***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***

[JakeF]

A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana

Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.

Originally Posted by Dartgod

People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.

California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.

“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”

The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.

The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”

Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.

The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.

The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.

A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.

Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.

“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”

It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.

“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”

On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.

“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”

According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.

More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.

But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.

“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”

CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.

Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.

“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”

[TLO]

Meanwhile.. In Russia

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

For me it's not brand, it has to do with the type/technology. The stuff I've read is that the AZ vaccine is about 75% but has pretty much zero in terms of side effects/risks because it's a well-used technology. I'm just not willing to be a "beta tester" for mRNA, even though "alpha testing" has been positive.

Yeah, that's where I was initially. I had a gut preference to use the more established technique. But the difference in effectiveness seems pretty large. If we use the lower figure of 62 percent, that's basically lowering your vulnerability by a coin flip, which means that we're relying on most people getting the vaccine as our main line of defense. If we believe the talk, there seems to be a lot of people who are willing to undermine that. I want more than a coin flip protecting me if other people won't help.

75 percent is notably better than 62 percent in that regard, but I'd still rather have 95 percent so I can confidently go back into restaurants where spittle is flying and movie theaters where the laughter bathes me in popcorn microparticles.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Yeah, that's where I was initially. I had a gut preference to use the more established technique. But the difference in effectiveness seems pretty large. If we use the lower figure of 62 percent, that's basically lowering your vulnerability by a coin flip, which means that we're relying on most people getting the vaccine as our main line of defense. If we believe the talk, there seems to be a lot of people who are willing to undermine that. I want more than a coin flip protecting me if other people won't help.

75 percent is notably better than 62 percent in that regard, but I'd still rather have 95 percent so I can confidently go back into restaurants where spittle is flying and movie theaters where the laughter bathes me in popcorn microparticles.

What do the percentages mean? If you get the "62%" vaccine, does it mean that yeah, you could still get it, but symptoms would be much more mild?

[TLO]

Originally Posted by wazu

What do the percentages mean? If you get the "62%" vaccine, does it mean that yeah, you could still get it, but symptoms would be much more mild?

Or you perhaps wouldn't be infected whatsoever. And potentially not be able to spread it to others.

[TLO]

People with a "significant history of allergic reactions" should not be given the Pfizer/BioNTech...

Posted: Dec 9, 2020 10:59 AM
Updated: Dec 9, 2020 11:00 AM
Posted By: CNN
People with a 'significant history of allergic reactions' should not be given the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, UK health authorities said Wednesday, after two health care workers experienced symptoms after receiving a shot the day before.

The precautionary advice was given after the pair 'responded adversely' following their shots on the first day of the mass vaccination rollout in the UK, National Health Service England said Wednesday.

The two staff members -- who both carried an adrenaline auto injector and had a history of allergic reactions -- developed symptoms of anaphylactoid reaction after receiving the vaccine on Tuesday. Thousands overall were vaccinated in the UK on Tuesday, NHS England told CNN on Wednesday.

'As is common with new vaccines the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,' said Stephen Powis, the national medical director for NHS England, in a statement. 'Both are recovering well.'

The MHRA issued new advice to health care professionals stating that any person with a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food -- such as previous history of anaphylactoid reaction, or those who have been advised to carry an adrenaline autoinjector -- should not receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine.

The advice also states that vaccines 'should only be carried out in facilities where resuscitation measures are available.'

'We are fully investigating the two reports that have been reported to us as a matter of priority,' an MHRA spokesperson said.

'Once all the information has been reviewed we will communicate updated advice,' the spokesperson added.

They advised anyone with a history of a significant allergic reaction due to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to speak to the health care professional administering the vaccine.

Pfizer said in a statement that it had been advised by the UK regulator of 'two yellow card reports that may be associated with allergic reaction' due to administration of the vaccine.

'As a precautionary measure, the MHRA has issued temporary guidance to the NHS while it conducts an investigation in order to fully understand each case and its causes. Pfizer and BioNTech are supporting the MHRA in the investigation,' the statement said.

'In the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, this vaccine was generally well tolerated with no serious safety concerns reported by the independent Data Monitoring Committee. The trial has enrolled over 44,000 participants to date, over 42,000 of whom have received a second vaccination.'

Documents released on Tuesday by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the Pfizer/BioNTech trial data indicated that there were potentially slightly more adverse responses thought to be allergic reactions among the vaccine group compared with the placebo group, at 0.63% compared with 0.51%.

Pfizer's trial protocol shows that people with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) 'to any component of the study intervention' were not able to take part.

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told the UK's Science Media Centre that the increase was only 'small' but said there was 'a lot of uncertainty around that estimate.'

He said that 'some people won't know if they have hypersensitivity to some constituents of the vaccine.'

He backed the MHRA advice for people who carry an EpiPen to delay having a vaccination until the reason for the allergic reaction has been clarified. But he said the news did not mean the general public should be anxious.

Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, said: 'As with all food and medications, there is a very small chance of an allergic reaction to any vaccine.

'The fact that we know so soon about these two allergic reactions and that the regulator has acted on this to issue precautionary advice shows that this monitoring system is working well.'

Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit told CNN that allergic reactions to vaccines were not uncommon: 'Certainly, vaccines can cause severe allergic reactions. In the United States, roughly one of every 1.4 million doses of vaccines is complicated by a severe allergic reaction.'

He said that rather than a 'blanket recommendation' for people with allergies, 'the smarter thing to do would be to try and look at these two patients and see what specific component of the vaccine they were allergic to.'

Offit said people should realize that there are immediate treatments for allergic reaction. 'That's why you're hanging out in the doctor's office,' he said, before warning that the reports of allergic reactions 'will only serve as yet another way to scare people.'

Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, told Sky News on Sunday that the authorization and approval process for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine 'has been incredibly robust.' The head of Britain's medicines regulator also put out assurances on Sunday, saying the Pfizer/BioNTech shot was 'as safe as any general vaccine.'

US drug giant Pfizer and German company BioNTech have said there are 'no serious safety concerns' over the vaccine.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention typically advises telling a provider if you have 'any severe, life-threatening allergies' before taking any vaccine.

Allergies are also a consideration with other Covid-19 vaccines that have not yet been approved.

During Chinese company Sinovac's Phase 2 trial, one volunteer in the high dose group had a severe allergic reaction within 48 hours of the first dose, which researchers said may be related to the vaccine. The volunteer was treated for the reaction and recovered within three days. The same volunteer did not have a similar allergic reaction to the second shot.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

For me it's not brand, it has to do with the type/technology. The stuff I've read is that the AZ vaccine is about 75% but has pretty much zero in terms of side effects/risks because it's a well-used technology. I'm just not willing to be a "beta tester" for mRNA, even though "alpha testing" has been positive.

The AZ intended trial of two doses came in around 60% effective. They (somehow?) ****ed up the trial and only gave a minority of the trial a half dose in one of the shots. Somehow, that group came in w/ 90% efficacy. For their press release they smushed them together into 70-something. That doesn't seem like a real thing as you've got to do one or the other.

I've been wondering, is there precedent in vaccines for getting a smaller dosage actually being far more effective? The 1.5x dose group was 50% more effective which seems counter intuitive to me but maybe there is a history of it.

[RunKC]

So after the day of this being administered for the first time, we hear of problems? And people wonder why folks are uneasy about this without further data and time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/healt...DHhEiX4i_7R_Bs

[BigBeauford]

Originally Posted by RunKC

So after the day of this being administered for the first time, we hear of problems? And people wonder why folks are uneasy about this without further data and time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/healt...DHhEiX4i_7R_Bs

Thats true for a shit ton of vaccines. This isn't unique.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by wazu

What do the percentages mean? If you get the "62%" vaccine, does it mean that yeah, you could still get it, but symptoms would be much more mild?

I'm sure someone else has a more informed explanation, but the way I've been thinking of it, that's the likelihood that the virus is unsuccessful in breaching the walls of my defenses to infect me in the first place if I'm exposed to it. So with AstraZeneca, if some unclean person breathes on me I've got a 38 percent change of getting sick and with Moderna and Pfizer I've got a 5 percent chance of getting sick.

The AstraZeneca would still be very effective at preventing an unclean person from breathing on me as long as everyone gets vaccinated. But we all know that concern so I'm going to assume that if I'm out and about I'll eventually run into non-vaccinated people who are carrying the virus. So I want to make my personal defenses as strong as possible.

I'm not sure how the vaccines might make the illness less serious if it does breach my personal defenses. I remember reading that no one who got the Moderna virus got seriously ill, but I haven't read about the results of the other two vaccines.

So right now, my thinking is that Moderna seems to give me the strongest possible personal shield (better than AstraZeneca) with fewer side effects (better than Pfizer) and an initial finding that zero people in their trial got seriously ill in the few cases where the vaccine didn't mount a successful defense (though this is based on a small sample of people whose vaccine didn't win the initial battle).

My conclusions may change as more data come available, of course. And we may not have a choice at all, in which case they're all far better than nothing. But right now I'm wondering if I can tip my doctor well to get the Moderna.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RunKC

So after the day of this being administered for the first time, we hear of problems? And people wonder why folks are uneasy about this without further data and time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/healt...DHhEiX4i_7R_Bs

This isn’t being administered for the first time. It’s been widely tested.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by RunKC

So after the day of this being administered for the first time, we hear of problems? And people wonder why folks are uneasy about this without further data and time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/healt...DHhEiX4i_7R_Bs

.

Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit told CNN that allergic reactions to vaccines were not uncommon: 'Certainly, vaccines can cause severe allergic reactions. In the United States, roughly one of every 1.4 million doses of vaccines is complicated by a severe allergic reaction.'

He said that rather than a 'blanket recommendation' for people with allergies, 'the smarter thing to do would be to try and look at these two patients and see what specific component of the vaccine they were allergic to.'

Offit said people should realize that there are immediate treatments for allergic reaction. 'That's why you're hanging out in the doctor's office,' he said, before warning that the reports of allergic reactions 'will only serve as yet another way to scare people.'

[louie aguiar]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Yeah, that's where I was initially. I had a gut preference to use the more established technique. But the difference in effectiveness seems pretty large. If we use the lower figure of 62 percent, that's basically lowering your vulnerability by a coin flip, which means that we're relying on most people getting the vaccine as our main line of defense. If we believe the talk, there seems to be a lot of people who are willing to undermine that. I want more than a coin flip protecting me if other people won't help.

75 percent is notably better than 62 percent in that regard, but I'd still rather have 95 percent so I can confidently go back into restaurants where spittle is flying and movie theaters where the laughter bathes me in popcorn microparticles.

I don't think the Oxford/AZ vaccine is a traditional, established vaccine either. From what I've read, it's an adenoviral vector vaccine which has yet to yield an effective vaccine for humans.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by RunKC

So after the day of this being administered for the first time, we hear of problems? And people wonder why folks are uneasy about this without further data and time.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/healt...DHhEiX4i_7R_Bs

It was expected and would have been actually more suspicious if it didn't have any reactions.

[Warrick]

Originally Posted by TLO

Or you perhaps wouldn't be infected whatsoever. And potentially not be able to spread it to others.

False, you can still infect others through cross contamination.

[petegz28]

Gov. of Mass reinstating some restrictions. He even stated that a lot of it was to "limit mobility". Se we are seeing a concerted effort to restrict or shut places down not because the science says "this is where the spread is starting" but to keep people in their homes which ironically is the biggest cause of spread. Gatherings in the home that is.