maybe if "we" (coloquial we in developed nations) didn't treat certain parts of the population like cattle and just "throw anti-viral/funcal/flu" treatments at them we would have a better situation....
then again anti-X treatments are so great that India et al produce them like candy so gonna have to find a new way of fixing those problems once that chicken comes home to roost.
maybe if we had just had a once in several lifetimes chance to EDUCATE on basic hygeine rather than getting bogged down in bad politics we could actually have make a difference... nah lets go back to live animal markets and demanding a fantasy cure-all from our local-GP for what ails us...
If you don't expect this level of discourse, be very careful to decide to bring up the 'pandemic' in future please, it's just for click-bait and funding councils...
> maybe if we had just had a once in several lifetimes chance to EDUCATE on basic hygeine [...] nah lets go back to live animal markets
A phrase comes to mind which I think is a useful axiom: "They're poor, not stupid."
For example, it's much easier to "educate" someone about regular hand-washing with soap and hot water when they can just twist the "H" knob... However adhering to it is much harder when someone has to make extra trips with buckets to/from the local river and then use enough time and firewood to bring that water to a full boil in a pot.
> just "throw anti-viral/funcal/flu" treatments
I'm hopeful that eventually we'll develop a much richer (micro-)ecological approach to disease prevention, where we take steps to fill niches with benign bacteria so that harmful ones cannot establish a foothold, and sometimes introduce "natural predators" such as anti-bacterial phages.
It won't entirely supplant things like autoclaves or isopropyl-alcohol or antibiotics, but it make reduce how often we need to resort to more-indiscriminate means.
I had read that too, but while those Alzheimer’s teams pivot over the next 10 years for their new research and drug approvals, the thing that treats insulin and glucose processing helps prevent diabetes and dementia
Oh the piles of bodies. Please check the details behind such claims before trotting them out.
By the same US federal data COVID brought someone back to life. I'm not joking the obvious mistake is recorded and is a wonderful example of how the data needs to be cleaned checked and examined more closely.
Hundreds of millions of entries of data input by a large group of people across a wide region will always have errors and inconsistencies. This is true of data related to COVID-related deaths, homicides, car accidents, daycare enrollment rates, and everything in between.
Showing that individual data points are inconsistent or wrong does not by itself indicate that conclusions gleaned from a data set as a whole are incorrect.
Read the accounts from funeral home staff some time. We were very literally running out of places to put the actual, physical bodies. It turns out when you have a mortuary system that’s set up to process a reasonably consistent and predictable number of deceased humans, adding an sudden, unexpected, and sustained additional load of 10–15% (with spikes up to 33% and 45%) system stretches it beyond its limit.
No but it's a glaring example of referring to a non consistent dataset.
The data should be cleaned first to remove such problems which impacts totals.
Such work then has to look at labelled as having COVID at time of death Vs sole cause which is _missing_ from most Western datasets. And I'd be willing to believe it's missing from totals that large, unfortunately raising a question as to how many actually were killed by despite the fact we know >80% were likely over 80yr...
Not to forget the nice example, if you died from a heart attack due to a racy TV advert did the TV kill you?
Airplanes have about 12-15 air changes per hour they are flying, and the air that is recycled, less than half, is going through standard HEPA filters and are rated to capture virus and bacteria particles.
My less empirical info is that airflow in a plane mostly goes from being input above your head, and exhausted from the pressurized cabin at your feet, meaning you have less exposure to anyone not in your row.
Remember that aircraft pressurization systems were designed to be smoked in, other than the newest designs. They needed enough airflow to not totally choke out passengers on a cross country or cross atlantic trip.
Are you able to square the levels of CO2 on planes, which are 1000-1800 ppm, so over 2-3x atmospheric air, with the 12-15 ACH? I don't understand how those two things can be true.
ACH often refers to filtration and not ventilation; that is, recycled air counts for ACH calculations but won't decrease CO2 because that's not scrubbed by the filters. So it's possible you can have high CO2 levels but also no virus or particulate matter in the air; this is why some places will report PM2.5 as well as CO2, as a proxy for filtration. To make it more complicated, you can also use UV-C to inactivate pathogens, which may not decrease PM2.5 and won't decrease CO2.
I'm not saying this is the case necessarily for planes, but I'm just trying to provide context for how proxy measures of air quality may not tell the full story.
IIRC the airlines did improve filtering of air in the cabin, but I think this is basically moot - you’re stuck in a hermetic, pressurized can with hundreds of other people and some percentage of them is exhaling viral droplets into the air that’s force circulated through the cabin. Unless you’re wearing a hazmat suit, you’ll be exposed.
I'm not talking about viral/bacterial factors here, clearly a better filter with a better humidity system doesn't cause you to end up with a dry throat.
I'm not talking about exposure to people your in the same goldfish bowl as, that's a guaranteed to happen when you bump into people getting your bags outside...
No in this case there is an abuse of language which has led to the poisoning of the conversation somewhat.
There, the reason being the broad change in the correct definition of the word "vaccine". In former years this would be a preventative treatment that was probably 90%+ effective for multiple years for most people for almost all symptoms and almost all ability for infection to spread. The key being stopping the spread as this is why vaccines are adopted in the first place historically.
For some reason this particular treatment is given this grandiose title despite unfortunately not really working at reducing spread, and only demonstrably reduces severe symptoms for those who are clinically at risk. It's a preventative treatment which works very well and should be applauded but the problem is people are now calling it what it's not which causes problems.
At the time, the "base rate" of vaccination was already up around 90%, so the 60% rate in hospitalised patients actually demonstrated significant protection.
Yes again in the art risk groups this reduced significant symptoms hence why they're underrepresented in global hospitalisation numbers. As I keep saying it's a fantastic preventative treatment.
Unfortunately many people are still catching it repeatedly, displaying symptoms repeatedly and the fact that despite 90%+ of people are immunised. With vaccination levels like this for various other diseases transmission would be pretty much stopped and symptoms would be much lower.
Anyway, not looking to derail, just want to point out there is a significant change in the definition of words being used which can causes conversations to become toxic, and apologies if you think I'm being abrupt.
This person was questioning its efffectiveness simply because more people in hospital were vaccinated than weren't. Without considering the base rate. A sufficiently high base rate would lead to this situation even if the vaccine was 99.9% effective.
> only small (and sometimes non-significant) reductions in the risk of hospitalisation were seen in 10–19-year-olds, with increasingly large reductions seen with age in 20–69-year-olds
> A sufficiently high base rate would lead to this situation even if the vaccine was 99.9% effective.
In principle for these factors alone statistically yes, in reality we know this isn't the case. Calling it a vaccine is calling it broken. Calling it a preventative treatment to improve your outcome is more accurate.
The studies showing reduced admissions are either grasping at statistical straws or a reglorofied statement of "This is a novel contagion in a herd without immunity at which some unknown percentage may be clinically at risk from genetic or environmental factors."
The strongest environmental factors we now _know_ (and had clear statistical evidence for as of July2020!) was vitaminD and a few other well defined risk factors.
Hospitalisation in the UK due to exclusively COVID factors reduced dramatically as the pandemic went on due to less strong concern once almost every a&e had seen the full disease cycle from admission to treatments to outcome. Not to mention most COVID cases at hospital in the UK were either contracted there in the younger age groups or they tested positive but this wasn't the concern at the time of admission.
One of the major concerns in May2020 was that "up to 30% of the working population may be off it at one time if the virus spreads according to China's numbers and the economic cost of that is too high..." In hindsight this statement didn't compare to the damage of being frozen by indecision combined with no global trade for 2 years, so...
As for guessing how many would end up in hospital report 9 models said the peak would be over 2million needing a&e at the same time, despite the model not combining medical risk with any mortality factors, this was simply 10% or so of total cases if 20M or so we're ill at the same time.
Again, as a preventative treatment for clinically at risk people (who we did a great job of identifying based on medical history in 2020) we should have never had a 2nd global lockdown, unfortunately the particular group all vote a certain way so...
> Conclusions Among adults with sub-optimal baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D replacement at a dose of 800 or 3200 IU/day did not influence protective efficacy or immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
This suggests that having the vaccine is still worth it even if you have normal vit D levels.
So far I have yet to find any studies which show the opposite, but I'd be keen to read anything you can link.
> The studies showing reduced admissions are either grasping at statistical straws or a reglorofied statement of "This is a novel contagion in a herd without immunity at which some unknown percentage may be clinically at risk from genetic or environmental factors."
So... the vaccine reduces hospital admissions for young adults because some unknown percentage of them are "at risk" due to (unknown?) factors?
This argument reminds me of Greek astronomers inventing epicycles to fit the model to the data!
Are you referring to Vitamin D supplementation? Would be interesting to see a similar study which factors this out.
Please stop viewing everything through the political hammer of one ideology over another. That would fail to explain what constructed the 52% or why in part the vote was called.
Of course it was badly managed by a British govt but this is like saying rain will be wet. It's a given.
I'm not saying Brexit was a good financial, economical, social or societal motivator, but unfortunately the argument for a lot of people clearly became philosophical.
(Notice how I'm not saying all)
If this was all so good why did this get to a situation where half the country was displeased despite the blairite years? And the argument of "big red bus lied to us" only shows contempt for the ill educated either people are smart and educated enough to engage on this or they're not, there's no "take backs" in first past the post politics.
Yeah that's not really a topic you want to look into unless you've a stiff drink to hand imo, a painful amount of I told you so style learning to made picking that apart...
Don't worry, in 5 years we will likely read how those in charge then spoke out but we're silenced and how they knew all along and fought the good fight for us in their ivory towers...
It was a simple mathematic close airports not schools of you're so concerned but the past is now behind us.
Oh and did you know the GBD was secretly funded by evil big right wing oil against the family friendly big pharma with asbestos in the talc and roundup in your food...
(Sorry I think I got a bit cynical even for this topic)
then again anti-X treatments are so great that India et al produce them like candy so gonna have to find a new way of fixing those problems once that chicken comes home to roost.
maybe if we had just had a once in several lifetimes chance to EDUCATE on basic hygeine rather than getting bogged down in bad politics we could actually have make a difference... nah lets go back to live animal markets and demanding a fantasy cure-all from our local-GP for what ails us...
If you don't expect this level of discourse, be very careful to decide to bring up the 'pandemic' in future please, it's just for click-bait and funding councils...
reply