31
   

Coronavirus

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2021 05:27 pm
@Region Philbis,
Region Philbis wrote:
Dr. Fauci: Double-masking makes 'common sense' and is likely more effective

I snagged a box of genuine N95s early on before they were all bought up.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:07 pm

CDC: Allergic reactions to the Moderna vaccine are rare
(globe)
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2021 06:29 am
Florida governor gives Publix grocery stores exclusive distribution rights for the vaccine in Palm Beach County even though many residents don't live anywhere near one.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/florida-desantis-publix-sole-rights-covid-vaccine_n_6011c17bc5b67848ee7d7a41
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2021 10:00 am
Quote:
CDC Order Requires Masks for Travel in US

According to the 11-page order issued on Friday, travelers entering and transiting throughout
the country will be required to wear face coverings in all transportation hubs, which the CDC
defines as including any “airport, bus terminal, marina, seaport or other port, subway station,
terminal, train station, US port of entry or any other location that provides transportation.”

The language of the order largely puts the onus on transit operators to enforce the rule...
(nyt)
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 04:29 pm

Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID vaccine might be just what the doctor ordered
(fortune)
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 06:01 pm
@Region Philbis,
I only skimmed the article, but I'm not clear on why 66% effective is better than 9x%. Okay, one dose and can be shipped at normal refrigeration temps, but still, 90 some % effective sounds much better. If any ever become available to the general public.
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 06:22 pm
@roger,

i think the idea is the more the merrier.

the sooner everyone gets vaccinated, the sooner the country can start returning to something resembling normalcy...
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 06:44 pm
@roger,
It'll be interesting to see test results showing how effective two doses of the Janssen vaccine are. More accurate results for AstraZeneca will be of interest too.

But at the moment I'm planning to try for Pfizer/Moderna/Novavax when I get my shots (presuming that Novavax is approved by then).
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 07:22 pm
@Region Philbis,
I get that. Now, if only it were available. I registered about three weeks ago and appointments are still listed as not available. They still keep telling us how important it is to get the vaccine.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 08:00 pm
Compared to the flu vaccine, for which 60% effectiveness (2010-2011) is the highest effectiveness percentage, 66% is very good. The flu vaccine's effectiveness was just 10% for the 2004-2005 flu season.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200902/how-effective-is-the-flu-vaccine
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 09:25 pm
Sure, 66% is good, but 9x% is better. Just pointing that out
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2021 10:36 pm
@roger,
interesting to note that if you are among the 34% who contract the disease, your chances of of having a mild symptomology are also enhanced
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2021 02:39 am
@farmerman,
Swell. I'm 76 and have diabetes. Just swell.

That J&J stuff might cut the odds to 22%. If it, or any of the others actually become avail to most of the population.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2021 03:48 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
interesting to note that if you are among the 34% who contract the disease, your chances of of having a mild symptomology are also enhanced

Indeed.

"The vaccine candidate was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease 28 days after vaccination in all adults 18 years and older. Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49."

"The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine candidate demonstrated complete protection against COVID-related hospitalization and death, 28 days post-vaccination. There was a clear effect of the vaccine on COVID-19 cases requiring medical intervention (hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), with no reported cases among participants who had received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, 28 days post-vaccination."

https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/business-technology-pandemics-public-health-health-care-policy-143fe5db4cb19e3bc05251b50a3e6f01

I pruned the quotations to make them more readable and to the point, but did not add anything.


Apparently there are severe cases that don't require hospitalization. But anyway, people who get a single shot of Johnsen & Johnsen/Janssen should be secure from hospitalization/death as soon as 28 days later, and secure from severe cases as soon as 49 days later.

But if they get a mild case of Covid they might still be able to pass it on to other people?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2021 01:13 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

But if they get a mild case of Covid they might still be able to pass it on to other people?

That was my thought, as well
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2021 12:15 pm
Indigenous Americans dying from Covid at twice the rate of white Americans
Quote:
Covid is killing Native Americans at a faster rate than any other community in the United States, shocking new figures reveal.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives are dying at almost twice the rate of white Americans, according to analysis by APM Research Lab shared exclusively with the Guardian.

Nationwide one in every 475 Native Americans has died from Covid since the start of the pandemic, compared with one in every 825 white Americans and one in every 645 Black Americans. Native Americans have suffered 211 deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 121 white Americans per 100,000.

The true death toll is undoubtedly significantly higher as multiple states and cities provide patchy or no data on Native Americans lost to Covid. Of those that do, communities in Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas have been the hardest hit.

Covid is killing Native Americans at a faster rate than any other community in the United States, shocking new figures reveal.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives are dying at almost twice the rate of white Americans, according to analysis by APM Research Lab shared exclusively with the Guardian.

Nationwide one in every 475 Native Americans has died from Covid since the start of the pandemic, compared with one in every 825 white Americans and one in every 645 Black Americans. Native Americans have suffered 211 deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 121 white Americans per 100,000.

The true death toll is undoubtedly significantly higher as multiple states and cities provide patchy or no data on Native Americans lost to Covid. Of those that do, communities in Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas have been the hardest hit.
... ... ...
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2021 02:47 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I am staggered by the rate of infection of the nearby Navajo Tribe. Population density is really low, and the Navajo were the first and most consistent people in the area to adopt face masks.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 10:28 am
Quote:
U.S. Rep Ron Wright of Arlington died Sunday night after a battle with COVID-19. He was 67.

His family and spokesperson confirmed Wright’s death Monday morning. The congressman, who was reelected in November, had been battling cancer.
...
Wright is the first sitting member of Congress to die after battling COVID-19. Rep.-elect Luke Letlow of Louisiana, a Republican, died from complications due to the virus just days before being sworn in.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 10:15 am
Keele University accepting funds for researcher who shared vaccine misinformation
Quote:
Donations surge during Covid crisis for work by Prof Chris Exley, author of study linking vaccines and autism

A British academic who has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation has raised more than £150,000 through a university donations portal to support his research during the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

Prof Chris Exley, a chemist at Keele University, authored a 2017 study that claimed tiny amounts of aluminium in vaccines may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.

Health experts have strongly disputed the findings, including Prof Andrew Pollard, chair of the Oxford Vaccine Group, who has previously called the study’s conclusion “bad science”.

Exley, who calls himself Mr Aluminium on social media, encourages followers of his Instagram page to donate to research at his laboratory at Keele University through the university’s online portal. His studies have been shared tens of thousands of times on social media, often by people questioning the safety of vaccines.

A Freedom of Information Act request by the Guardian has found that Exley received £173,612.42 in donations and gift aid from May 2019 to the end of 2020, ranging from £5 to £77,278.12. Donations to his research have surged during the pandemic, with £158,621.27 of the total sent since Covid emerged at the end of 2019.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 02:12 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reducing viral load, data from Israel suggests
Quote:
Initial study brings hope vaccine will reduce Covid transmission

Data from researchers in Israel, which has inoculated swathes of its population, suggests the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is reducing viral load, a key signal that the intervention could diminish the spread of Covid-19.

Evidence that the coronavirus vaccines being deployed globally are dramatically effective in reducing severe disease and death in symptomatic Covid-19 is abundant. But a big question remains unanswered: can they thwart transmission, in other words stop people from passing on the virus?

Preventing the spread of infection is key to reducing the risk of more variants emerging and to achieving herd immunity, scientists say. People with higher viral load tend to be more infectious and are more likely to suffer from severe disease.

To evaluate the impact of the vaccine on transmission, researchers compared data from people over 60 years old and those aged 40 to 60, evaluating data from 16,297 people who had tested positive for coronavirus between 1 December and 30 January.

Israel’s vaccine programme began on 20 December. By the time of analysis, more than 75% of those in the older group were likely to have received their first dose, as had about 25% of the younger group.

Although researchers did not know whether each person had been given their first vaccine dose, their hypothesis was that if the vaccine was reducing viral load, then evidence of that would begin to show up in late January but not before, because of the time required by the vaccine to stimulate the immune system.

As expected, in the last two weeks of January the researchers noted a statistically significant fall in the viral load for the individuals aged over 60, compared with the 40-to-60 group, said the study author, Yaniv Erlich, the chief scientific officer of MyHeritage, a company that runs a large coronavirus testing laboratory in Israel.

The researchers used available demographic data and vaccination rates to estimate the effect of the first dose on viral load reduction, calculating that the vaccine reduced the viral load by 1.6 to 20 times in individuals who tested positive for the virus.

Erlich cautioned that the paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal, was just an initial study. While it was understood that a smaller viral load was better, it was not clear whether this reduction would be enough to block transmission. “My expectation is … that if you are positive following vaccination, you probably will transmit the disease to a smaller number of people, on average,” he said.

Stephen Griffin, associate professor at Leeds University’s school of medicine, said the data, though early, was positive but not definitive. Since the study looked at people who had tested positive for the virus, the results suggested that vaccinated people were less likely to pass infection on, potentially, by virtue of the fact they had a reduced virus load, he said.

It remained unclear whether the vaccine stopped people from getting infected altogether – however, this study was not designed to assess that, Griffin said.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Coronavirus
  3. » Page 78
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/26/2021 at 07:17:31