folsom_lives
pretty_lil_dirt_boi
No love for The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Neverending Covid-19 Coronavirus
- Thread starter RenegadeMonster
- Start date
yukbon
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't really get the point across to anyone thanking Jesus for a steady rate of 3000 deaths.
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Like, how many virgins await those who die as anti-maskers? Surely heaven is running out by now or do they like duplicate them up there or something?
same
The longer we go through this thing the harder it is to protect our mental health. Cracks in our system--and I mean actual access and affordability of mental health services that are effective and pertinent--are showing, and we are seeing it in our most fragile individuals first, our kids. For my fellow parents, please make sure to check in with your kids. They may not be okay.
Government figures show the proportion of children who arrived in emergency departments with mental health issues increased 24% from mid-March through mid-October, compared with the same period in 2019. Among preteens and adolescents, it rose by 31%. Anecdotally, some hospitals said they are seeing more cases of severe depression and suicidal thoughts among children, particularly attempts to overdose.
The increased demand for intensive mental health care that has accompanied the pandemic has worsened issues that have long plagued the system. In some hospitals, the number of children unable to immediately get a bed in the psychiatric unit rose. Others reduced the number of beds or closed psychiatric units altogether to reduce the spread of covid-19.
khn.org
Government figures show the proportion of children who arrived in emergency departments with mental health issues increased 24% from mid-March through mid-October, compared with the same period in 2019. Among preteens and adolescents, it rose by 31%. Anecdotally, some hospitals said they are seeing more cases of severe depression and suicidal thoughts among children, particularly attempts to overdose.
The increased demand for intensive mental health care that has accompanied the pandemic has worsened issues that have long plagued the system. In some hospitals, the number of children unable to immediately get a bed in the psychiatric unit rose. Others reduced the number of beds or closed psychiatric units altogether to reduce the spread of covid-19.
Children’s Hospitals Grapple With Wave of Mental Illness - KFF Health News
The disruption to daily life caused by the pandemic has increased the number of children seeking mental health care, further straining a system that already struggled to meet the need.
khn.org
Los Angeles is reporting one Covid death every eight minutes
The coronavirus pandemic has brought countries to a standstill. Meanwhile, vaccinations have already started in some countries as cases continue to rise. Follow here for the latest.
This is truly heartbreaking. And they suspect it is only going to get worse as they have no capacity left.
Jan
Well-Known Member
At least some good news
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/UVG3XLUEZVO45L5DR36DFFJPLM.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine appears effective against mutation in new coronavirus variants -study
Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine appears able to protect against a key mutation in the highly transmissible new variants of the coronavirus discovered in Britain and South Africa, according to a laboratory study conducted by the U.S. drugmaker.
At least some good news
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine appears effective against mutation in new coronavirus variants -study
Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine appears able to protect against a key mutation in the highly transmissible new variants of the coronavirus discovered in Britain and South Africa, according to a laboratory study conducted by the U.S. drugmaker.
No studies yet on the South African Mutation which they are more worried about how it may impact vaccine effectiveness.
Pfizer said they should have a study on it soon.
Tys1
Well-Known Member
Someone please talk sense to me, this seems REALLY REALLY DUMB! So instead of saving some people we’re gonna just waste all of those efforts so that we can give a shit ton of other people a half dose without a guarantee of receiving their full dose?
www.cnn.com
Exclusive: Biden will release nearly all available vaccine doses in break from Trump administration policy of holding back stock for second dose
President-elect Joe Biden will aim to release nearly every available dose of the coronavirus vaccine when he takes office, a break with the Trump administration's strategy of holding back half of US vaccine production to ensure second doses are available.
www.cnn.com
dhodo
Well-Known Member
It's not a waste, as it is shown to be over 80% effective with a single dose, which is better than many other vaccines' efficacy. The more we get ahead of the South African strain and others like it the better.Someone please talk sense to me, this seems REALLY REALLY DUMB! So instead of saving some people we’re gonna just waste all of those efforts so that we can give a shit ton of other people a half dose without a guarantee of receiving their full dose?
Exclusive: Biden will release nearly all available vaccine doses in break from Trump administration policy of holding back stock for second dose
President-elect Joe Biden will aim to release nearly every available dose of the coronavirus vaccine when he takes office, a break with the Trump administration's strategy of holding back half of US vaccine production to ensure second doses are available.
Honestly, I think the point is moot anyway though, since our ability to deliver them currently faaaaaar outpaces our ability to administer them, so we need to solve that problem first.
Last edited:
Jan
Well-Known Member
Also production for that vaccine seems to be ramped up with new facilities opening up, so chances are good that enough doses are available for the second shot.but it is a risk
bother
Well-Known Member
Wooooow, don't have a heart attack in LA.
Hospitals in California, which are already at maximum capacity, have begun seeing patients in gift shops, parking lots and outdoor tents. Ambulances are being forced to queue outside of hospitals for hours as they wait for Emergency Room workers to take their patients.
Dr Marianne Gausche-Hill, the medical director of LA County's Emergency Services Agency who issued the latest directives, told CBS News that ambulance workers will continue to work to save lives of patients at the scene.
"We are not abandoning resuscitation," Dr Gausche-Hill said. "We are absolutely doing best practice resuscitation and that is do it in the field, do it right away."
"What we're asking is that - which is slightly different than before - is that we are emphasising the fact that transporting these patients arrested leads to very poor outcomes," she added. "We knew that already and we just don't want to impact our hospitals."
Treating heart attack and stroke patients at the scene can increase chances of survival, she said.
Covid: LA ambulances told not to transport some patients to hospital
LA County is experiencing one of the worst US Covid outbreaks, with hospital supplies running low.www.bbc.com
This should be the front page headline on every single media site-- but Trump's more interesting.
Tys1
Well-Known Member
Where does this 80% come from, has it been studied? It took a control some 14,000 strong to come up with the 95% number and maybe I’m wrong but I haven’t read anything but speculation about the 80%
dhodo
Well-Known Member
It's been a while since I looked into that. It is a rough number that I read from some scientists evaluating the data. You are right that the results publicized by Pfizer doesn't specifically look at that. They published that it is 52% effective after the first does, but this seems to include the time immediately after the first dose, while it seems to take a week or two to really become effective, so the 80% came from people looking at the incidence curve after that first or second week.
Difference in length of protection would be more of an unknown without a pure single dose study, which would be much better to have than gleaning the info from the 2 dose study. The only reason to consider maximizing first dose is for short term relief of spread though, so I can see the argument for not worrying as much about that.
I am a layman when it comes to this, so please anyone correct me if I have been mislead or am misunderstanding.
Last edited:
dhodo
Well-Known Member
Here is some more info:
Covid-19 vaccination: What’s the evidence for extending the dosing interval?
I found a paper yesterday that seemed to suggest that even using the 52%, it may save more lives to vaccinate twice as many people at that rate, but am having trouble finding it today.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that it is definitely a good idea to do single dose, but what I have seen makes me think it is certainly worth the experts considering it. Also, I will again stress that we (the USA) seem to have a very long way to go in speeding up the administering of the vaccines before this is even possibly beneficial IF it is decided it is a great idea.
Covid-19 vaccination: What’s the evidence for extending the dosing interval?
I found a paper yesterday that seemed to suggest that even using the 52%, it may save more lives to vaccinate twice as many people at that rate, but am having trouble finding it today.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that it is definitely a good idea to do single dose, but what I have seen makes me think it is certainly worth the experts considering it. Also, I will again stress that we (the USA) seem to have a very long way to go in speeding up the administering of the vaccines before this is even possibly beneficial IF it is decided it is a great idea.
Last edited:
Tys1
Well-Known Member
I’m always one that’s eager and willing to trust the science. But I just don’t see the science here at all. You have data showing the efficacy of two doses and no data showing the efficacy of one dose. Not only that but where does this put citizens trust and comfortably with the vaccine in general? I would think it foolish for somebody to not get the vaccine that’s proven to have 95% efficacy and very understandable for somebody to not want to get it if they know the efficacy of this brand new worlds fastest vaccine may only be 50%, may only be 20% .... who knows! There’s no precedent. So what this sounds like is it’s just going to be the worlds largest ever vaccine trial.
Last edited:
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how you get that there is "no data showing the efficacy of one dose" from what I quoted.
If you mean that there is not a large scale study focused on the efficacy of a single dose then I think you are correct, but that doesn't mean that conclusions can't be drawn from the data available.
Last edited:
Tys1
Well-Known Member
So you posted an article that I read. In the article it describes “There isn’t much for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, as trials did not compare different dose spacing or compare one with two doses.” With the AstaZeneca vaccine they did space it out but the amount of participants was much lower and of course that’s a different vaccine, and it wouldn’t be fair to assume that all efficacy of the mRNA tech will have the same immune responses, otherwise why not mix and match your first does Pfizer with a second dose of something else. The article, in my interpretation, just reiterates that there is in fact no basis for making this decision. You’re essentially dialing back the clock and turning a fast track approved phase 3 vaccine into the non-approved phase 3 trial. The parameters are entirely different. They authorized this EUA for two doses, not one.
I completely understand your stance, and wish I could find this optimism as well. But I simply can’t get behind this, nothing personal at all.
dhodo
Well-Known Member
All I have said is that there is data that suggests it is worth considering. The only thing I disagree with that you have said is that there is "no data." I guess you mean there isn't a completed study to evaluate the long term efficacy of a single dose, which is true and obviously would put the debate to rest if/when done.
Clearly, based on the data, there is at least short term protection given by the first dose.
There does not seem to be significant data to draw conclusions about the length of that protection. So that would be the risk IF a second dose is not able to be given within a sufficiently short period, which I haven't seen anyone proposing not to aim for. The debate is just whether or not we should prioritize the first dose instead of holding back half which I guess would have to be considered very carefully once they can estimate how great the risk of not providing the second dose in time is. Again, a purely theoretical debate in the US until we can outpace current delivered supply with putting needles in arms, which we are currently failing at miserably.
Last edited:
Turbo
Well-Known Member
Just to chime in quickly re: not holding back second doses and using up all available doses immediately.
I think @dhodo discussed the issues very well.
It's what is being done here as well and personally, I'm uneasy about it. It's a calculated risk being taken by authorities because the virus is running rampant. There is no data about protection from a single dose after 1 month (the point where people got the second dose). But the idea is that manufacturing is ramping and the 2nd doses should be administered eventually.
What I'm most uneasy about is if the 2nd dose is delayed beyond 6-7 weeks. Without going into details, if protection starts to wane and because you're doing this right when the virus you're trying to eradicate is running rampant (ideally you vaccinate outside an epidemic to avoid this, but now we can't), you're basically creating the perfect conditions to breed virus that can escape the vaccines.
If it was clear the 2nd dose are being delayed to 6-7 weeks, I'd be more at ease, but at least here, we're not getting clear answers.
Some reading:
www.statnews.com
I think @dhodo discussed the issues very well.
It's what is being done here as well and personally, I'm uneasy about it. It's a calculated risk being taken by authorities because the virus is running rampant. There is no data about protection from a single dose after 1 month (the point where people got the second dose). But the idea is that manufacturing is ramping and the 2nd doses should be administered eventually.
What I'm most uneasy about is if the 2nd dose is delayed beyond 6-7 weeks. Without going into details, if protection starts to wane and because you're doing this right when the virus you're trying to eradicate is running rampant (ideally you vaccinate outside an epidemic to avoid this, but now we can't), you're basically creating the perfect conditions to breed virus that can escape the vaccines.
If it was clear the 2nd dose are being delayed to 6-7 weeks, I'd be more at ease, but at least here, we're not getting clear answers.
Some reading:
Britain takes a gamble with Covid-19 vaccines, upping the stakes for the rest of us
Britain is going it alone on how it uses Covid-19 vaccine, turning that country into a living laboratory.
www.statnews.com