241–250 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I struggle to see how you reached that interpretation of the paper.
Average age 40, as you said yourself. And then as the authors of this paper find, "Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, those who had severe COVID-19."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me a renegade, but I think the only goal should be to minimize the total number of deaths from Covid. Trying to maximize sustainable medical system occupancy is almost certainly not aligned with the former goal.
No perfect solutions there. If there was perfect quarantine, we would still lose additional lives from suicide, domestic violence, etc. from the increased stress. There is definitely a balance to be struck, and making sure we have capacity to treat all of the sick seems to be as good as any.
I just object with the parent's following statement:
> With the vaccines now available, it seems like our goal should still be be to maintain the highest level of sustainable medical system occupancy.
If we are still trying to maintain the highest level of sustainable medical system occupancy while the percentage of population that has been vaccinated is slowly increasing, it would actually mean we are doing a horrible job in trying to limit preventable deaths when a fully vaccinated populace + herd immunity is not too far away. Maybe when a much larger percentage of the population is vaccinated, the spread and rate of deaths will be low enough that this may change, but we are still nowhere near that stage.
Also when vaccination started, we can clearly see a spike in deaths. Are those "linked"?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mean the ones that the military explicitly restricted to not taking COVID patients? Yet 70% of the 182 patients had COVID.
Sorry, I realized and would have deleted that if you hadn't been so quick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Average age 40, as you said yourself. And then as the authors of this paper find, "Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, those who had severe COVID-19."
the "but not limited to" is the important part
This issue seems to be important to you personally and to others whose concerns may or may not be reasonable, but I don’t believe it will be important to most of society as vaccinations roll out and the Northern Hemisphere spring and summer are upon us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the figures from Israel show you are at increased risk of infection for the first week after the vaccine is administered. Presumably because people are already starting to change their behaviour.
It could also be because people got contaminated IN vaccination centers when coming for their first vaccine dose. Told from a doctor working in Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>> approaching 15% vaccinated at over 95% efficacy means that you'll have 15% fewer cases That’s not how it works, you’re missing a variable (prevalence).
However, we could speculate that perhaps we should in fact put more priority on the groups that have most infections, not highest risk? Because the restrictions impact their lives (of young people) most.
However, I'm quite sure that the priorisation of old people will continue, except possibly in places where priorisation is done by money (the rich purchasing vaccinations).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you take that at face value, then shouldn’t we have had an overwhelmed medical system by now? We did, in many cases, had overwhelmed medical systems at the local peaks, which were not nationally synchronized. > Remember the military hospital ships that were sent to NY and LA? They never saw a single COVID patient? You mean the ones that the military explicitly restricted to not taking COVID patients ? Yeah, I re…
The US Navy reports that the Hospital Ship Mercy treated fewer than 200 patients in total. “ By the time of Comfort’s departure, the approximately 1,200-person crew and 1,000-bed hospital had treated just 182 patients, of which approximately 70 percent had COVID-19” So I guess we were both wrong. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/04/30/hospital...
Mercy treated 77 patients and was not reconfigured for COVID, Comfort treated more after being converted to COVID just before local cases dropped from their peak for the wave the ship was present for.
It completed reconfiguration to take COVID patients on April 7, just before new cases in both NYC and NYS started rapidly dropping. It almost entirely missed the time it was needed.
I think they are both evidence that both the response and the systems for utilizing new resources wet optimized for the real needs, but neither shows that healthcare systems weren't overwhelmed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you remember what studies this data was from? I'd be curious to look at it. The fda filing [0] for Moderna seemed to indicate a decent uptick in protection > 14 days after dose 1 (which seems to mirror the studies you are referencing). I see a "Vaccine Efficacy" of 92.1% for > 14 days after dose 1, which seems to be fairly close to the ~95% efficacy I've seen described for 14 days after dose 2. [0] https://www.fda…
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.