on Tinder and went on five dates with Charlie Chester“ and so can not say what is distorted because I’m not privy to what was actually said.

 

I suspect there will be a number of lawsuits over this and will watch to see the outcome of those.

 

The quote above came from Project Veritas founder wants to sue Twitter for defamation over recent suspension

[Ron Put]

5 hours ago, corybroo said:

led to the numerous reports of previous falsehoods by PV. 

 

This is a deflection attacking the source, so that the discussion changes from discussing the subject matter, to debating your source attack. You've done this before, as with the Great Barrington Declaration, I recall.

The point was the relentless amplification of fear relating to the coronavirus, by the media, and by CNN in this particular case.

The video speaks for itself. If you have any concrete evidence of fraud, please presented it. Otherwise, focus on the content presented.

[Sibiriak]

Interesting... According to a new Pew Research poll,   48%  of US respondents now believe illegal immigration to be  “a very big problem" versus 47%  for the coronavirus outbreak.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Sibiriak