Three Large Studies Show COVID Vaccines Fight Omicron - With Booster Shots (go.com) 282
"Three studies released Friday offered more evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are standing up to the omicron variant, at least among people who received booster shots," reports the Associated Press:
They are the first large U.S. studies to look at vaccine protection against omicron, health officials said. The papers echo previous research — including studies in Germany, South Africa and the U.K. — indicating available vaccines are less effective against omicron than earlier versions of the coronavirus, but also that boosters doses rev up virus-fighting antibodies to increase the chance of avoiding symptomatic infection.
The first study looked at hospitalizations and emergency room and urgent care center visits in 10 states, from August to this month. It found vaccine effectiveness was best after three doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines in preventing COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits. Protection dropped from 94% during the delta wave to 82% during the omicron wave. Protection from just two doses was lower, especially if six months had passed since the second dose. Officials have stressed the goal of preventing not just infection but severe disease. On that count, some good news: A third dose was at least 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations for COVID-19, both during the delta and omicron periods, the study also found.
The second study focused on COVID-19 case and death rates in 25 states from the beginning of April through Christmas. People who were boosted had the highest protection against coronavirus infection, both during the time delta was dominant and also when omicron was taking over...
The Journal of the American Medical Association published the third study, also led by CDC researchers. It looked at people who tested positive for COVID-19 from Dec. 10 to Jan. 1 at more than 4,600 testing sites across the U.S. Three shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were about 67% effective against omicron-related symptomatic disease compared with unvaccinated people. Two doses, however, offered no significant protection against omicron when measured several months after completion of the original series, the researchers found.
The first study looked at hospitalizations and emergency room and urgent care center visits in 10 states, from August to this month. It found vaccine effectiveness was best after three doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines in preventing COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits. Protection dropped from 94% during the delta wave to 82% during the omicron wave. Protection from just two doses was lower, especially if six months had passed since the second dose. Officials have stressed the goal of preventing not just infection but severe disease. On that count, some good news: A third dose was at least 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations for COVID-19, both during the delta and omicron periods, the study also found.
The second study focused on COVID-19 case and death rates in 25 states from the beginning of April through Christmas. People who were boosted had the highest protection against coronavirus infection, both during the time delta was dominant and also when omicron was taking over...
The Journal of the American Medical Association published the third study, also led by CDC researchers. It looked at people who tested positive for COVID-19 from Dec. 10 to Jan. 1 at more than 4,600 testing sites across the U.S. Three shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were about 67% effective against omicron-related symptomatic disease compared with unvaccinated people. Two doses, however, offered no significant protection against omicron when measured several months after completion of the original series, the researchers found.
What we really need (Score:3, Insightful)
What we really need is to have specific vaccines tied to specific variants. Unfortunately, things have been much too slow, so we never got a Delta booster approved until after Delta was already mostly over. And we aren't going to get an Omicron booster until after that's approved. The FDA and other bureaucratic aspects are just moving too slowly to really deal with this at the speed they should be. The mRNA tech allows very fast retooling of the vaccine proteins. But instead we're stuck with a version of the spike protein that hasn't been around for months.
In the US also, we're really failing badly at testing. The Trump administration did a really poor job there, but Biden then kept doing the same essential thing. Now that we're finally getting tests sent out it is only 4 to a household, and the website has terrible headaches so that a lot of people have had trouble getting their tests .It will likely be an example for years to come for software quality assurance of how not to do a roll-out.
At least in other aspects we're doing better. Remdesivir and Paxlovid are both really effective at reducing death totals. Unfortunately, there's a heavy coalition of people, primarily anti-vaxxers who are often proponents of other treatments, especially HCQ, ivermectin, and no quercetin, have decided that Remdesivir and Paxlovid are somehow bad. There are a lot of reports of people coming in and actively refusing Remdesivir and/or refusing to ventilation. This means that a lot of people are going to die or have life-long complications where we could otherwise prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need is to do chill out and roll covid into the yearly flu shot. And then we need to make getting the yearly flu shot as friction free as possible by removing health insurers from the process of getting it. Yes, its really that simple.
Re: What we really need (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UPDATE: "they need to STOP riding in cars"
And yes, I know the Preview button is there, I've just been hanging around at reddit a lot.
Oh, and by the way "It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment". I fucking hate slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's in that vaccine!
Says the person who smokes a few packs a day and shovels fast food into their mouth.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Question; why feel the need to lie about Ivermectin? Yes, it's used in livestock medications, but it's also used quite safely and effectively in human populations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Question; why feel the need to lie about Ivermectin? Yes, it's used in livestock medications, but it's also used quite safely and effectively in human populations as well.
Where did I lie? I stated a fact. The same people who whine about "Big Pharma" making money off covid vaccines are the same people who willfully ignore the fact that goat paste is made by those same companies who make money off it.
Re: (Score:2)
The lie is in the implication it's livestock medicine only, and hasn't been safely used in humans for decades.
Or even that's not effectively used for c19 infections: https://www.cureus.com/article... [cureus.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The lie is in the implication it's livestock medicine only, and hasn't been safely used in humans for decades.
Or even that's not effectively used for c19 infections: https://www.cureus.com/article... [cureus.com]
First, the people rushing out and buying the goat paste were literally going to livestock stores and buying the animal version. So much so that farmers couldn't get what they needed for their goats and horses [ktnv.com]. As a result of the willfully ignorant morons, hospitalizations soared from people being poisoned [ktnv.com].
Second, ivermectin has never, ever, in any capacity, shown to have any effect on covid. None. Zero. Every single study has borne this out. So now you're the one lying, just like the willful morons above
Re: (Score:2)
Second, ivermectin has never, ever, in any capacity, shown to have any effect on covid. None. Zero. Every single study has borne this out. So now you're the one lying, just like the willful morons above who couldn't bother to listen to those who know what they're talking about.
It's one thing to say I don't accept x, y and z for a b and c reasons... yet to simply blanket assert there is no evidence and that every single study collaborates your remarks is clearly not the case. There are dozens of studies many peer reviewed with positive results neatly organized for your reference: https://c19ivermectin.com/ [c19ivermectin.com]
Our friends from Brazil recently updated their preprint a couple weeks ago. Portions of it have been independently reviewed.
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the dewormer medicine ivermectin has been shown to help people in places where worms are common. Unfortunately the studies don't have a control of people given ivermectin without covid to see their health
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I lie? I stated a fact. The same people who whine about "Big Pharma" making money off covid vaccines are the same people who willfully ignore the fact that goat paste is made by those same companies who make money off it.
Ivermectin has been off-patent for decades and is mass produced for peanuts by multiple companies around the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ivermectin works great if you have worms and covid. But the bad news is you'll still have covid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's evidence suggesting otherwise: https://www.cureus.com/article... [cureus.com]
Re: What we really need (Score:4, Insightful)
In that papers Discussion: “Due to the large number of participants, this citywide program was unable to supervise whether ivermectin users were using ivermectin regularly, in the correct dose and interval proposed.”
https://healthfeedback.org/cla... [healthfeedback.org]
https://twitter.com/GidMK/stat... [twitter.com]
"But they didn’t fully account for its potential effects on their findings, instead simply suggesting that their findings underestimated ivermectin’s beneficial effects, implying that the true benefit was even larger. While that is one possibility, the authors didn’t appear to consider how the problems above may have also obscured a potential absence of benefit or even harm from ivermectin treatment. There isn’t evidence to support the a priori assumption that ivermectin treatment can only lead to improvement."
It’s also of note that Itajaí actually saw the highest COVID-19 mortality rate in 2020 among the major cities in the state of Santa Catarina, another observation that casts doubt over whether the COVID-19 prevention program using ivermectin was actually effective.
Finally, at least two of the authors, Flavio Cadegiani and Juan Chamie, are members of a group called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). This group, led by physicians Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, propagated unsupported claims about ivermectin as an effective COVID-19 treatment. Cadegiani is also the principal investigator of a clinical trial that is being investigated for potential violations of medical ethics and human rights by Brazil’s National Health Council, as reported by the British Medical Journal. Cadegiani and Lucy Kerr also have financial conflicts of interest from their work for a company that produces ivermectin.
Re: (Score:2)
This, exactly, The virus isn't evolving faster than science can keep up with mutations, but what is the point of mRNA tech allowing fast retooling in the first place if idiotic bureaucratic nonsense won't let us actually take advantage of that?
Re: (Score:2)
The virus isn't evolving faster than science can keep up with mutations,
Ok you can update the antigene generated by mRNA vaccine quickly but you still need to do some safety testing and it takes some times. No way I take a non tested updated vaccine, it is not bureaucratic nonsense, it is science.
Re:What we really need (Score:4, Insightful)
We're no longer quite in the crisis we were 18 months ago. The current vaccines even without boosters actually still meet the original effectiveness goals of the vaccine program even against omicron, and boosted are almost as effective as they were against ancestral COVID. The problem is the number of people who just won't take them.
It's harder to justify an EUA for a new vaccine when we have existing vaccines that have been proven safe and effective after billions of inoculations. How does the risk/benefit analysis favor something like that?
Modern molecular biology takes a lot of the trial-and-error out of the vaccine development process. It doesn't take a decade or more to develop a novel vaccine anymore, and our regulatory system needs to adjust to that. But it may be a while before we can go from discovering a virus to mass inoculations in under a year, except in dire circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because you don't have a crystal ball. If you had a crystal ball that told you you would never get in a car accident, you'd never have to wear a seat belt either. And most people would end up doing fine in a world without seatbelts. But a lot of people would suffer and die needlessly, it just *probably* wouldn't be you.
All along *most* people who have got *every* strain of COVID had mild symptoms and have recovered fully in a week or so -- even people with underlying conditions. But the risk/benefit pro
Noooo! (Score:2, Informative)
Stop using facts. It completely disorients [imgur.com] and confuddles [imgur.com] the covidiots [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Base rate fallacy.
what about 2 doses (Score:2)
if the last dose was 14 days ago?
How does the protection compare to 3 doses?
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, but better than nothing. You should be able to get the 3rd shot within 3 months or so.
Get on with your life (Score:2)
Vaccine Cards have 4 slots for a reason (Score:2)
It's also curious how America's northern border is closed up all tidy and scrutinizes vaccines/testing for passage, but the southern border is still wide open.
Not a large study (Score:2)
The CDC study is using data from 300k emergency and urgent care visits. Yet only one half of one percent of that is related to Omicron and positive instances in each category are in low to high double digits (14-86).
Why I don't put much stock in hospital centered vs population centered studies is the baked in selection bias and unexplainable to mortals statistical methods used to account for that. To demonstrate this in action if you take their figures and couch them as percentage of "encounters" not hosp
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:2)
Whether you're old or sick or not (Score:4, Insightful)
As for an annual shot for these new COVID strains, forget about thinking about others, they've got high rates of sever, long term illness and permanent damage.
Don't listen to self-admitted idiots like Joe Rogan, who have unlimited money and immediate access to the best medical care in the world (and who, after telling you it's nothing to worry about, immediately chug every experimental medicine they can get their hands on at the first sign of illness). You won't have that luxury.
Expect to see a massive drop in life expectancy as covid survivors who don't show up in the death stats die of strokes and heart attacks in their 60s instead of their 70s and 80s. Ask yourself if you wanna be one of those.
It's gonna happen. How many people we gonna bury? (Score:3)
Nature will ultimately restore equilibrium. The less people we bury along the way, the better my odds are of not being one of them. I recommend a quick application of that increasingly rare commodity, common sense: get vaccinated and boosted because vacci
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Long COVID is no joke. And, worst of all, it seems a lot of cases stop getting better after a few months. Losing 10 or more years of life expectancy may well be realistic. Add to that that a lot of COVID cases (including "mild cases") get at least on long COVID symptom and not making sure you have the best possible protection is utterly dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to giving their names apparently Anonymous Cowards are also afraid of needles. Who'd have thunk?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, a liar with no reputation is telling us a fairy-tale!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you'd bothered to listen, it has always been 90-95% vaccination rates to reach herd immunity. It has also always been that vaccination would wear off after around 6 months. None of this has changed. You chose to invent a fictional history to justify... What? Doing nothing.
Precisely the cause of the large number of mutations that has prolonged this chaos.
It could have been sorted in 2-4 weeks. YOU chose to make it years. Spineless cowards, frightened of needles and cloth, are the cause of so many deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd bothered to listen, it has always been 90-95% vaccination rates to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity is unfortunately impossible even with 100% vaccination rates.
It has also always been that vaccination would wear off after around 6 months.
The vaccines are not wearing off after around 6 months, neutralizing antibody levels from prior variants are dropping off and are significantly less fit against omicron yet protection from poor health outcomes remains intact.
Precisely the cause of the large number of mutations that has prolonged this chaos.
Variation in humans is driven primarily by the relatively few severely immunocompromised where vaccines have limited effect.
Omicron didn't come from humans.
It could have been sorted in 2-4 weeks.
This was NEVER on the table.
frightened of needles and cloth, are the cause of so many deaths.
It's a shame more people did
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, India let Delta escape and South Africa let Omicron escape. Why not blame them for those?
The hospitals being overwhelmed, that's entirely on you morons. You can't even be bothered to try to slow it down. Modern medicine is lying to you, but damn if you don't show up in the emergency room when the shit hits your personal fans.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern medicine is lying to you, but damn if you don't show up in the emergency room when the shit hits your personal fans.
And all the doctors will tell you stories of people who suddenly have a hallelujah moment and want to be vaccinated - right before they are intubated while gasping for air.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Re:Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The WaPo and other outlets haven't been backtracking on the sick-shaming [washingtonpost.com] because people like me -- vaxxed, boosted, and wearing masks in public spaces -- have been catching COVID-19.
We no longer care if you get COVID. We still care if you take up a hospital bed. The goalposts have moved slightly because the virus has changed substantially, but keeping the health care system from collapsing was always, and remains, the first concern above all others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only time it could have been stopped in 2 to 4 weeks was before China let it escape to the rest of the world.
Because stopping a virus circulating in society is easy to do. I guess all those warnings in January [theguardian.com] and February the con artist received [nbcnews.com] telling him this would be a big deal and the U.S. needed to get ahead of it, the warnings the con artist ignored, would have had no impact.
Re:Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are six other continents in the world, you know, even if only five of them have many human inhabitants.
Realistically, once this virus escaped from a single city, it was certain to become a pandemic because it would be impossible to test and isolate the whole world. Most places cannot literally nail people into apartments and have the military deliver food -- for weeks -- like China did.
Re: (Score:2)
>Because stopping a virus circulating in society is easy to do.
Shutting down departures from Wuhan international airport would be a good start. Instead China exclusively shut down national traffic while encouraging international departures, to you know, share the misery.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to listening to this guy?
https://www.cnn.com/interactiv... [cnn.com]
Moronworld (Score:2)
Sir Anthony Fauci, who told the New York Times [false quote redacted]
You're lying, and you know that nobody reads the NY Times, the right says it is for hippies and the left says it is for the 1%. And it is behind a paywall. So you can tell any stupid lie next to a NY Times link.
The Earth still goes around the Sun. (Score:2)
Had to go look it up, didn't you? Thought so.
Re:Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not rewriting history. You're being an idiot. The only way to reach herd immunity in June 2020 was to let everyone get infected and then move on. The first vaccines were not available under December 2020.
So anyone arguing for herd immunity in March 2020-June 2020 deserved all of the derision that they got.
You included. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that some people really think the consequences of letting the original variant spread to 70-90% of the entire population would have been have resulted in less negative outcomes societally and economincally than what we got through mitigation efforts (and the US was pretty middling in it's restrictions) are just lying or not aware of any of the knock on effects outside of their own immediate 10ft radius. It's astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
What's you explanation for all the other countries in the world doing the same thing? They were in on it?
Re: (Score:2)
Fear and desperate need for political solutions where no political solutions exist. So many in the West copied Communist China in methodology to varying degrees, depending on how authoritarian the culture of each nation is, and how much laws and regulations allowed for politicians to go full Chinese Communist Party on their respective populaces.
It's why places like Australia instituted full on gulags for the sick and prison colony level lockdowns, places like Austria started vaccine mandates while selling e
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to reach herd immunity in June 2020 was to let everyone get infected and then move on.
This would not have worked, you can't reach herd immunity through natural infection. Estimated average time to reinfection under those conditions is only eighteen months.
Re: (Score:2)
For an even better reason than that. Overload hospitals in summer 2020 and you could have measured U.S. deaths in the multiple millions.
Re: (Score:2)
The first vaccines were not available under December 2020.
For most of the general public it was another 4 months after that!
(and stop typing <blockquote> you haven't needed to do that since 2002! Just press the quote button or type <quote> so that you don't have excess tags people have to trim)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop inspecting tags and you won't have that annoyance. I'll tag as I wish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The overloaded hospitals prove you dead wrong, and you deserve every bit of the treatment that you're getting.
Re: (Score:2)
>This won't be over until every one has had it
With current data, it's not like the seasonal flu at this stage, but it has similarities. Over time, people who've had covid can catch it again, especially with each new mutation, vaccinated or not.
And the population the virus is mutating in is the planets, there's also starting to be concern's about the virus moving from human's to animal populations and back again.
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:2)
You can get it many times. Especially if not vaccinated.
Re: (Score:3)
The one thing you weren't is right. Natural immunity lasts a fraction of vaccine immunity and isn't as effective
Incorrect.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
If you are fully vaccinated AND wear a mask, you can still be infected and you can still infect others, but the average number of people who both get the virus and then transmit it to others when doing all of this is so astronomically low even with Omicron's increased effectiveness that R would be permanently below 1.
Also incorrect. Omicron has been demonstrated to spread readily in environments with 100% vaccination and compulsory mask wearing.
Efficacy of vaccines is in the 20%-40% range rendering them wholly insufficient.
Since this can be maintained indefinitely in a country and expanded out from that country, the virus can be eliminated globally in the human population with very few infections.
This is very much an EXTREME outlier position that all but went extinct soon after the properties of Delta became apparent. Nobody believes Omicron can be eliminated globally.
If the vaccine can then be modified to work on the animals most likely to act as reservoirs for it, you can severely curtail the ability for the virus to ever re-emerge.
Good luck with that. Omicron likely came from r
Re:Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
I have. 1/7th the number [healthsystemtracker.org] of unvaccinated people hitting the hospitals.
I'd take a 2/3rds reduction in the number of people requiring hospitalization from COVID at this point. So would the hospitals.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no data source, and you haven't demonstrated any "conflict of interest," meathead,
Re: (Score:2)
If it's so obvious then you will have no problem explaining how Peterson-KFF [healthsystemtracker.org] has a conflict of interest.
Also, a lot of bluster from someone who refuses to provide data themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't work on people's arguments for them. Prove the conflict of interest or fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you do. You argue stupidly, and ask to be spoon-fed. That does support their arguments; it is the best you can do, and you're an educated person.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah, blah, blah. Either you can identify the conflict of interest or you can't. It's not my job to do it for you. Others reading this aren't going to do the work for you either. So keep bluffing... it's not going to work out well for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed?
A disproportianate number of the hospitalized are unvaccinated. They are something like 20% of the population but are 50%+ in the hospital.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MdF... [twitter.com]
There is a huge death gap between unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem here is polluted data. Delta was the one that was lethal to unvaccinated and much less lethal to vaccinated, and many nations are still on the tail end of the delta wave.
What we're looking at currently is remains of Delta wave mixed with rising Omikron wave. And data on latter is so inconclusive, we really don't know what its relations to vaccines is. We even have data that AZ ~two months after injection has a positive correlation with hospitalizations. I.e. if you had AZ shot within certain time fr
Re:Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
What is even the point of this? It's just vagueposting some nonspecific grievance with no real specific point or better solution. It adds nothing.
We only reached 70% single dose vaccinated in November 2021 and we are only at 63% 2 dose vaccinated currently so don't go claiming the herd immunity goalpost has been moved when we never got near the endzone in the first place, it makes this AC seem like a disingenuous hack. We had our chance to put this to bed last summer when vaccines were ramping up and before Delta took hold, we had a window of oppurtunity we blew it and now some people are mad that the pandemic persists when this type of misinformation has only kept it going. It's maddening.
And the implication that a vaccine with 2-4 doses is so fucking out of the norm when almost every vaccine for children on the CDC schedule is 2-4 doses, sometimes more, is also just dumb grievance posting for dummies.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/s... [cdc.gov]
It's a "just asking questions" trick (Score:3)
Please do not feed the trolls. Wait a
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Tell me you don't understand herd immunity without telling me you know fuck-all about herd immunity.
Everyone at the research station recovered and work continued as normal. Hey, almost like the vaccines work and that' practically a perfect small scale example of actual herd immunity.
""While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn't significantly affected our work at the station overall," Mr Cheek said.
"All residents of the station were o
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2 weeks to flatten the curve
The United States never did serious lockdowns. Worse, locations did their semi-serious lockdowns at different times, so some states came out of lockdowns as others were entering. Taken together with how much state border crossing there was, that meant that numbers didn't get reduced to the extent they should have. But even given that, lockdowns did reduce spread and did reduce how much was in hospitals at once. Unfortunately, a major part of lockdowns was to get test and trace u
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the mask flipping and flopping:
You don't need to wear a mask.
Yikes you need to wear random cloth mask.
When you're vaccinated, two weeks later you don't need mask (smarter countries never said this)
Oh, we have a retcon spin on not needing mask, that was just to preserve the medical grade mask supply (ignore the fact they said random cloth mask not medical needed)
Oh noes, you need to wear the mask if you're vaccinated.
You should double or triple mask.
Oh, you need medical grade mask.
Re: (Score:2)
That was somewhat true before covid, there wasn't really an impetus to prove out masks in this type of scenario in a large controlled type trial, but that has changed. The most notable example I know of it the Bangladesh trial which was a large trial study. It showed that masks do work, but not to a gigantic degree and that cloth masks are kinda not worth it but cheap surgical masks are and N95 (obviously) moreso.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/... [stanford.edu]
"The researchers enrolled nearly 350,000 people from 600 vil
Re: (Score:2)
That was somewhat true before covid, there wasn't really an impetus to prove out masks in this type of scenario in a large controlled type trial, but that has changed. The most notable example I know of it the Bangladesh trial which was a large trial study. It showed that masks do work, but not to a gigantic degree and that cloth masks are kinda not worth it but cheap surgical masks are and N95 (obviously) moreso.
"The researchers enrolled nearly 350,000 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh. Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those living in control villages to develop COVID-19, which is caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, during the eight-week study period. The protective effect increased to nearly 35% for people over 60 years old."
It is a little odd to cite this study to show masks work.
First the study wasn't really about masks it was about a public awareness campaign conducted via text messages and incentives that also measured other confounding factors like social distancing.
Not only was there no statistically significant evidence for cloth masks when you look at the surgical mask benefit by age ALL of it is concentrated in the over 50 category. That 11% without this context is misleading because it is the result of spreading the
There is no air in the windmill of your mind... (Score:3)
Masks have been mandated in conjunction with other contagion mediation techniques (sanitization of surfaces, social distancing, risk awareness). It's currently thought that these techniques collectively contributed to a drastic reduction of influenza and most other respiratory infections last season; presumably, transmission of all respiratory pathogens has been impacted. Even if the measures have been less than effective in directly reducing COVID transmission (an assertion I don't necessaril
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sunk costs have already paid for themselves, at least for those who've availed themselves of them. You have to ask yourself, how would a population fare that attempted to follow the changing scientific wisdom on vaccination fare against one that simply ignored it? There's multiple measures, but one you can look at is deaths [kff.org]. As you can see there is a statistically significant (p < 0.001) negative (r = -.59) correlation between vaccination rates and deaths. There are outliers like West Virginia and Fl
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're implying all the propaganda is coming from just one side - and you generally show affinity to those that reaction-shout "BOTH SIDES". The difference is that one side adjusts themselves for new information, and the other does strawmen that lead to Herman Cain awards.
I read a recent post about a 0.06% kill rate, which a moderator of a site deleted because it was misinformation. If that number is true, following the math to logical conclusions produces interesting results such as Peru having 339 millio
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Biden: “You’re Not Going To Get COVID If You Have These Vaccinations.”
Tony Fauci: “You Become A Dead End To The Virus.”
Rochelle Walensky: “Vaccinated People Do Not Carry The Virus — They Don’t Get Sick.”
Alberta Bourla: “[O]ur COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!”
Bill Gates: “A key goal [of the vaccination program] is to stop transmission.”
Rachel Maddow: “Now we know that
Re: (Score:2)
"The vaccine will make you magnetic." (turns out, no. Bummer)
"The vaccine will turn you into a lizard-man." (I've got Eczema, does that count? No? Okay, cool)
"Masks are hurting our children." (oh, right - like every Halloween? Won't someone thing of teh children?)
"The vaccine is dangerous or doesn't work." (I'll admit, when I see those who chose not to be vaccinated in the ER, I smile a little. I'm a bad person)
"Masks are uncomfortable." (Wow. Those Doctors that wear these thi
Re: (Score:2)
So many straw men, so little patience. Guess what, science is hard, dealing with a new virus is hard. Complaining that you are too stupid to understand the situation is merely pissing in the wind.
Of course this could all be a plot by the Chinese to destroy their image, their markets, their neighbors. Them Chinese are mighty sneaky.
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
#1. Not everyone follows guidelines in order to flatten the curve, so it takes much longer.
#2. A pandemic has many waves, so even successful techniques will likely need to be related a few times each year.
Combine both of these and you have the last two years of perpetual restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with "two weeks to flatten the curve" turning into months of lockdowns and restrictions?
The curve didn't get flattened. Hospitals got overwhelmed. These policies only work if they are actually followed.
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:2)
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:3)
Yes, let's compare 10 months where the pandemic was ramping up to 12 months where it's in full swing with a more contagious & deadly variant. And then wonder in shock that there are more unvaccinated deaths in the second category.
Re: Sunken cost fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Again. More people have died in 2021 than in 2020.
There were 84 million COVID cases in 2020 and 1.89 million deaths. There were 205 million COVID cases in 2021 and 3.55 million deaths. As a result, even though there were 2.5x as many cases, there were only 1.87x as many deaths. That's a 23% reduction in deaths.
In that same time period, vaccination rates ramped up from 0.1% to about 49% at the end of the year. Assuming a roughly linear rate of vaccination (for crude simplicity), you'd expect about a 25% reduction in deaths, so 23% is right about what you'd expect using back-of-the-napkin-quality math.
So it certainly looks like the vaccine had a very measurable effect.
People who have been vaxed are still dying of Covid. People who have been Vaxed and Boostered are still dying of Covid. People who have been vaxed, boostered, and who have natural immunity are dying of Covid.
At somewhere between a tenth and a twentieth the rate at which unvaccinated, COVID-naïve people die, yes.
Covid is everywhere and arguably more places than in 2020 too so your chances of getting it are higher. So the need to lock down everyone is / was greater in 2021 than in 2020. But they donâ(TM)t. Why? People arenâ(TM)t willing to be locked down for a virus that most people will survive. Or another way of phrasing it: politics.
The word you're looking for is fatigue, not politics.
I hope you're unvaccinated. I really do. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which none of you morons have actually bothered to read. And yes you're one of them, since you linked to the hot take (some rando declaring "I certainly wouldn't call the shots a 'vaccine' against the Omicron variant of COVID, based on this study and other data." -- really?!) rather than the study itself.
From the authors of the st [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the actual paper in that study from Denmark where the researchers note that the apparent negative VE is most likely the result of behavioral differences. That is, young vaccinated people attending a few events that turned out to be early super-spreader events for the then new omicron variant in Denmark. The natural result of that would be a greatly underestimated risk which would affect the effectiveness calculation.
By contrast, your link should have started "Cleetus down at the Jiffee Loob
Re: (Score:2)
That puts a nail into vaccine mandates coffin.
No it doesn't. We don't want our hospitals to be overwhelmed, especially outside of the USA where it's generally publicly funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats a more effective method of "protecting at-risk populations" than vaccinating the maximum number of eligible populations? At risk people are most protected amongst a population that is immune, be that from innoculation, natural immunity, or as we are going to see a high percentage of, a combination of both.
I am not comfortable with isolating the at risk from the rest of the world because the majority of us can't be assed to do the bare minimum to participate in society.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "covid vaccines do not prevent infection" didnt you understand?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the part of my question you didn't understand or just refused to answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, well, here you go with the "horse paste" at least: https://www.cureus.com/article... [cureus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Natural immunity works way way way better than even 4 shots"
Evidence? Even the famed Israeli study didn't ber any conclusion close to that statement.
The poeple who seemingly most want the "BS to end" are usually the ones who are not willing to do the bare fucking minimum to end it. Those of us who did are the ones who have more a right to be "over it".
Re: (Score:3)
The first two columns tell you the relative odds ratios that "un-vaccinated with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis" have versus (1. column) "vaccinated with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis" and (2. column) "un-vaccinated with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis". It is pretty clear that especially when Omicron became the dominant variant, previous infection prevented cases much more than vaccination did.
Which does not say vaccination is bad, as it still lowe