Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.

[Gorbles]

#560 you are "lost in the context"

Edit: here are some more links

Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top

Think Twice Before Giving the COVID Vax to Healthy Kids

Second link, first paragraph:

The case to vaccinate kids is there, but it's not compelling right now. The Delta variant (B.1.617.2) could change the calculus depending on forthcoming data from the U.K., Singapore, and India where the variant may be demonstrating more contagious and virulent properties in younger people.

Which is exactly what we're seeing, as well as the start of a third wave of jabs, or "boosters", in certain countries for at-risk demographics that already have had two jabs.

Given that this article is dated from June, and we're now in September, this is kind of a "your own link defeats your argument" situation. To add to this: first link, last two paragraphs:

As the pandemic wears on, researchers worry that the virus could evolve in ways that thwart some part of kids’ innate protection. Some researchers have found that the Alpha variant, which was dominant in some parts of the world for a time, developed tricks that allowed it to suppress the body’s innate immune response. They worry that Delta could do the same. For now, increased hospitalizations of children in regions where Delta is circulating seem to be the result of its enhanced infectivity across all ages, coupled with the fact that many adults are vaccinated or have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. But researchers are watching carefully.

“Almost all viruses have developed ways of evading the innate immune system, and COVID-19 is no exception to that rule,” says Herold. “Right now — knock on wood — the kids are still winning with their innate immunity.” But for how much longer? “We don’t know.”

So I'm going to have to echo Lexicus' questions again because you seem to be really bad at answering them.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Another reason to like llamas...

Llama antibodies have 'significant potential' as potent COVID-19 treatment (medicalxpress.com)

... not that I needed another one

 

[amadeus]

You are either claiming that vaccines don't significantly reduce hospitalization rate (which seems inconsistent with your earlier posts), or posting something non-sequitur to the post you're quoting.

There’s no inconsistency; if fewer people are dying, it could mean longer hospital stays and thus the use-rate can be equal to what it was last year.

The vaccine does drastically reduce the hospitalization rate, but there is still a sizable enough population of unvaccinated out there who can fill up the hospitals.

How about this? You have two buses that are going from New York to Chicago. Both buses have 10 seats and 10 passengers when they depart New York. Bus A makes no stops, but Bus B stops in Dayton where 5 passengers get off and 5 passengers get on. At what capacity were buses A & B running between New York and Chicago?

 

[warpus]

What's funny (?) is that like 99% of the people on TV yelling about vaccines are vaccinated. Those who watch those programmes and eat them up without thinking are however convinced that the vaccine is evil.. hmmm

 

[Lexicus]

#560 you are "lost in the context"

No, you are being deliberately misleading. You specifically stated in post 563:

sure it is. Unless you have statistics for 5 and 10 year follow ups, if playing the odds and I was a parent of a healthy kid, I would rather they get covid.

So, where are your 5 and 10 year follow up statistics for those infected with covid for a comparison?

 

[bernie14]

Second link, first paragraph:

Which is exactly what we're seeing, as well as the start of a third wave of jabs, or "boosters", in certain countries for at-risk demographics that already have had two jabs.

Given that this article is dated from June, and we're now in September, this is kind of a "your own link defeats your argument" situation. To add to this: first link, last two paragraphs:

So I'm going to have to echo Lexicus' questions again because you seem to be really bad at answering them.

for someone who is constantly telling people to inform themselves, you are a very biased reader.

 

[bernie14]

No, you are being deliberately misleading. You specifically stated in post 563:



So, where are your 5 and 10 year follow up statistics for those infected with covid for a comparison?

NO!!!! the entire context was related to @Drakle

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There’s no inconsistency; if fewer people are dying, it could mean longer hospital stays and thus the use-rate can be equal to what it was last year.

We could buy that, if we didn't also anticipate hospitalization/severe symptoms with vaccination to be rare. Since we do anticipate those things to be rare, then no.

The vaccine does drastically reduce the hospitalization rate, but there is still a sizable enough population of unvaccinated out there who can fill up the hospitals.

That population was more than twice as sizeable previously, however, and represents the vast majority of serious cases.

How about this? You have two buses that are going from New York to Chicago. Both buses have 10 seats and 10 passengers when they depart New York. Bus A makes no stops, but Bus B stops in Dayton where 5 passengers get off and 5 passengers get on. At what capacity were buses A & B running between New York and Chicago?

If you consider this a valid analogy, you do not believe the vaccine "does drastically reduce the hospitalization rate". Pick one. If we reduce the pool of a population that gets very sick from 10,000 people to 5,000 people, and hold spread rates/other factors constant, we should expect a large reduction in the absolute number of sick people, too. Not quite 50%, but close.

In other words, if the vaccine works, we should *NOT* expect 5 passengers to get back on Bus B after 5 get off. And they aren't. Hospitals aren't actually at capacity on average across the country (according to the source I linked, anyway), excepting Georgia for some reason. Even where it's happening, it's sometimes due to staffing shortage rather than actual shortage of beds/capacity of the facility.

 

[Gorbles]

for someone who is constantly telling people to inform themselves, you are a very biased reader.

Sorry, is there something wrong in using the literal words from the article? Am I quoting them out of context?

For someone who's trying a gotcha, you should try making a straightforward argument.

 

[bernie14]

Sorry, is there something wrong in using the literal words from the article? Am I quoting them out of context?

For someone who's trying a gotcha, you should try making a straightforward argument.

yeah, read the title, can you cite ONE pediatrician TODAY that is recommending shots for 5-11 year olds?

 

[Gorbles]

yeah, read the title, can you cite ONE pediatrician TODAY that is recommending shots for 5-11 year olds?

Neither title asks me to check with a paediatrician for anything.

Are you under the assumption that the decision to vaccinate 5 to 12 year olds is purely political or something?

 

[Samson]

yeah, read the title, can you cite ONE pediatrician TODAY that is recommending shots for 5-11 year olds?

Pfizer is:

Pfizer and BioNTech announced on Monday that their COVID-19 vaccine is safe in children ages 5-11 years and produces a significant immune response.

“We are pleased to be able to submit data to regulatory authorities for this group of school-aged children before the start of the winter season,” said Dr. Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech. “The safety profile and immunogenicity data in children aged 5 to 11 years vaccinated at a lower dose are consistent with those we have observed with our vaccine in other older populations at a higher dose.”​

 

[El_Machinae]

That's 2,000 kids, immunized against a strain that we already have herd immunity for. But of course Pfizer would recommend it. They did the safety trials with the intention of getting more money.

cine "does drastically reduce the hospitalization rate". Pick one. If we reduce the pool of a population that gets very sick from 10,000 people to 5,000 people, and hold spread rates/other factors constant, we should expect a large reduction in the absolute number of sick people, too. Not quite 50%, but close.

I can't tell what error you're making if you don't think that the vaccine reduces hospitalizations.
(a) States experience different waves, so you'd not compare between states to figure out hospitalization rate
(b) Delta is more infectious than the original strain, so will increase the rate of hospitalizations per unit time. i.e., the wave grows faster.

Simple Chi-Square tells us that the vaccine reduces hospitalization. It increases your odds of being in a different category, but not being put into the ICU. That said, you're right that 'hospitalizations' can be fudged, because there's a correlation between getting vaccinated and reporting to hospitals when there are potential symptoms.

You might be looking for a different analysis, where the level of vaccination affects the number of unvaccinated getting hospitalized, which would be a function of increased spreading.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can't tell what error you're making if you don't think that the vaccine reduces hospitalizations.

I do, which is why I'm calling into question the real reason(s) hospitals are at/near capacity (allegedly) despite a > 60% vaccination rate in most states. I expect that particular allegation is some mixture of fearmongering/push for compliance, hospital mismanagement/cutting costs, and incentives to make anything a "COVID" hospitalization if possible to get away with it, even if the presenting complaint has nothing to do with COVID.

Though when I looked up the AHA data on capacity, it seemed that only Georgia was doing badly enough to merit the "hospitals are full" line of rationale.

 

[warpus]

@TheMeInTeam You think hospitals are lying about how many COVID patients they have in their ICU units?

Got a citation for that? Or is that just something you made up because it sounds good?

I would be impressed if hospitals around the world were able to conspire together and decide to do something like that on a large scale..

 

[El_Machinae]

I do, which is why I'm calling into question the real reason(s) hospitals are at/near capacity (allegedly) despite a > 60% vaccination rate in most states. I expect that particular allegation is some mixture of fearmongering/push for compliance, hospital mismanagement/cutting costs, and incentives to make anything a "COVID" hospitalization if possible to get away with it, even if the presenting complaint has nothing to do with COVID.

Oh, the capacity issue is because of transmission rates (and earlier onset of symptoms, if that applies as well). The peak comes faster if the transmission is faster.

Capacity is entirely a function of real-time demand. The unvaccinated are going to take ICU space as well, but they'll trickle in after the peak

I won't have input on any specific healthcare system's capacity.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam
Got a citation for that? Or is that just something you made up because it sounds good?

Was the American Hospital Association's tool linked early not a citation ? If you're in FL, GA, or AL ICU beds are over capacity in some areas, while other beds are not (in the US). If you're anywhere else in the country (even TX), hospitals are not over capacity. The people claiming this aren't necessary the hospitals. Non-ICU beds aren't under pressure anywhere.

Regardless, yes color me dubious. If 66% of the population is supposed to be very unlikely to require ICU beds because they are vaccinated, we should not anticipate a drastic increase in ICU bed usage compared COVID peaks back when nobody was vaccinated. It's also annoying that some areas really have reduced their ICU beds available since January, while others have more sensibly increased them.

One more thing:

You think hospitals are lying about how many COVID patients they have in their ICU units?

When you receive funding based on how many COVID patients you have, everybody who can look like a COVID patient is a COVID patient. Mothers giving birth, trauma patients, etc. If they test positive for COVID, they are "hospitalized with COVID". That's just how the process works. And what's the alternative? Trying to achieve similar levels of nuance everywhere as people decide whether this guy with COVID is here because of COVID vs some other reason? At least if you do it this way, you can have the same standard everywhere. It will obviously inflate the numbers, but the alternative is having less useful points of comparison. I don't think this counts as a "conspiracy" or "lying", though?

 

[El_Machinae]

Mea Culpa:
I've been so invested in finding research that uses the actual vaccines being produced by the companies (which, I'll still insist, should be done) that it never occurred to me that the technology could be used to kit-bash vaccines together to run research on "similar" styles of vaccines.

I've not read in depth, but the talk about antigenic sin made me look to see if the vaccines we're being given have any protective effect against betacoronaviruses that are hyper-evolved to escape our immune system - the human ones.
The bit here about Novavax(style) creating potentially broader protection than the mRNA(style) vaccines is interesting. Specifically Figure 3 and OC43 data.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.446491v1.full

 

[bernie14]

Mea Culpa:
I've been so invested in finding research that uses the actual vaccines being produced by the companies (which, I'll still insist, should be done) that it never occurred to me that the technology could be used to kit-bash vaccines together to run research on "similar" styles of vaccines.

I've not read in depth, but the talk about antigenic sin made me look to see if the vaccines we're being given have any protective effect against betacoronaviruses that are hyper-evolved to escape our immune system - the human ones.
The bit here about Novavax(style) creating potentially broader protection than the mRNA(style) vaccines is interesting. Specifically Figure 3 and OC43 data.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.446491v1.full

kinda what I was saying....

Therefore, our results partly mitigate concerns that current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines could become ines ffective against SARS-CoV-2 variants, which are still 99% identical to the original SARS-CoV-2.

this is very good, but…

Moreover, our data suggest that infection may confer more robust cross- protective immunity than vaccination (Fig. 5). This could be explained by the high number of conserved antigens that are presented during a natural viral infection. However, most coronavirus vaccines are based only on the spike antigen, which is the least conserved protein of coronaviruses. It is possible that incorporation of other viral antigens may be necessary to develop universal vaccines with broad immune coverage.

EDIT

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I'd not deny that natural infection creates broader immunity. The contention is the relative risk ratio.

The mea culpa is not about antigenic sin, it's about the lack of animal research.

Researchers have an easier time kit-bashing a vaccine than using the one we're pressuring others to get