631–640 of 766 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy beta testing to all Brits then!
My 85 year old grandparents are excited, they get to hold their great grand children again. They’d be first in line if they could be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UK Gov originally published this as the priority interim list [1] - * older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers * all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers * all those 75 years of age and over * all those 70 years of age and over * all those 65 years of age and over * high-risk adults under 65 years of age * moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age * all those 60 years…
In Denmark where I live, a large proportion of infected people are age 20-29, and I wonder if it would make sense to vaccinate them first when you get to "rest of the population". Even though they have a smaller risk of getting seriously ill, that could be an effective way to lower transmission. That is: 1. Immunize the age group that is dominating in the hospitalization statistics, then 2. Immunize the age group is…
I believe that most experts are expecting it won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science doesn't have all the answers. My partner recently got into a heated debate with a pharmaceutical company she was working for because they wanted something added to their standards of care document for a rare genetic disorder they developed a therapy for. She couldn't find a study to backup the claims that the medical team wanted to make in the document, but the lead doctor said that if this wasn't included, t…
> People are dying now But not a lot. That's what's fascinating. At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55. We're at 200k ~ 300k deaths for the year in the US (and I think there is reason to believe this is an overestimate, not an underestimate). That's lower than heart disease and cancer (500~600k yearly). I doubt we'll even approach those numbers by March. Science is slow because it needs to be…
There are two challenges I haven't seen talked about a lot. 1. I expect that there will be a lot of people who think that once they get the shot, they can immediately stop wearing masks and practicing social distancing. The rollout to the general public will need to be combined with extensive efforts to make sure people know that it takes time for a vaccine to actually provide protection. In the case of this one, it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55 I'll never understand people who say this, thinking it somehow proves their point or something. My parents are nearly 60, and easily have 20 more years of time with me and their grandkids. Why are we okay with that?
Then why not protect them specifically? Give money to isolate them if they don't live in their own homes. Provide grocery delivery services. Let them make the choice. There are some old people who are 70 and say "I want to live my life" and so let them go out and do whatever and assume the risk themselves. We can provide support specifically to those at risk, while also respecting the liberty and freedom of everyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you're somewhere between 20 and 30, your risk of dying when contracting COVID-19 is somewhere around 0.01%, so 1 in 10,000. I'm not including the chance for severe side effects, hospitalization here (I don't know a good data source for those that is age-specific). That's a lot lower than the risk for older people, but it's still a somewhat high absolute risk. Personally, I'd get vaccinated. The risk even for…
> I'm not including the chance for severe side effects, hospitalization here (I don't know a good data source for those that is age-specific). From the Scottish Government figures.The hospitalization to confirmed cases breaks down like this for age: Age Cases Hospitilizations 0-4 1417 77 (5.4%) 5-14 3933 44 (1.1%) 15-19 7766 46 (0.5%) 20-24 9035 79 (0.8%) 25-44 28690 867 (3.0%) Everyone should get the vaccine.
EDIT: Here are the stats for the seasonal flu: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html tldr: 1-2% hospitalization average
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you believe this out of curiosity? Every single "long term covid" symptom study I've read are case studies. The UK one from the publication in Charlottesville covered 60 distinct people and they were all either high risk workers or over 55. We don't know what "permanent damage" is actually happening. I remember having pneumonia in the 90s and it took my lungs over 3 months to recover, and that's from a normal…
For me personally the unknowns of such a new virus mean that the existence of the case studies would be enough to be concerned. And the strongest case is made by the fact that this virus' closest relative known to infect humans has caused lasting damage to people with cases that lead to hospitalization: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 "Evidence from people infected with other coronaviruses suggests…
Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?
Not a doctor, just a member of a risk group. The continued spread of Covid poses a rather high risk to me, both because of mortality and because of potential long-lasting aftereffects ("Long Covid"). Even if the vaccine turns out to have longterm side effects, I find it very unlikely that those will be more significant than Long Covid. Therefore the risk tradeoff makes any vaccine a complete no-brainer to me.
At the end of the day, a Smallpox pandemic in 10-20 years might end up killing more people than a premature covid vaccine saves ... No idea how you could quantify this risk though -- but seems unfortunate that medical science has no way to realistically factor in this kind of third order effect into their risk modeling ...