131–140 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke out the last few percent of efficacy.
Then why is the delay in second doses being encouraged?
Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…
Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…
> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? Hospitalizations are weeks delayed from COVID# or %Positive spikes. Its a slow moving disease: taking 5 to 14 days before peopl…
As we vaccinate the people at the highest risk of hospitalization, the correlation will change: Numbers may stay very similar, but hospitalizations should go way down.
Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…
> hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? From a control theory perspective, it's one of the worst measures because it's delayed. Much more efficient to measure cases - then you don't need restricted social life as long.
From very early on in the pandemic, it seemed to me like our goal for optimal balance between caution/risk was to try and maintain the highest level of hospital occupancy that is sustainable. If every single person quarantines perfectly, then our hospitals are empty, but so is every business. If no one quarantines, our businesses are full, but so are hospitals and everyone's viral load; i.e. maximum mortality.
With the vaccines now available, it seems like our goal should still be be to maintain the highest level of sustainable medical system occupancy.
The UKs adoption of First Dose First is amazing and inspiring in a time when governments worldwide seem unable to operate effectively. There are 2 things every country can do to save lives that have effectively zero cost and zero negative externalities: - lifting lingering vaccine bans (the US's ban of AZ is most glaring) - first dose first - the evidence is overwhelming at this point. These two things, which could b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? Hospitalizations are weeks delayed from COVID# or %Positive spikes. Its a slow moving disease: taking 5 to 14 days before peopl…
> Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? As we vaccinate the people at the highest risk of hospitalization, the correlation will change: Numbers may stay very similar, but hospitalizations should go way down.
Then we'll know in 2 weeks to change the policy and account for it.
Note that vaccinations will *also* cause the %positive and case# to decline. USA is approaching 15% vaccinated at over 95% efficacy means that you'll have 15% fewer cases (as well as 15% fewer hospitalizations later on). I'm not convinced that cases will become desynchronized with hospitalizations: my expectation is that vaccination will cause a decline in both case# and hospitalization#, roughly in proportion.
But if case# and hospitalization# become less correlated, then it won't take long (~2 weeks to see the first effects, maybe 4-weeks to be sure of the effects) to see such a split in the time-delayed correlation.
-------
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Today, there's a new study being pre-pub'd that shows that Pfizer's mRNA vaccine is ~90% effective at stopping the spread of the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/539783-pfizer-vaccine-...).
When you have a vaccine that's both 90% effective at stopping the spread and 95% effective at stopping hospitalizations, then the spread and hospitalization numbers will both go down severely (that is: #cases and #hospitalizations reported both go down).
This assumption that #cases and #hospitalizations will become "desynchronized" isn't necessarily written in stone. Its possible both numbers drop down dramatically in the coming weeks as vaccines are distributed... indeed, its highly likely IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: I'm an idiot who was trying to do too many things at once and misread. Removing my incorrect commentary on 95% CI numbers. I'll leave the excerpt from the study since that's useful info. >Findings: The first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76 to 91) for COVID-19 related hospitalisation at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the sa…
" 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76 to 91) ... 94% (95% CI 73 to 99) " Those aren't overlapping?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sorry to hear about your brother's Mother-in-Law. I just wanted to concur for anyone who is not yet aware: all the data so far (from multiple studies) shows that there is zero or near zero protection for the first two weeks after the first dose. It's not until the third/fourth weeks after the dose that you start to see substantial protection, with higher protection the fourth week.
Thanks. Sadly we just heard she will not make it and is being moved to Hospice.
Until we have challenge trials, how do we know whether or not other variables, such as natural herd immunity and seasonality are not also significant contributing factors to the 'substantial reduction'?
Isn't there also a confounding factor that the vaccinations were largely introduced following the thanksgiving and christmas infection events. Even without a vaccine, I would have expected hospitalizations to fall approximately 1 to 1.5 months after the Christmas holiday. Basically, we had many clusters of fresh unburnt tinder (the household covid pod) and the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday was a perfect event fo…