Jump to content

~*Official #COVID-19 Thread of Doom*~ Revenge of Omicron Prime


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

So...AstraZeneca may be more effective than the mRNA vaccines in real world use?

 

 

Edit - Obviously both are equally effective at the stat that matters: severe cases. But real-world data does seem to support the idea that the trials were so different that the results can't really be compared, and they are all about equally effective.

 

Efficacy in terms of what? Preventing you from getting it at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I edited my post, but my point is that they are likely equally effective after one or two doses. The only reason the trial results were so different is because they were done in wildly different conditions, including against different strains.

 

After two doses AZ is stronger than one, and is actually even stronger the longer the gap between doses.

 

My point is that they are all great, and the trial numbers thrown around are almost meaningless.

 

I would buy this logic if the AZ numbers in the American trials were different than the original trial, but they weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

I'm still willing to wager the mRNA vaccines will turn out to be the best when everything shakes out.


They will likely have no difference long term. Short term efficacy is the only difference, if there is any. mRNA is better tech not due to efficacy, but the ability to rapidly develop new or updated vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I'm seeing based current average number of daily vaccines, by May nearly one-third of the US population will be fully vaccinated, and could possibly reach half being partially vaccinated.

 

I'm curious to see when herd immunity starts to kick in, or at least hospitalizations start to significantly decrease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


They will likely have no difference long term. Short term efficacy is the only difference, if there is any. mRNA is better tech not due to efficacy, but the ability to rapidly develop new or updated vaccines.

mRNA doesn't have the issue with some people's immune system killing off the virus delivery system reducing its effectiveness. The mRNA delivery system is just way more reliable and produces more proteins to get a stronger immune response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

mRNA doesn't have the issue with some people's immune system killing off the virus delivery system reducing its effectiveness. The mRNA delivery system is just way more reliable and produces more proteins to get a stronger immune response. 


Which only will matter in the early stages of vaccination when there are still a lot of people around you infected. The larger the percentage of immunity within the less individual effectiveness will be challenged. That’s why it’s way more important to get any vaccine than the “best” vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife's parents are eligible for AZ right now in Mexico and they were seriously considering flying out to Phoenix to get an mRNA vaccine instead (apparently people in Sonora are doing this lol). I told her that they had a greater chance of dying on the trip to Phoenix than from dying from a blood clot due to the AZ vaccine. They are now staying put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


Which only will matter in the early stages of vaccination when there are still a lot of people around you infected. The larger the percentage of immunity within the less individual effectiveness will be challenged. That’s why it’s way more important to get any vaccine than the “best” vaccine.

Oh yeah when it comes too general vaccination any is good. I'm just saying mRNA is truly next gen technology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joe said:

My wife's parents are eligible for AZ right now in Mexico and they were seriously considering flying out to Phoenix to get an mRNA vaccine instead (apparently people in Sonora are doing this lol). I told her that they had a greater chance of dying on the trip to Phoenix than from dying from a blood clot due to the AZ vaccine. They are now staying put.

 

If you don't have access to any vaccine then maybe it's worth the risk (but I'd still just stay put until I'm eligible, unless it was feasible to drive instead of fly), but flying just for a different vaccine is pretty big-brained. A couple of hours in the airport each way, several hours on the plane each way...yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I really wish we could fine them all.

 

 

 

 

I guess "Bring out your old and infirm so that we might gain strength by sapping the last of their life essense" wasn't snappy enough to fit into a chant.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

 

Don't neglect your cardio before the big riot, kids.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

From what I'm seeing based current average number of daily vaccines, by May nearly one-third of the US population will be fully vaccinated, and could possibly reach half being partially vaccinated.

 

I'm curious to see when herd immunity starts to kick in, or at least hospitalizations start to significantly decrease.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hope is 80% of 16+ with at least one dose by end of May. Definitely doable on a supply side, more a question of demand. Hopefully positive peer pressure as more people realize their friends and family have been vaccinated 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is now vaccinating at an equivalent rate as the US. About 30 days behind, though, due to early supply problems. But good news, overall. And because Canada is only giving out first doses in most provinces right now, we should tighten that gap a bit (in terms of first doses, which are most important right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jason said:
GettyImages-1231790696-760x380.jpeg
ARSTECHNICA.COM

Vaccines take weeks to work; distancing and other health measures work immediately.

 

 

She was wrong to not push for vaccine surges in March. You don't need full efficacy to get meaningful effects! If you have a good idea of where the outbreaks are occuring, targeting those particular communities would be a great strategy to employ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

She was wrong to not push for vaccine surges in March. You don't need full efficacy to get meaningful effects! If you have a good idea of where the outbreaks are occuring, targeting those particular communities would be a great strategy to employ.

 

I think there is a need for both. Vaccines can help reduce the severity of an outbreak (and should be targeted), but due to the fast nature of an uncontrolled spread, the only real solution is a complete stay-at-home order. The former takes weeks to have any effect (for those vaccinated), and so the does the latter. But the latter will work for the entire population, while the former only works for those vaccinated (until a large majority are vaccinated).

 

I don't think the US has any willpower to perform actual lockdowns at this point, so the argument is moot. Thousands (tens of thousands) are going to still die that could be saved by governments and people doing the right thing, but the willpower isn't there on either account.

 

The reason for that lack of willpower is complex, and involves a history of individual rights over the collective good, the partisan split on whether the crisis is even real, and an ideological reluctance to just give people money to stay at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I think there is a need for both. Vaccines can help reduce the severity of an outbreak (and should be targeted), but due to the fast nature of an uncontrolled spread, the only real solution is a complete stay-at-home order. The former takes weeks to have any effect (for those vaccinated), and so the does the latter. But the latter will work for the entire population, while the former only works for those vaccinated (until a large majority are vaccinated).

 

I don't think the US has any willpower to perform actual lockdowns at this point, so the argument is moot. Thousands (tens of thousands) are going to still die that could be saved by governments and people doing the right thing, but the willpower isn't there on either account.

 

The reason for that lack of willpower is complex, and involves a history of individual rights over the collective good, the partisan split on whether the crisis is even real, and an ideological reluctance to just give people money to stay at home.

 

If you could actually get people to stay home, sure, but you are correct that the willpower ain't there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...