Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Jan 17 02:39:05 PST 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Vaccine News
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 12:11:41
The 60 and 90 percent numbers from the Oxford vaccine is the only one established scientifically.

Given the revenge of the Indians impact this thanksgiving is going to have on covid spread in the US, the only thing that matters is speed of vaccination.

The US at least is on its way to herd immunity the natural way.

40% of the US population seems willing to take a vaccine shot, so even if 95% efficient, the reality is that it will have poor penetration in the population.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 23 12:16:25
"revenge of the Indians"

lmfao, now that's some funny shit. Do you charge royalties for people using that?
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 12:20:37
lol, ty. A donation to a food bank or your favorite charity would be dandy :).
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 23 12:32:16
"The 60 and 90 percent numbers from the Oxford vaccine is the only one established scientifically."

I'm not sure this is true. I think there is some confusion going around about the numbers and the study in The Lancet. I believe The Lancet's article is mainly a review of some studies that basically are showing the vaccine is safe and does boost immune response in various age groups (including the elderly, which often have suppressed vaccine immune response).

I don't think The Lancet is commenting about the efficacy numbers.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 23 12:35:44
http://www...S0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext

I believe this is the article that is being referenced. Notice the publication date (November 18, 2020). If someone knows of peer review for the efficacy numbers, correct me and please post a link.
Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 12:47:33
I'd heard peer review, but agree that it appears to be misatribution to the Lancet paper.

jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 12:51:26
WoO
ty again. The devil is always in the detail.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 13:02:24
So based on what we currently know, the moderna vaccine is best, followed by the equally effective but more temperature sensitive pfizer product. The british product, as expected, is the worst.

Still there are rumors that Johnson + Johnsons product, a little slower to develop, is even better than moderna.

Now for the real trick. How much does one need to pay to be at the front of the line for either pfizer of moderna? I want my vaccine in time for most of ski season!
patom
Member
Mon Nov 23 13:37:39
So far the powers that be are saying that the Trump family is #1 then the 1%. After that it will be Senate and House Republicans, Republican Governors except Maryland's, then Republican state legislators. If there is any vaccine still available they might try and get some to the front line members of the Trump administration.
Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 14:02:58
Sam:

What we know:

efficacy, production capacity (2021), cost per dose

Astrazeneca: 90%, 3bn doses, $4
Moderna: 94.5%, 0.5-1bn doses, $25-37
Pfizer: 90% 1.3bn doses, $32-37

Pfizer will be first to market, followed by AstraZenica and then Moderna

In terms of age response, Moderna and Pfizer haven't bottomed out if elderly respond as strongly to the vaccine - reading their press releases it is not clear if this no evidence of difference, or inconclusive.

AstraZeneca appears it is tolerated better by elderly (I assume meaning less rashes) and equally effective in all groups.

Bottom line, given that you would be mad to go for a dose regime that does not give 90% efficacy, the AstraZenica product has more production capacity than the Pfizer and Moderna jabs put together, is more stable and easier to distribute, and is a tenth of the cost.

I know it is not what Sam wants to hear though.

Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 14:05:31
I suppose the capacity, given the first dose is a half dose, is actually more like 4.5bn doses.

Enough for about a third of the world.

Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 14:41:09
"Astrazeneca: 90%"

Ignore the data that seb doesnt like. Its the seb way.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 14:55:07
R is the infection rate for a given population with certain attributes. The US population has an attribute that gives a max vaccine penetration of 40%.

So something in the range of 40 percent of the US population will become infected before herd immunity comes into play and covid-19 diminishes to sporadic cluster outbreaks in the US for, well, forever.

Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 15:31:21
Sam:

One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p<=0.0001).

You are ignoring the data you don't like.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 15:46:45
Yes seb, the smaller sample size should be accepted, while the larger sample size should get tossed.

Dumbass.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 15:48:49
Sammy
What is wrong with using the dosage regime that has higher potency?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 15:51:18
"The US population has an attribute that gives a max vaccine penetration of 40%."

People will take it once they see the first batch getting it and doing well.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 15:56:20
"What is wrong with using the dosge regime that has higher potency?"

Because the sample size is not sufficiently large to put the same weight behind it. With just 2000 people, a single case or two could have skewed the whole thing.
Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 16:32:07
Sam:

You think you should merge samples across two different values of a control parameter that display a 50% variance in the signal with a p<=0.0001.

No wonder you never got a postgraduate degree.
Seb
Member
Mon Nov 23 16:33:54
"Because the sample size is not sufficiently large to put the same weight behind it."

" All results were statistically significant (p<=0.0001)."
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 17:23:34
"No wonder you never got a postgraduate degree."

Wrong

All results were statistically significant (p<=0.0001).

wrong.

Dumbass.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Nov 23 17:28:22
You might be able to make the claim that the vaccine is acceptable at that probability level.

But certainly you cant claim 90% effectiveness in the general pop, not when the much larger sample size with only moderately different dosage was 60%.

No wonder you failed out of science and became a government functionary in some useless department in a failed second rate state.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 23 18:50:16
Sammy
What is wrong with using the dosage regime that has higher potency?
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 23 18:50:19
Well, the immune response to these things doesn't always function like most people would expect. So there are a couple viable options as to why the initial full dose does not produce the 90% efficacy when coupled with a second full dose.

Astraz will almost certainly produce and distribute the vaccine as a 0.5-1.0 double dose, which the early data shows should be about 90% efficacy. That's obviously the most desirable delivery method.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 23 18:55:34
Once the US data comes in we'll have a better look at the early data. I don't see any reason to think that they numbers will shift much away from what was reported from the UK and Brazil (I think?) numbers.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 24 01:26:22
Jergul:

What's wrong with it, is that irs not what Sam wants to hear.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 24 04:32:21
WoO:

Given the explosion of cases in the UK, the updates to the UK data set (I think this preliminary results only go to October), we might see more results shortly.

Genuinely great news if the results stay more or less the same.

But even if it were 70% at USD $5 if it also (as suggested) reduces transmission would change the dynamics of managing the epidemic, and allow the time to manufacturer the more effective vaccines.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 24 05:23:23
"p<=0.0001"

Compare this to social science studies where it is praxis to use 0.05. So, here we have a 1 in 10000 chance of being wrong/random.

Any reason we should blindly stare at the smaller sample size and assume it is not representative? That isn't how sample size and statistical power works. The unintuitive results with full dose and half dose, would indicate we shouldn't expect the results to get worse with half a dose if we increase the sample size. There is a more significant variable residing in the dosage.

You need better arguments here than "lol sample size".
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Nov 24 13:31:26
You need better arguments here than "lol sample size".

No, i dont.

About 20-30 people should have gotten covid in that sample size, judging by the similar trials for others. If they are claiming 90%... 2-3 got it. From that we can say with high confidence the vacine has some effectiveness. But 90% precisely... no.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 24 14:45:27
On the other hand, the Pfizer and Moderna trials did not check to see if asymptomatic recipients were infected - a potentially large systemic bias given what we know about asymptomatic infection.

Handwavey in the extreme to say that the infected control group ought to be 20-30; it depends entirely on the control groups.

AZs trials were in UK and Brazil, Moderna and Pfizer in US - so depends on community transmission in the geographical clusters where the trials were performed.

I don't think AZ and Oxford are lying / misrepresenting the P vlaues (would be pointless) nor do I think it likely they have got them wrong. If they are quoting a p value, they've done the analysis against the control groups. Making up a figure of 20-30 seems unfounded.

90% clearly isn't a precise figure (e.g. 90.00%). But you are arguing implicitly that it is, essentially, 60% or 70%. I would say that this means at worst case it lies somewhere between 85% and 95%.

It is clear that the second dosing group is significantly different and higher efficacy than the first dosing group given the quoted p values.

Unfortunately, it appears that the 0.5-1.0 dosing group was a procedural error, so we probably don't have more trial data inbound any time soon.


Sam Adams
Member
Wed Nov 25 11:53:51

"I don't think AZ and Oxford are lying / misrepresenting the P vlaues"

No... but you are.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 25 12:32:48
This is a direct quote from their statement.

Why do you think it is misrepresentation to say that this paragraph clearly states that the dosing regimen with efficacy of 90% has a statistical significance with P<=0.0001.

At worst precision, 90% means >85% and <95%.

That is the only reasonable interpretation of the paragraph below.


"One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p<=0.0001)."
sam adams
Member
Thu Nov 26 10:37:17
The reasonable interpretation is that you, and whatever pr functionary wrote that, are bad at math.
sam adams
Member
Thu Nov 26 10:42:20
Obviously, from that sample size, you dont get even +-5% precision attached to 90%. Bad at math you are.


"On the other hand, the Pfizer and Moderna trials did not check to see if asymptomatic recipients were infected"

Even if this was true, it would apply to both control and test cases, cancelling. Seb=bad math.
sam adams
Member
Thu Nov 26 11:55:01
Lol @ seb:

http://kom...HjD35ffeXa5AJEZRppG-cXETHjdGSA

Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.

Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 26 18:27:42
Sam:

The precision depends entirely on the control group size and incidence of infection in the control group, and incidence of infection in the experiment group.

The information released dose not provide that.

However, it does state a P value, which implies they have done their work.

If you agree that they are unlikely to be lying, and unlikely to have made a mistake; there is no mathematical basis on the information available to hold your opinion.

In other words, you are confused: you do think they are lying or they have made a mistake, based on your assumptions about the control group infection rates. Which are unevidenced as it stands.

"Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people"

And yet they explicitly stated the reverse. And if the low first dose group does not contain over 55 year olds, that finding can only have come from the other group.

Which tends to suggest this explanation isn't supported by the evidence.

Seb
Member
Thu Nov 26 18:28:02
LOL Sam, can't do basic logic. Too emotional.

Seb
Member
Thu Nov 26 18:29:49
Sam:

"Obviously, from that sample size, you dont get even +-5% precision attached to 90%. Bad at math you are."

Prove it. Show, with the available data, that this is not possible. It's simple enough to do - a bit of applied algebra that can easily be expressed in ASCII. Show what the best possible precision is.

Put up, or shut up.
sam adams
Member
Thu Nov 26 23:56:02
As you struggle with the difference between mean and median, the math of the binomial distribution is beyond you.

Here is a simple calculator. http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Even plugging the right numbers into that calculator is likely a task beyond your ability, but you can try.

At any rate, asuming a general population infection rate(defined as fraction of population with covid during the period of the study) of 0.007(matching moderna values) gives 0.0001 confidence bounds of between 55% and 100%, for a measured 90% improvement vs placebo in 2700 cases, vastly different from the 85-95% you claim.

In order to achieve 85%-95% confidence bounds at the 0.0001 level, you would need a to have the astrazenaca infection rate be about 18 times higher than the moderna study.

This doesnt even consider the wrong age distribution which AstraZeneca used for the 90% value, further invalidating the original claim.

Gg seb
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 27 00:57:39
In order to achieve 85%-95%, confidence bounds at the

Use commas to avoid word salad.

You do realize that rawr USA 94.5% suffers from exactly the same problem, right?

Its like I said, the fucking press release quality data is worthless for anything other than inflating stock prices.

We are prolly looking at better than 50%, so will get approval, which for the case of the USA, means 40%*50% = 80 million naturally infected for herd immunity.

The 40% is the number actually willing to take a vaccine.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 12:23:07
"You do realize that rawr USA 94.5% suffers from exactly the same problem, right?"

a little. The "94.5" figure is much more robust, coming from a larger sample size without the mistakes made by our incompetent british friends.

That said, 94.5 is obviously too precise. 90-98% sounds better.

Seb
Member
Fri Nov 27 12:52:18
Sam:

You are assuming the infection rate.

As I said, you are assuming Oxford and AstraZenica are either lying or mistaken.

More reasonable to assume the infection rate is different to what you believe it to be; which is entirely possible as the trials were done in different countries and there is no reason to believe the disease prevalence was the same.

Seb
Member
Fri Nov 27 13:17:12
Anyway, the results are to be published so we will see shortly.

But I do find it funny how you complain others "ignore data they don't like", deny you are assuming that Oxford/AZ team are lying or made a mistake; then make explicit you are choosing an infection rate to give you the results you want.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 14:55:06
"You are assuming the infection rate."

Obviously. Moderna provided a much more complete result set. Thus i am using that as a proxy, as that is the best available data. Why didnt AstraZeneca provide as good of a dataset?

Now it is obvious there are some major red flags with the brits, likely incompetence, perhaps even malfeasance. They fucked up their study and accidently gave the wrong dosage. They tried to then weasle that subset into looking better, but the sample size is too small and it didnt include anyone over 55... so that 90% figure is highly suspect. If AstraZeneca/oxford is trying to claim that 90% has any sort of confidence approaching p=0.0001, it is a lie so profound it should disqualify those outfits permanently, and should probably come with criminal/fraud charges from the relevant stock market regulatory bodies.

Bottom line... as expected, the british effort is inferior.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 15:00:06
Perhaps they meant p=0.0001 refers to passing the minimum threshold for vaccine acceptance, which appears to be correct even accounting for their dosage fuckup.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 15:09:36
Its bad enough though that AstraZeneca may be required to start over with a new trial.

"AstraZeneca is likely to run a new global trial of its Covid-19 vaccine candidate, according to CEO Pascal Soriot. He told Bloomberg News that the drugmaker may launch a fresh study testing the vaccine at a lower dosage, rather than adding a test of the lower dosage to an ongoing U.S. trial. The shares fell 1.6% in premarket trading as of 7:36 a.m. ET."

Lol@seb.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 15:27:34
More data will be needed from AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine trials to determine the drug's safety and efficacy following concerns from experts in the U.S., scientists from the University of Oxford and the World Health Organization said on Friday.

Latest news from oxford itself.

Lol. Poor seb.
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 27 15:37:20
Sam:

"Obviously"

Which means you are asserting that - in publishing their conclusions, which you assert to be impossible on the basis of your assumption, that Oxford and AZ are either lying or mistaken. Something you previously denied.

"Moderna provided a much more complete result set."

The article and data are set for publication in the next couple of weeks in the Lancet.

"it is a lie "

""I don't think AZ and Oxford are lying / misrepresenting the P vlaues"

No... but you are."

See - all over the place.

First it was a lie when I quoted the P <=0.0001. Then when I pointed out that was a direct quote, and that it was unlikely Oxford and AZ were lying, you agreed, and said I was misrepresenting their findings.

Then you invoked a made up infection rate based on a study conducted in an entirely different country.

Now you are back to the idea that they are lying.

Then you revert back to the idea that they are misrepresenting the findings somehow and that "all results" doesn't refer to efficacy, but minimum threshold.

You've changed your position at least three times, with no new evidence presented.

Doesn't really speak to a well thought out position - and really all entirely hinges on your biases and prejudices against British people (i.e. what you want to believe), and picking an infection rate that has no obvious reason to apply to an entirely different population in a different country.

One of the reasons AZ chose Brazil was to find somewhere where the infection rate would be high enough to rapidly provide the necessary confidence levels.

Given the clinicians giving the doses are unlikely to be British people, much less the people performing statistical analysis, your argument that the procedural error resulting in the half dose group undermines the quality of the statistics is facile at best.

We shall see what gets published.

The quote you publish tends to suggest AZ are confident regarding the half dose. An entire new medical trial is an expensive undertaking and would not be contemplated if they thought the 90% figure was a statistical fluke.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 16:30:50
"
Now you are back to the idea that they are lying."

New data came out. AstraZeneca was lieing.

Imagine being this retarded. The numbers dont add up. Theres a laundry list of terrible news for AstraZeneca across all the financial sites today and yesterday, even oxford itself admits their data is iffy. Regulators may not certify this vaccine at all now. The news is so bad that not only is AstraZeneca stock down, the stocks of other companies that benefit from vaccines are also down.

Seb, in his supreme ignorance, still somehow defends this.

sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 16:38:37
"One of the reasons AZ chose Brazil was to find somewhere where the infection rate would be high enough to rapidly provide the necessary confidence levels."

The half-dose mistake portion of the trial was not in brazil.

Pwnd.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 16:44:57
Perhaps, instead of aurguing a failed position... you should actually... you know... read the news from the last 24 hours.
Seb
Member
Fri Nov 27 18:11:40
Sam:

"New data came out. AstraZeneca was lieing."

What new data has been published Sam? And it wasn't available when you made your first claim either. Busking again.

We will see when the results are published I guess. And we will probably also see the results from vaccine roll out. I imagine they will be going with the half doses in any cases as it improves supply.
sam adams
Member
Fri Nov 27 18:52:23
"What new data has been published Sam?"

That the partial dose was both accidental and only given to young people. That last point especially was a very convenient omission from their press release.

Seriously. Read the avalance of bad AstraZeneca news today and stop being so ignorant.
patom
Member
Sat Nov 28 05:03:23
The Vaccine should be tested on the politicians first. If they survive the vaccine is safe. If they don't the country is safe.
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 28 07:38:33
The sub group being accidental was released on the same day.

The age group info came a couple of days ago.

However not relevant as the main group supposedly showed equal effectiveness across all groups. If more effective in younger groups, you'd have seen that in the other group too. So they'd have to be explicitly lying again

The only data that matters is what the infection rate was in the control and half dose group.


sam adams
Member
Mon Nov 30 10:35:18
"The only data that matters is what the infection rate was in the control and half dose group."

Wrong. What a retarded thing to say.

sam adams
Member
Mon Nov 30 11:14:45
Anyway... moderna(the best vaccine so far) submits their application.

Sign me up. Who do i have to bribe to get to the front of the line?
Dakyron
Member
Mon Nov 30 13:23:00
Probably Trump. Good luck, although stoking his ego, telling him you voted for him, and talking shit about CNN/McCain/Pelosi probably gets it done.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 30 14:19:35
Stop Moderna now!

"Lin Wood
@LLinWood

Not so sure Bill Gates will get Emergency Approval for Moderna.

Moderna is Gates vaccine. Gates urges depopulation theory (smaller servant class ruled by & service elite).

1+1 = 2.

I will NEVER take Moderna or ANY Gates vaccine.

I will rely on immune system created by God."

http://mob...ood/status/1333450428240039938
Hrothgar
Member
Mon Nov 30 14:41:01
Can I just get a dose of all 3? What could go wrong??
Paramount
Member
Mon Nov 30 14:52:16
I would rather take AstraZenecas vaccine. It is Swedish/British. I think they are better.
sam adams
Member
Tue Dec 01 10:41:15
"I will rely on immune system created by God."


"I would rather take AstraZenecas vaccine. It is Swedish/British. I think they are better."


Which statement is dumber?
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 01 10:53:12
Well, God's immune system seems to prevent infections at somewhere below 60%(% chance an exposed person gets COVID), probably less since she is almost 70 years old. Astra-Zeneca is 62% to 70%, something like that.

So relying on God seems to be the dumber choice, although this is discounting the cost, possible side effects, etc... of AZ.
sam adams
Member
Wed Dec 02 10:07:55
UK authorizes pfizer vaccine to be used.

Remember to thank your anerican saviours, again, seb.
Rugian
Member
Wed Dec 02 10:09:12
Lmao
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 12:43:15
4m doses of Pfizer
100m doses of AZ.

Being first doesn't a saviour make.

Also, the credit goes to the brains of the operation: those Turkish immigrants in Germany.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 12:44:23
*40m

Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 12:45:04
So at 25% wastage that's enough for 14m people in a population of 66m.
sam adams
Member
Wed Dec 02 13:16:29
As long as you recognize your place. No brits have contributed to a good vaccine i see.

Also, it is very unsurprising, to see seb the socialist settle for quantity over quality.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 13:38:52
There are 66m.

Vaccinating 14m people is called failure, Sam. I know you love to redefine it.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 13:40:49
Also, the evidence so far suggests AZ suppresses transmission, which Pfizer and Moderna appear not to.

If the goal is to eliminate the virus, rather than keep it low risk but circulating and evolving, AZ is the better option among the under 65s who don't have clinical risk factors.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Dec 02 13:42:56
A much larger quantity of doses at 60-70% is just fine. Keep in mind that 60-70% efficacy across all age groups was being optimistic for any of these vaccines before initial numbers started rolling in.

Inoculating large swaths of a population with 60-70% efficacy will be extremely helpful to that population. It basically ends most of the concern and allows economic recovery to really begin with only mild restrictions and localized controls over hotspots.
obaminated
Member
Wed Dec 02 14:14:04
seb, you have stood on this hill regarding socialist UK being better at combating covid than free society america. you have been defeated. accept it.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Dec 02 15:24:08
"Inoculating large swaths of a population with 60-70% efficacy will be extremely helpful to that population."

True. But I prefer 95% personally. Seb's socialist plebs can take the cheap, inferior shit.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Dec 02 15:30:18
Keep in mind, 62% is very poor for a first wave of vaccinations. The people given it will still be exposed to full community spread and will barely get over 50/50 protection themselves. Thats almost as useless as an avalanche beacon. The changes in behavior it causes will almost negate all the the benefit, until the entire society gets it.

Whereas 95%... 20 times less likely to get it. That will protect the bearer in its own right, regardless of the society. Thats WAAAAYYY fucking better.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 02 15:34:32
Obaminated:

Jesus Christ, you haven't even approved the vaccine for use in the US yet! It's likely we will get it into people's arms before you do.

Sam:
Transmission is more important. You only need a spike protein mutation and your 95% vaccine becomes useless.
obaminated
Member
Wed Dec 02 15:42:26
remember when seb was convinced his cuntry beat covid only for numbers to come out that showed his country, by capita got sick and died more than the US?
sam adams
Member
Thu Dec 03 09:57:00
Seb said the uk could control covid with just track and trace. Lol.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 03 09:58:21
"cuntry"
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 03 09:58:40
Nice!
obaminated
Member
Thu Dec 03 10:03:40
I appreciate that soviet jergul got my joke.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 10:12:02
Hospital hubs looks to have landed without major hitches. Data seems to be following nicely so far with no major fuckups.

Not bad considering this was all scribbles on a white board and a few power point vapourware a few months back.



The Children
Member
Tue Dec 08 11:24:25
superior chinese vaccin.

chuck
Member
Tue Dec 08 12:08:43
"my joke"

obaminated is Shooter Jennings confirmed?
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 14:58:14
Not to be insensitive here, but why the fuck are we giving a limited amount of a vaccine that prevents a potentially deadly illness to some 90 year old who is going to die in the next few years anyway!?!?

Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:00:25
90 FUCKING YEARS OLD and we are giving her the vaccine first?

What the fuck is wrong with the world?
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:32:31
dEaTh pAnElS!!!
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:33:29
If we stopped providing healthcare to 90 year olds, life expectancy would drop.

And then you'd say "why give healthcare to 80 year olds, they will die in a few years" etc etc
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:34:24
Vaccine goes to highest risk groups first as we roll out across the entire country so as to minimise deaths.

Duh.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:36:57
"Vaccine goes to highest risk groups first as we roll out across the entire country so as to minimise deaths. "

No. Give it to the most important workers first. Healthcare workers, first-responders, teachers, military, lawmakers.

Second would be working age citizens. Third would be the retirees. Last would be children since they are mostly immune to the disease.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:38:25
If you went the analytical router, then you go with average expected # of years left to live correlated with virus risk and vaccinate those people first.

Either way the wheelchair bound 90 year old is not first in line.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Dec 08 15:40:56
Honestly the first doses should go to the people who where in the placebo groups. They took a risk for humanity.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:55:10
Dakyron:

Healthcare workers are in the same priority cohort group.

Military, teachers etc. are not at as high risk.

Google "green book on immunisation, chapter 14a" and you'll get the priority groups and reasoning. Also JCVI guidance for covid.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 15:56:40
"Military, teachers etc. are not at as high risk. "

Higher than average and far more important that the 90 year old in a wheelchair who could literally die at any moment of natural causes.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 16:42:32
Dakyron:

Military are by definition individuals you place at risk to protect the population. This is why, for example, we don't use 90 year olds to clear minefields for the infantry.

But they are also at far less risk,they are younger and lack comorbities. So there's very little return on vaccinating them. Vaccinating a soldier costs as much as vaccinating a 90 year old, but in terms of potential death averted is much lower.

You really need to stop with your whole rhetoric of the old being worthless and expendable. It's sounding increasingly unhinged.

Seb
Member
Tue Dec 08 16:45:03
Its also logically inconsistent.

A few weeks ago you were arguing that only the old were at risk, note you are arguing that its more important to inject young fit soldiers and leaving the one group you accepted faced a real risk.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Dec 08 18:16:56
Who is spreading the virus? The old nursing home patient or the young people, military included working and going out every day?

90 year olds in wheelchairs are worthless.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 08 18:46:46
Daky
Part of it is about lowering covids high score.

Ethically, you could probably design a regime that maximizes life years saved, but that would still see 90 year olds getting priority.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 09 01:18:48
Jergul:

That's exactly what the ordering does I think. But it's also practical i.e. it doesn't try to create a single rush stratification that would need to be calculated.

Dakyron:
Everyone will get the vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine doesn't stop transmission, but does prevent onset of symptoms.

Anyway, I've pointed you to the place to find the reasoning and detail.

If you are convinced you can halfvarse it yourself better, that's fine. Next you can move on to explain to me how jets would work better if the wings had feathers. That's another highly technical job you may think you can do better.



Seb
Member
Wed Dec 09 01:31:02
70+ year olds IFR for covid is as high a 14% - do I'm going to use that figure as we are talking 90 year olds. For someone under 45s with no comorbities it's 0.05%.

So even if you only save 1 year of the 90 year olds life, once risk adjusted you'd need to save hundreds of years of life for each under 40 year old to equalise.

For 45-65, it's 0.5, so you'd need to save about 30 years for each year of life for the over 70s.

You could make a case for starting somewhere around 50, jumping to 90, then moving down - but when you get into the fine grain of it, that's operationally extremely complex for no real QALY gain.

Just do it in order of decreasing age; with health and social care workers thrown in; and treat those with comorbities as a separate cohort and slot them in where the IFR suggests. Hence we have two risk groups that slot in with the 70yo and 60yo groups

show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share