General COVID-19 Topic

[dennyjones]

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

[StuM]

19 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Other countries have returned to some form of normalcy because they all bought into the effort and saw it through to the goal.

That is not entirely accurate.  See below

Europe faces COVID 3rd wave and new lockdowns amid vaccine shortage

---

Suspensions of the most readily available vaccine, along with new variants spreading fast and Europeans letting their guard down, are all prolonging the agony in Europe.

 

18 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

Yup, definitely going the wrong way.  The recent increases really look to track closely with the improved weather and perceived "COVID Fatigue".  Vaccinations are available, just need time for more to get vaccinated.  I've had my 1st shot, 2nd is on April 16th.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Billy Z said:

While I agree with a lot of points in your post, and this is only a small portion of that post, but I am guessing this may not be an appropriate part of that post. It is hedging on politics.

Please let moderators moderate.

[Billy Z]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Please let moderators moderate.

Sorry, thanks for the info!

[iacas]

AstraZeneca used ‘outdated and potentially misleading data’ that overstated the effectiveness of its vaccine, independent panel says - The Washington Post

---

The company and Oxford University had announced Monday that a clinical trial in the United States, Chile and Peru showed 79 percent efficacy.

In an extraordinary turn of events, an independent panel that safeguards the integrity of clinical trials wrote to AstraZeneca and U.S. government officials late Monday expressing concern and disappointment that the drugmaker presented “outdated and potentially misleading” data on its coronavirus vaccine making the shots appear more effective than shown by fuller data.

The letter, from 11 leading statisticians, infectious-disease physicians and ethics experts appointed by the National Institutes of Health to review the trial data for all the major coronavirus vaccines supported by the federal government, says the company’s decision puts the vaccine in the most favorable light — a grave scientific misstep that could erode trust in the vaccine.

The letter is a rare window into the typically confidential interactions between a company and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that polices the integrity of the data.

“The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. “The point that is clear to the board is that the [vaccine efficacy number] . . . they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had “strongly recommended” that information should be included in the news release.

Federal officials were taken aback by the letter from the board. One said the AstraZeneca results were the equivalent of “telling your mother you got an A in a course, when you got an A in the first quiz but a C in the overall course.” Another said the disclosure by the board would inevitably hurt the company’s credibility with U.S. regulators.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the issue.

Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that he was “shocked” by the letter and the serious concerns it brought to light. On Monday, before receiving news of the letter, Fauci had said “numbers don’t lie” and that the vaccine looked good.

“The irony of this is that it’s very likely a very good vaccine, and this sort of thing does nothing but cloud the picture. I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. “I think it reflects on how the data has rolled out.”

[Billy Z]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

AstraZeneca used ‘outdated and potentially misleading data’ that overstated the effectiveness of its vaccine, independent panel says - The Washington Post

---

The company and Oxford University had announced Monday that a clinical trial in the United States, Chile and Peru showed 79 percent efficacy.

The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had “strongly recommended” that information should be included in the news release.

I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. “I think it reflects on how the data has rolled out.”

I don't really care for Fauci, or his assessment here: I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. Really? The vaccine is portrayed as 79% effective but really is only 69-74% effective?

[Braivo]

13 hours ago, dennyjones said:

Michigan reported 3,579 new cases of Covid-19 yesterday, 3/23/2021.    

Michigan Covid surge raises fears it’s an early sign of things to come across US | Michigan | The Guardian

---

State recorded nearly 17,000 new cases last week as numbers underscore the need for a speedier vaccine rollout, experts say

Quote

The data on who is being vaccinated may offer some clues as to why hospitalizations are up despite the rollout. While about 25% of the state’s population has received a first dose, only 15% of Detroit residents have. The city’s residents on the whole suffer from a higher rate of underlying health issues that are often behind the more serious cases.

I am hearing there's a lot of skepticism about the vaccine in the city of Detroit. 

What this article says echoes @iacas stance that we can't Leon Lett this. Seems the most important metric right now is shots in arms. 

Quote

Outside of reinstating stricter orders and renewed vigilance, the only measure that can slow the new surge is boosting the number of vaccinations, Chopra said. She expects that the state will have vaccinated about 70-80% of the population by July, at which time “we can slowly phase out restrictions”.

 

[ChetlovesMer]

24 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What this article says echoes @iacas stance that we can't Leon Lett this. Seems the most important metric right now is shots in arms. 

Yeah, I agree with you and @iacas. Although, I might ask if we could just wear our masks a little bit longer? At least until the majority have been vaccinated?

My in-laws told me that where they live the folks that have been vaccinated (about 20% of the population) have stopped wearing their masks for the last few weeks. There have been all kinds of complaints about "Why should we all wear masks when they aren't?" Wal-mart and other places in their neck of the woods have been unable to enforce their masks policies so THEY DROPPED THEM.

Yeah, Wal-mart down by them literally said "F**k it, we can't figure out who's been vaccinated and who hasn't so we'll just drop our mask policy." They even took down the sign on their door. Where they live Wal-Mart is kind of the big fish in their small pond. So, now all the other places have followed suit. Because they had to deal with "We don't have to wear masks in Wal-Mart, why do we have to wear them here?" 

So, where they live is now a totally mask free zone. All I can think about is Leon Lett.  

[StuM]

39 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I am hearing there's a lot of skepticism about the vaccine in the city of Detroit. 

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

[DaveP043]

10 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I don't really care for Fauci, or his assessment here: I don’t think it reflects on the vaccine,” Fauci said. Really? The vaccine is portrayed as 79% effective but really is only 69-74% effective?

Yes and no.  If I remember correctly, 9 months ago the conventional wisdom was that a vaccine that was 70% effective would be considered highly effective, a near-miracle if developed reasonably quickly.  This one fits that requirement, using the "better" (less efficacious) data.  But over-ambitious claims in press releases DO reflect on the company, which in turn reflects on the vaccine and public confidence in it.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

70% is still highly effective. Plus it’s if exposed to the virus to begin with. More vaccinations of any type reduce the odds of that happening for everyone.

[Braivo]

29 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

It reduces the chance of death to ZERO. All of the vaccines do. The JNJ leaves a little more chance for you to still get sick (mild in most cases), but it works. And it only requires one dose, which might help with compliance. No reason to shy away from the JNJ. 

How Effective Is the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine? Here’s What You Should Know

---

We asked UCSF infectious disease expert Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, to unpack some of the big questions around vaccine science, such as how the Johnson & Johnson vaccine differs, how well it works against the new...

Quote

In the J&J trial, the placebo group had 16 hospitalizations and seven deaths from COVID-19, whereas the vaccine group had none, which means the vaccine provided 100 percent efficacy against hospitalizations and deaths.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Braivo

[billchao]

34 minutes ago, StuM said:

I think the concern with the vaccine in Detroit was the Mayor said he wants the "Good" vaccines, not the JNJ that is less effective.  I personally agree with him.  Why would I want a vaccine that is less than 70% effective (JNJ) vs either Pfizer or Moderna that are roughly 95% effective?   I understand there may be justification for the JNJ lower rate (timing of trial and impact of mutated strains) but I am going with the 95% regime.

As I understand it, the trials were conducted differently. You can’t compare the numbers the way people are generally doing.

[The Flush]

 

[Braivo]

Great video share @The Flush

I highly recommend watching it all the way through. All three vaccines are 100% effective against hospitalization and death. Get one. Any one. 

[iacas]

Those efficacy numbers may drop as variants grow in number.

No Leon Letting.

[StuM]

1 hour ago, The Flush said:

 

Great information, Not sure why but I can't give it a "Reaction" but it is very informative.

[Elmer]

Thought this was funny!
I had to teach my  wife and kids about Leon Lett!!!