Investor20 Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 https://news.yahoo.com/declining-infection-rate-provides-challenge-143700638.html Declining infection rate provides challenge for Oxford coronavirus vaccine Professor Adrian Hill, director of the University's Jenner Institute, said what was formerly an 80 percent chance of developing an effective vaccine by September — possibly in time for a potential second wave of infections — has dwindled to 50 percent. That's not because the team no longer believes in its work, which is reportedly still going well. Instead, the U.K.'s infection rate decline may make it tough to gauge the vaccine's efficacy. "It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time," Hill said. Hill only expects fewer than 50 of the 10,000 trial volunteers to catch the virus, which has faded since the U.K. and other countries implemented strict lockdowns, and if it turns out that fewer than 20 test positive, the study's results may be useless. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-06/infecting-subjects-may-speed-covid-19-vaccine-studies-who-says Infecting Subjects May Speed Covid Vaccine Studies, WHO Says Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with the virus that causes Covid-19 may speed studies of vaccines against the deadly pathogen, the World Health Organization said. Such studies, which pose significant potential dangers to subjects, may be considered in dire situations and with certain disclosures and protections, a working group of the United Nations health agency said in a report posted Wednesday on its website. In the traditional approach, the potential vaccine or placebo will be given to healthy volunteers, who will then be assessed for safety and efficacy through natural or community infection. This takes a lot of time. History suggests the fastest time taken to develop a vaccine has been five years, but it usually takes double that time to bring vaccine from the lab to the market. In a human challenge trial since volunteers are exposed to the virus, it is possible to quickly find out the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and weed out disappointing vaccine candidates. ......................................................................... Can anyone explain the logic here? "It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time," "Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with the virus that causes Covid-19 may speed studies of vaccines "
LC Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 Per euromomo, Europe appears out of the woods as excess mortality has reached baseline levels and in some cases below.
clutch Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 "New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported" https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means. It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
Investor20 Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 "New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported" https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means. 0.4% is lower than the estimates I have seen (~0.75x), but it still would mean 800k death if we go all the way to herd immunity and get 200M Americans infected Ted. This would mean that we are about 1/8 through with this epidemic. Just saying. The numbers from Quebec vs. other Canadian provinces looks interesting, due to the huge difference in outcome compared to other provinces. It’s clear that relatively small differences in starting points lead to vastly different results in outcome. Perhaps not so surprising, considering the math behind epidemics and the nature of logistics function. The CDC website link given in article says "Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio," in Column Scenario 5:Current Best Estimate 0.004. Percent of infections that are asymptomatic 35% That gives 0.4%*0.65 = 0.26% Infection fatality rate.
clutch Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 "New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported" https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means. It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Under "Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate", Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, overall (of all age groups) is given as 0.004.
ERICOPOLY Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 Boy, oh, boy - if you believe that bullshit - you must really hate Cuomo and DeBlasio - considering they are responsible for so many deaths with their catastrophic decisions to jam the elderly sick into nursing homes.... On Fox News Sunday this was discussed. It was pointed out that the CDC guidelines said a nursing home facility could not discriminate against a COVID patient. Cuomo followed that guideline. We know in hindsight it was a mistake. At the time, there was pressure to empty the hospitals to make room for a surge that never came.
Liberty Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 NZ showing how it’s done: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/new-zealand-is-down-to-just-one-active-coronavirus-case
KCLarkin Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 "New data from CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported" https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/data-cdc-estimates-covid-19-mortality-rate/275-fc43f37f-6764-45e3-b615-123459f0082b Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means. It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html I am aware. This was already discussed upthread. My point is the complete lack of "data" to support these estimates. Presumably, the CDC used published research to arrive at these estimates. But they didn't share the sources. Are they relying on deeply flawed serology studies? Edit: Here the National Review asks a similar question: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-does-the-cdc-think-the-covid-19-fatality-rate-is-so-low-and-why-wont-it-tell-anyone/ --- P.s. I choose not to go down this particular rabbit hole, but there is some indication of political interference. Like many Trump appointees, the CDC director is controversial: "His nomination was considered controversial, and was opposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which cited Redfield's lack of experience administering a public health agency, his history of scientific misconduct, and his religious advocacy in response to a public health crisis." -- Wikipedia
cwericb Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 “We talk about the VOVID-19 in the US a lot, but what is going on in Canada?” Prince Edward Island - Canada’s smallest but most densely populated province. Population: 160,000 Tourist visits yearly: 1,600,000 Locked down: Mid-March. Total cases of COVID-19: 27 Total community spread: 0 Cases due to International travel: 27 Total hospitalized: 0 Total Deaths: 0 Total recovered: 27 Last positive case: April 28 Fine for not self isolating 14 days: 1st offense: $1,000 2nd offense: $2,000 3rd offense: $10,000 Applying U.S. figures would have predicted about 50 deaths. (If my math is correct)
ERICOPOLY Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 Where did BLM go since 2016? Or did Trump solve police brutality? The lowlifes, as they do, just find "another cause" to use as an excuse. Murdering cops is a far cry from "kneeling", but hey, it seems you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt, since it's your guys being questioned. Perhaps try applying that to everyone, or eliminating it altogether... consistency. Because you ask: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/anger-erupts-in-wake-of-george-floyd-s-death-84072005745
cubsfan Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization
ERICOPOLY Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization I'm taking my ball and I'm going home because you won't play the game I want to play.
Gregmal Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization I'm taking my ball and I'm going home because you won't play the game I want to play. One of those sentences is a factual unbiased statement, the other is an opinion with a partisan narrative behind it. Yay news!
ERICOPOLY Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization I'm taking my ball and I'm going home because you won't play the game I want to play. One of those sentences is a factual unbiased statement, the other is an opinion with a partisan narrative behind it. Yay news! I applied his narrative for cutting the funding to the WHO, which ties into his own words today: "Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms" Meanwhile Trump did not join with Australia and Europe to pressure the WHO to investigate China. Trump did not stick around to see that effort out, he put spin on it and pulled out. In other words, he wants the WHO to do what he demands instead of having an actual investigation into China. They would not play the game that he demanded they play, so he took his ball and went home.
Spekulatius Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization That’s going to show China. Soon they will be running the outfit. The US saves $550M or roughly $1.3 per head.
Read the Footnotes Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization That’s going to show China. Soon they will be running the outfit. The US saves $550M or roughly $1.3 per head. Nature abhors a vacuum. That's what we learned the last time we tried isolationism. It doesn't seem to be going very well this time either.
rb Posted May 29, 2020 Posted May 29, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization That’s going to show China. Soon they will be running the outfit. The US saves $550M or roughly $1.3 per head. That's just a tad more than what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spends on the WHO.
Spekulatius Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization That’s going to show China. Soon they will be running the outfit. The US saves $550M or roughly $1.3 per head. Nature abhors a vacuum. That's what we learned the last time we tried isolationism. It doesn't seem to be going very well this time either. Isolation doesn’t real work with pandemics. It is one thing where an ounce of prevention saves you a pound of cure quite literally. The WHO and China needs to be held accountable and China’s influence on this organization needs to be diminished, such that we can minimize the risk of a repeat. The WHO has done great work and helped contain Ebola and SARS and perhaps other diseases. Saving $550M while we are spending 5 Trillion right now to help cope with the existing situation makes no sense if you think about risk rewards ratios.
Read the Footnotes Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 I just love this President: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-announces-u-s-terminating-relationship-with-world-health-organization/ Trump Announces U.S. ‘Terminating’ Relationship with World Health Organization That’s going to show China. Soon they will be running the outfit. The US saves $550M or roughly $1.3 per head. Nature abhors a vacuum. That's what we learned the last time we tried isolationism. It doesn't seem to be going very well this time either. Isolation doesn’t real work with pandemics. It is one thing where an ounce of prevention saves you a pound of cure quite literally. The WHO and China needs to be held accountable and China’s influence on this organization needs to be diminished, such that we can minimize the risk of a repeat. The WHO has done great work and helped contain Ebola and SARS and perhaps other diseases. Saving $550M while we are spending 5 Trillion right now to help cope with the existing situation makes no sense if you think about risk rewards ratios. I meant isolationism as a failed political theory that Trump has pursued more broadly throughout his presidency. Withdrawing from international politics does not make international politics go away, it just means that you no longer have a seat at the table. Each time Trump has gotten his feelings hurt and taken his toys and gone home, China or Russia has filled the void created by the USA's absence. This situation with the WHO will likely lead to a strengthening of Chinese leadership and a lessening of US leadership. Goodwill for the USA's CDC (and other medical branches) that was built up over decades has been destroyed very rapidly and would be very expensive to try to replicate from scratch. The withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership is an interesting analogue since many believe the TPP would have increased US influence and decreased the influence of China. For some reason, Trump wanted to walk away from that too. He sure does seem to enjoy Chinese visitors at Mara Lago. Maybe we will find out the truth about that situation some day.
meiroy Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1. This is not a natural system, it is man-made, but if you wish, the lack of leadership can be replaced with chaos or conflict. It is not necessarily going to be filled by anyone else, for the simple fact: 2. This leadership (military, reserve currency, funding entities etc.) comes with a great cost which so far has been borne mostly by the USA. Trump is right in asking others to pay for their share. The American household contribution to the world and its support of various economies has been taken for granted for far too long. A reminder: the country with the highest current account surplus in the world is Germany. By far. Germa elite/businesses have greatly benefited and are the ones responsible for a lot of negative economic impact on USA and European households. Time to pay.
Investor20 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 How can WHO be useful in containing the pandemic while they still showing this guideline: If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
LC Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 The power of deregulation: Years before the nation's nursing homes experienced a heavy COVID-19 death toll, the Trump administration rolled back the federal rules and regulations put in place by the Obama administration aimed at improving infection control in these kinds of facilities. https://www.salon.com/2020/05/30/by-undoing-obamas-nursing-home-regulations-trump-opened-the-door-for-the-deaths-were-seeing/
Spekulatius Posted May 31, 2020 Posted May 31, 2020 Pretty good summary of COVID-19 from a medical POV. https://www.bbc.com/news/52760992
clutch Posted June 1, 2020 Posted June 1, 2020 Who knew a violent protest would come after a Coronavirus lockdown... and not because of the lockdown. With protestors wearing masks, of course. 2020 has been truly absurd.
Recommended Posts