The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-vaccine-delays.html
"After a quick search, the staff found three other eligible people, leaving five unused doses, Dr. Calman said.
The nurse at the clinic called her supervisor at home asking what to do with the remainder. From her home, the supervising nurse called her contact at the city's health department for guidance. She was told to try to find someone who fit the eligibility criteria and was encouraged to contact a nearby nursing home, an urgent care center and a women's shelter.
The nurse at the clinic set out on foot. She was turned away at the nursing home, a fire station and elsewhere, Dr. Calman said, before she was able to find one eligible and willing health care worker.
Dr. Calman said the nurse eventually threw out the remaining doses after the health department told the clinic that it could only vaccinate members of eligible groups."
--------
Whew...don't need Cuomo showing up on your doorstep for his $1M fine
"After a quick search, the staff found three other eligible people, leaving five unused doses, Dr. Calman said.
The nurse at the clinic called her supervisor at home asking what to do with the remainder. From her home, the supervising nurse called her contact at the city's health department for guidance. She was told to try to find someone who fit the eligibility criteria and was encouraged to contact a nearby nursing home, an urgent care center and a women's shelter.
The nurse at the clinic set out on foot. She was turned away at the nursing home, a fire station and elsewhere, Dr. Calman said, before she was able to find one eligible and willing health care worker.
Dr. Calman said the nurse eventually threw out the remaining doses after the health department told the clinic that it could only vaccinate members of eligible groups."
--------
Whew...don't need Cuomo showing up on your doorstep for his $1M fine
Didn't think it was possible before Christmas, but we are really going to surpass 400k deaths by the time Trump leaves office.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Only 12 more days until Sturg pretends he was told Biden would immediately wipe out the virus when he takes office.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Norway, Finland and Denmark all together have about 271K cases and about 2500 deaths.
Sweden has abrou 489K cases and about 9000 deaths
Norway, Finland and Demark's combined population is around 16.7M, Sweden's population is around 10.2M
Want to keep hearing about how great of a job Sweden has done from sturg.
Sweden has abrou 489K cases and about 9000 deaths
Norway, Finland and Demark's combined population is around 16.7M, Sweden's population is around 10.2M
Want to keep hearing about how great of a job Sweden has done from sturg.
sturg33
I
Im quite comfortable with Sweden approach. Their all cause deaths are in line with normal. And given that places who took draconian action also had bad results, I will happily and proudly defend the rights of people over governments "protecting them"
Do we have any update on the gold standard California? Have they made it legal to travel by foot again, yet?
Do we have any update on the gold standard California? Have they made it legal to travel by foot again, yet?
Runnin
Well-known member
Yes, and the wave is still rising. Scientists who said we could have as many as 5,000 dead per day were right. Maybe not that high on a 7 or 14 day average, but there could still be days with that many dead.
Runnin
Well-known member
No, I don't. There's no value in referencing or arguing with trolls.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/approve-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-now.html
Here’s Marty Makary, M.D., a professor of surgery and health policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine:
Finally, the FDA needs to stop playing games and authorize the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. It’s safe, cheap ($2-$3 a dose), and is the easiest vaccine to distribute. It does not require freezing and is already approved and being administered in the United Kingdom.
Sadly, the FDA is months away from authorizing this vaccine because FDA career staff members insisted on another clinical trial to be completed and are punishing the company for inadvertently giving a half-dose of the vaccine to some people in the trial.
It’s like the FDA is holding out, pontificating existing excellent data and being vindictive against a company for making a mistake while thousands of Americans die each day.
Ironically, those in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial who inadvertently received half the initial vaccine dose had lower infection rates. And this week Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, acknowledged that using half a dose might be a good broader strategy for the U.S. to double our supply as long our supply is severely constrained. That’s a good strategy that makes sense.
Here’s Marty Makary, M.D., a professor of surgery and health policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine:
Finally, the FDA needs to stop playing games and authorize the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. It’s safe, cheap ($2-$3 a dose), and is the easiest vaccine to distribute. It does not require freezing and is already approved and being administered in the United Kingdom.
Sadly, the FDA is months away from authorizing this vaccine because FDA career staff members insisted on another clinical trial to be completed and are punishing the company for inadvertently giving a half-dose of the vaccine to some people in the trial.
It’s like the FDA is holding out, pontificating existing excellent data and being vindictive against a company for making a mistake while thousands of Americans die each day.
Ironically, those in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial who inadvertently received half the initial vaccine dose had lower infection rates. And this week Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, acknowledged that using half a dose might be a good broader strategy for the U.S. to double our supply as long our supply is severely constrained. That’s a good strategy that makes sense.
sturg33
I
More government power to Healthcare please!
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/canadian-experts-research-finds-lockdown-harms-are-10-times-greater-than-benefits
Q: You were a strong proponent of lockdowns initially but have since changed your mind. Why is that?
A: There are a few reasons why I supported lockdowns at first.
First, initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2-3%, that over 80% of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary. But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities. In addition, it is likely that in most situations only 20-40% of the population would be infected before ongoing transmission is limited (i.e., herd-immunity).
Second, I am an infectious diseases and critical care physician, and am not trained to make public policy decisions. I was only considering the direct effects of COVID-19 and my knowledge of how to prevent these direct effects. I was not considering the immense effects of the response to COVID-19 (that is, lockdowns) on public health and wellbeing.
Emerging data has shown a staggering amount of so-called ‘collateral damage’ due to the lockdowns. This can be predicted to adversely affect many millions of people globally with food insecurity [82-132 million more people], severe poverty [70 million more people], maternal and under age-5 mortality from interrupted healthcare [1.7 million more people], infectious diseases deaths from interrupted services [millions of people with Tuberculosis, Malaria, and HIV], school closures for children [affecting children’s future earning potential and lifespan], interrupted vaccination campaigns for millions of children, and intimate partner violence for millions of women. In high-income countries adverse effects also occur from delayed and interrupted healthcare, unemployment, loneliness, deteriorating mental health, increased opioid crisis deaths, and more.
Third, a formal cost-benefit analysis of different responses to the pandemic was not done by government or public health experts. Initially, I simply assumed that lockdowns to suppress the pandemic were the best approach. But policy decisions on public health should require a cost-benefit analysis. Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population wellbeing, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population wellbeing. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.
Q: You were a strong proponent of lockdowns initially but have since changed your mind. Why is that?
A: There are a few reasons why I supported lockdowns at first.
First, initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2-3%, that over 80% of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary. But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities. In addition, it is likely that in most situations only 20-40% of the population would be infected before ongoing transmission is limited (i.e., herd-immunity).
Second, I am an infectious diseases and critical care physician, and am not trained to make public policy decisions. I was only considering the direct effects of COVID-19 and my knowledge of how to prevent these direct effects. I was not considering the immense effects of the response to COVID-19 (that is, lockdowns) on public health and wellbeing.
Emerging data has shown a staggering amount of so-called ‘collateral damage’ due to the lockdowns. This can be predicted to adversely affect many millions of people globally with food insecurity [82-132 million more people], severe poverty [70 million more people], maternal and under age-5 mortality from interrupted healthcare [1.7 million more people], infectious diseases deaths from interrupted services [millions of people with Tuberculosis, Malaria, and HIV], school closures for children [affecting children’s future earning potential and lifespan], interrupted vaccination campaigns for millions of children, and intimate partner violence for millions of women. In high-income countries adverse effects also occur from delayed and interrupted healthcare, unemployment, loneliness, deteriorating mental health, increased opioid crisis deaths, and more.
Third, a formal cost-benefit analysis of different responses to the pandemic was not done by government or public health experts. Initially, I simply assumed that lockdowns to suppress the pandemic were the best approach. But policy decisions on public health should require a cost-benefit analysis. Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population wellbeing, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population wellbeing. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i'm curious, what is your understanding of what a lockdown comprises...and what is the understanding of the person you are quoting
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Rogan is a moron. He wouldn't know how to moderate a debate he would just agree with both candidates. Doesn't surprise me that you're dumb enough to fall for his schtick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9E3NjXJIHs&ab_channel=SuccessthroughMotivation
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Pause here. This person is admitting the FDA is blocking this because the trial wasn't done correctly and that's a bad thing? Do people want to take a risky vaccine? Or do they want the trials done correctly?