2 COVID Vaccines Approved, End to Pandemic in Sight??

[Seagull]

This was posted on Twitter, of course, never fact-checked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...nksgiving/



CDC Post on CDC.gov



If you still aren't scared yet, check out this Covid Event Risk Assessment Tool:
https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/

For all of us to be safe, can you all please gather together and loot stores for your Christmas shopping.  
Then for the family cooking, burn down the store and use the heat from the fire to cook your turkeys.

This seems to be the only acceptable behavior that is allowed now  

On a serious note, Pfizer submitted for EUA today, word is FDA will meet on Dec 10th likely approving the vaccine around that date.
40 million doses ready to go for Dec.

Moderna plans to produce 100 million doses by the end of Jan, considering Pfizer gets approved, they should too since based on the same technology.

2 other vaccines could get EUA in Jan as well.

.....And in the meanwhile we are all ok with football players playing without masks........

I guess billionaires are immune to it

[ss20ts]

This was posted on Twitter, of course, never fact-checked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...nksgiving/



CDC Post on CDC.gov



If you still aren't scared yet, check out this Covid Event Risk Assessment Tool:
https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/

For all of us to be safe, can you all please gather together and loot stores for your Christmas shopping.  
Then for the family cooking, burn down the store and use the heat from the fire to cook your turkeys.

This seems to be the only acceptable behavior that is allowed now  

On a serious note, Pfizer submitted for EUA today, word is FDA will meet on Dec 10th likely approving the vaccine around that date.
40 million doses ready to go for Dec.

Moderna plans to produce 100 million doses by the end of Jan, considering Pfizer gets approved, they should too since based on the same technology.

2 other vaccines could get EUA in Jan as well.

This graphic is hilarious! It says staying home having Thanksgiving virtually is low risk. There's no risk! You're by yourself! All of those low risk are no risk except maybe the one with eating the meal with your household. There's no risk doing anything online. 

Zero interest in an unproven, not studied vaccine.

[dfrecore]

Ok, I'm back. So I read an article (and forgot to grab it and now I can't find it), from an Oxford doctor (Epidemiologist I think?) who basically said that physical distancing and masks are actually the worst thing to do; just like with all viruses like the regular flu we deal with every year, your body can better deal with very small doses of a virus going around, and that if you get a big dose, you have a better chance of fighting it off. If you get no small doses from minor contact, then you're kind of doomed when the big dose comes your way. And the way to get a small dose is by the regular everyday stuff.

He also said that the leading killer in all of the world is poverty, no need to do studies or discuss "science" or whatever - it's the leading killer in every respect, and that's what we're doing with lockdowns.

And then there's the meme going around right now - if lockdowns worked, then we wouldn't need to lockdown again (it would have worked in March/April). If lockdowns don't work, then why are we locking down. It's a good question though - makes me think (I know, some of you HATE it when people think and question the government or the unproven "science").

[Merlin]

Ok, I'm back.  So I read an article (and forgot to grab it and now I can't find it), from an Oxford doctor (Epidemiologist I think?) who basically said that physical distancing and masks are actually the worst thing to do; just like with all viruses like the regular flu we deal with every year, your body can better deal with very small doses of a virus going around, and that if you get a big dose, you have a better chance of fighting it off.  If you get no small doses from minor contact, then you're kind of doomed when the big dose comes your way. And the way to get a small dose is by the regular everyday stuff.

That is an interesting perspective and does make sense from the perspective of building herd immunity. I wonder how many other scientists agree with that perspective?

I see two big problems here:

1) This approach doesn't limit the spread to people at higher risk who are more likely to have severe symptoms.

2) There is a lot of research and evidence to suggest that natural herd immunity is not possible with this virus since natural immunity is not durable. By this point, we've all seen the various reports of people getting Covid a second time now, which backs up the weak durability theory. Though it could also be that a weak exposure generates a less durable immune response.

He also said that the leading killer in all of the world is poverty, no need to do studies or discuss "science" or whatever - it's the leading killer in every respect, and that's what we're doing with lockdowns.

Well we all know that poverty is the biggest killer worldwide. Lockdowns are definitely adding to the problem, but again we wouldn't need to be locked down at all if everyone masked up while outside and limited contact between people to limit the spread of the virus.

And then there's the meme going around right now - if lockdowns worked, then we wouldn't need to lockdown again (it would have worked in March/April).  If lockdowns don't work, then why are we locking down.  It's a good question though - makes me think (I know, some of you HATE it when people think and question the government or the unproven "science").

Actually, it's easy to explain why that is.

The problem with these memes is that we're not locking down again. It's the same lockdown... restrictions are just increasing because people haven't been moderating their behaviors to keep the curve flat.

The overall goal was to "flatten the curve" until we could develop a vaccine or antiviral treatment for Covid-19 in order to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and to save lives. One way to do this is for everyone to wear masks in public and limit the physical distance between people. The hope was that would be enough to flatten the curve without additional measures. But not everyone was willing to go along with this.

Since asking people to moderate themselves didn't work, lockdowns were introduced to remove the opportunity to congregate in order to limit the spread of the virus. Lockdown restrictions can be relaxed when data shows the curve flattening, in hope that people would moderate their own behavior to keep the trend flat. Restrictions are increased again when the curve shows an upwards trend in new cases.

So the idea is that the lockdown restrictions should ebb and flow according to people's ability to moderate their own behavior. If everyone just took responsibility for themselves to wear masks outside and keep their distance from people not in their immediate family or social pod, then we wouldn't need the lockdowns at all.

[ss20ts]

Masks don't provide 100% filtration. None of us are wearing N95 masks and even those only filter out 95% of particulates for about 20 minutes. Those masks have a limited time they function and actually expire.

[Merlin]

Masks don't provide 100% filtration. None of us are wearing N95 masks and even those only filter out 95% of particulates for about 20 minutes. Those masks have a limited time they function and actually expire.

Yes, we'd have to all be wearing N100 masks and full PPE to give 100% protection. However, that isn't the point of why we wear masks. The idea is that masks limit the speed (and therefore distance) that particles can travel from an infected person, even with homemade masks. This gives the ambient airflow a better chance to disperse the particles enough to keep the viral load at minimal levels.

Yes, N95 and better masks will also limit the size of particles a person can inhale and exhale. This offers stronger protection for others (assuming the mask is unvented) and a bit more protection for the wearer, but the latter is a minor benefit considering you can also get infected via your eyes. So full PPE is really needed for self-protection.

Viral load is ultimately what we're trying to avoid. Viral load is calculated using the distance to time formula for exposure. This effectively states that the closer you are to someone, the higher the potential viral load over a smaller period of time – assuming you're in an enclosed space or outside without a breeze. For example, a reasonable rule of thumb is 6 feet = 6 minutes of exposure or 10 feet = 10 minutes of exposure. So if you're 6 feet from someone, you should limit your interactions to 6 minutes or less. A good breeze scatters the particles quickly, which mostly eliminates viral load, as can high-quality commercial HVAC systems with strong air circulation and MERV 16 filtration or better.

[Seagull]

Masks don't provide 100% filtration. None of us are wearing N95 masks and even those only filter out 95% of particulates for about 20 minutes. Those masks have a limited time they function and actually expire.

Yes, we'd have to all be wearing N100 masks and full PPE to give 100% protection. However, that isn't the point of why we wear masks. The idea is that masks limit the speed (and therefore distance) that particles can travel from an infected person, even with homemade masks. This gives the ambient airflow a better chance to disperse the particles enough to keep the viral load at minimal levels.

Yes, N95 and better masks will also limit the size of particles a person can inhale and exhale. This offers stronger protection for others (assuming the mask is unvented) and a bit more protection for the wearer, but the latter is a minor benefit considering you can also get infected via your eyes. So full PPE is really needed for self-protection.

Viral load is ultimately what we're trying to avoid. Viral load is calculated using the distance to time formula for exposure. This effectively states that the closer you are to someone, the higher the potential viral load over a smaller period of time – assuming you're in an enclosed space or outside without a breeze. For example, a reasonable rule of thumb is 6 feet = 6 minutes of exposure or 10 feet = 10 minutes of exposure. So if you're 6 feet from someone, you should limit your interactions to 6 minutes or less. A good breeze scatters the particles quickly, which mostly eliminates viral load, as can high-quality commercial HVAC systems with strong air circulation and MERV 16 filtration or better.

And still everybody is ok with rich athletes playing football without masks.

If health was so important and avoiding the spread was so pivotal, why all these rich people (Congress, Football players, and so on) allowed to congregate, some without masks?

Is football so important? Are the rich athletes immune?
Or are they above the law because they are rich?

[ss20ts]

And still everybody is ok with rich athletes playing football without masks.

If health was so important and avoiding the spread was so pivotal, why all these rich people (Congress, Football players, and so on) allowed to congregate, some without masks?

Is football so important? Are the rich athletes immune?
Or are they above the law because they are rich?

The athletes are being tested all the time. Some sports have the players under quarantine. There are no fans at the sporting event. Don't like it, don't watch. I don't worry about what they are doing. I mind my own business,.

[Seagull]

And still everybody is ok with rich athletes playing football without masks.

If health was so important and avoiding the spread was so pivotal, why all these rich people (Congress, Football players, and so on) allowed to congregate, some without masks?

Is football so important? Are the rich athletes immune?
Or are they above the law because they are rich?

The athletes are being tested all the time. Some sports have the players under quarantine. There are no fans at the sporting event. Don't like it, don't watch. I don't worry about what they are doing. I mind my own business,.

So it is ok if some are allowed to not follow the law?

While rest of us are on lockdown?

I already don't watch it much, but it is all ridiculous.

I agree with masks and social distancing, I just don't get the extreme measures and the fact some rich groups are allowed not to follow the same rules.

[dfrecore]

Ok, I'm back.  So I read an article (and forgot to grab it and now I can't find it), from an Oxford doctor (Epidemiologist I think?) who basically said that physical distancing and masks are actually the worst thing to do; just like with all viruses like the regular flu we deal with every year, your body can better deal with very small doses of a virus going around, and that if you get a big dose, you have a better chance of fighting it off.  If you get no small doses from minor contact, then you're kind of doomed when the big dose comes your way. And the way to get a small dose is by the regular everyday stuff.

That is an interesting perspective and does make sense from the perspective of building herd immunity. I wonder how many other scientists agree with that perspective?

I see two big problems here:

1) This approach doesn't limit the spread to people at higher risk who are more likely to have severe symptoms.

2) There is a lot of research and evidence to suggest that natural herd immunity is not possible with this virus since natural immunity is not durable. By this point, we've all seen the various reports of people getting Covid a second time now, which backs up the weak durability theory. Though it could also be that a weak exposure generates a less durable immune response.

He also said that the leading killer in all of the world is poverty, no need to do studies or discuss "science" or whatever - it's the leading killer in every respect, and that's what we're doing with lockdowns.

Well we all know that poverty is the biggest killer worldwide. Lockdowns are definitely adding to the problem, but again we wouldn't need to be locked down at all if everyone masked up while outside and limited contact between people to limit the spread of the virus.

And then there's the meme going around right now - if lockdowns worked, then we wouldn't need to lockdown again (it would have worked in March/April).  If lockdowns don't work, then why are we locking down.  It's a good question though - makes me think (I know, some of you HATE it when people think and question the government or the unproven "science").

Actually, it's easy to explain why that is.

The problem with these memes is that we're not locking down again. It's the same lockdown... restrictions are just increasing because people haven't been moderating their behaviors to keep the curve flat.

The overall goal was to "flatten the curve" until we could develop a vaccine or antiviral treatment for Covid-19 in order to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed and to save lives. One way to do this is for everyone to wear masks in public and limit the physical distance between people. The hope was that would be enough to flatten the curve without additional measures. But not everyone was willing to go along with this.

Since asking people to moderate themselves didn't work, lockdowns were introduced to remove the opportunity to congregate in order to limit the spread of the virus. Lockdown restrictions can be relaxed when data shows the curve flattening, in hope that people would moderate their own behavior to keep the trend flat. Restrictions are increased again when the curve shows an upwards trend in new cases.

So the idea is that the lockdown restrictions should ebb and flow according to people's ability to moderate their own behavior. If everyone just took responsibility for themselves to wear masks outside and keep their distance from people not in their immediate family or social pod, then we wouldn't need the lockdowns at all.