2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
962
1,131
98
Country
United States
to be fair, the US hardly suffered in that war compared to almost every other major participant.
But, in typical American fashion, we show up late to something that the rest of the world knew was going on for a while, bungled our way towards the forefront of something, and will spend decades after the fact in self masturbatory bliss saying how much we truly suffered.

When all we really had to do was listen early, nip it in the bud, and silence the homegrown idiots who didn't believe and/or embraced the horrors for political favor.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,388
1,205
118
Country
United States of America
But, in typical American fashion, we show up late to something that the rest of the world knew was going on for a while, bungled our way towards the forefront of something, and will spend decades after the fact in self masturbatory bliss saying how much we truly suffered.

When all we really had to do was listen early, nip it in the bud, and silence the homegrown idiots who didn't believe and/or embraced the horrors for political favor.
well, to be fair to the United States, France and the UK didn't want to join an antifascist alliance with the Soviet Union in 1939 either.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,025
373
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The argument is that excessive vitamin D results in possible adverse effects. The fact that vitamin K and vitamin D have synergistic benefits (at reasonable doses) for health does not address whether vitamin K protects from excessive vitamin D consumption.



400 IU supplements. As in additional to normal diet and sunlight.



And there you go: you've just picked out only the point that you want again. I also said it's about methodology, trial design, etc.

And yes, that sort of shit does demonstrate you don't look at scientific data honestly.
We know vitamin k works for anticalcification.

You barely get any in your diet and it's basically impossible to get any vitamin d during the winter from the sun. Our bodies are used to getting way more than we are getting now.

And the trial design of your 200 something study you posted was complete shit, which I said before and you never replied. Because the study was on young people, it ended up being basically a less than 20 person study because how few young people go to the hospital normally from it (without any intervention). So what ever that study's results were, they were going to be insignificant no matter what. It was a completely pointless study because of trial design but apparently I'm the one that can't look at said stuff like methodology and trial design, and can't look at scientific data honestly...

But, in typical American fashion, we show up late to something that the rest of the world knew was going on for a while, bungled our way towards the forefront of something, and will spend decades after the fact in self masturbatory bliss saying how much we truly suffered.
And all those people that think America was so awesome back in the era right after the war and we need to go back there, but America was really only so great then because just about every other country had to rebuild from the war and America didn't. So, of course, those times would be great for America.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,449
583
118
I'd also mention that the US was in a shambles before WW2, with truly massive unemployment. Suddenly the government has to create jobs for the war industry and everyone is much better off (if they aren't being interned, that is). Macy's sale on the 1 year anniversary of Pearl Harbour (which, ok), brought them record sales.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
712
556
98
Country
4
Can someone explain this to me? I don't really understand statistics.
- A single shot of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 jab reduces the chance of needing hospital treatment by more than 80 percent, an analysis in England shows.

Soooo, 80 percent of what exactly? Some other percentage value?
If it reduced the chance by 100 percent would that mean it stopped anyone needing hospital treatment?
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,551
95
53
Finland
Soooo, 80 percent of what exactly? Some other percentage value?
If it reduced the chance by 100 percent would that mean it stopped anyone needing hospital treatment?
Maybe all hospital treatment or just covid related. Definition of the latter isn't simple so I'm guessing it's the former. 100% would indeed be a miracle cure for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,712
2,662
118
Can someone explain this to me? I don't really understand statistics.
- A single shot of either the Oxford-AstraZeneca or the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 jab reduces the chance of needing hospital treatment by more than 80 percent, an analysis in England shows.

Soooo, 80 percent of what exactly? Some other percentage value?
If it reduced the chance by 100 percent would that mean it stopped anyone needing hospital treatment?
So, imagine of 1,000 people who catch Covid, 100 need hospitalisation. If the jab is 80% effective (at preventing hospitalisation), it means that of 1,000 vaccinated people who catch Covid-19, only 20 need hospitalisation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,712
2,662
118
Soooo, 80 percent of what exactly? Some other percentage value?
If it reduced the chance by 100 percent would that mean it stopped anyone needing hospital treatment?
Addendum:

The effectiveness of the jab varies from one to another. You might see for instance the headline figures that the Pfizer jab had an effectiveness of over 90%, and the AstraZeneca of ~70%, and the Sinovac of ~50%. This makes it look like the Pfizer vaccine is tons better and the Sinovac vaccine pretty rubbish. But it may be misleading. What they're usually here measuring is whether someone who has been vaccinated and is infected suffers symptoms - like, any symptoms. But when we ask the perhaps more important question of whether it stops people needing ventilation or dying, they're pretty much all 90%+ (with the full 2-shot regime where relevant, anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,823
843
118

Some promising news for us Americans...

(At least until he uses this as an excuse to dump the stimulus check. No Tippy! Bad Tippy!!! Happy thoughts time!!!!!)
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,712
2,662
118
One might point out there is a substantial difference between having enough vaccine doses and actually vaccinating. Whilst production limits may impose a limit on vaccination, I suspect administration will become a bigger limiting factor.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,823
843
118
One might point out there is a substantial difference between having enough vaccine doses and actually vaccinating. Whilst production limits may impose a limit on vaccination, I suspect administration will become a bigger limiting factor.
That's fair but the biggest issue that I've seen with getting shots in arms has been the supply. While this news doesn't necessarily mean every American will be vaccinated by the end of May, one of the biggest roadblocks to getting everyone vaccinated will be removed by the end of May assuming what Biden is saying is legit and there aren't any complications between now and then.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
712
556
98
Country
4
So, imagine of 1,000 people who catch Covid, 100 need hospitalisation. If the jab is 80% effective (at preventing hospitalisation), it means that of 1,000 vaccinated people who catch Covid-19, only 20 need hospitalisation.
Thanks, pretty much what I thought, but I'm wary anytime there's any statement 'improves chances of x by x percent', because sometimes it means a percent of a percentage which is always less impressive when you see how much it really is.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,551
95
53
Finland
What they're usually here measuring is whether someone who has been vaccinated and is infected suffers symptoms - like, any symptoms. But when we ask the perhaps more important question of whether it stops people needing ventilation or dying, they're pretty much all 90%+ (with the full 2-shot regime where relevant, anyway).
At least for Pfizer it's supposed to be a 90-95% reduction in positive covid cases compared to placebo. So not just symptoms but a positive covid-19 test on top. There could be asymptomatic infections anyway, and thus how much it affects transmission is still investigated.
 

Fieldy409

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
264
84
33
Country
Australia
One might point out there is a substantial difference between having enough vaccine doses and actually vaccinating. Whilst production limits may impose a limit on vaccination, I suspect administration will become a bigger limiting factor.
It sounds like a nightmare logistically to handle these vsccines in the warehouse. You have to keep them really cold all the time? So what, do you have to turn the whole warehouse, the truck and everything in between into a freezer room? Working in fucking eskimo gear? Or are you just frantically rushing them from freezer room to truck on a forklift and hoping they don't get warm?
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
574
233
48
Country
Philippines
Is there any actual reason (besides capitalism I mean) to not just use the same formula or whatever for all vaccines? Something like an open source vaccine I guess.

It's insane to me that in the middle of such a widespread crisis, you don't see more collaboration. Pretty naïve I guess, but damn, when your captured market is the whole fucking world population, ya'll seriously can't just be content with the trillions of dollars you'd make anyway?

The first legal vaccines to reach my country are from China, with a pathetic reported efficacy of 50 to 60 percent. Why the fuck would you even bother releasing such a vaccine? I know its better than nothing, but 50 is a whole lot worse than the 90 every other company offers. What a waste of time and resources, which could have gone to making a worthwhile vaccine instead. Bad enough our country has such low trust in vaccines, and now our government is prioritizing these shabby excuses for a vaccine because they like the feeling of China's fists up their collective ass.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,551
95
53
Finland
Is there any actual reason (besides capitalism I mean) to not just use the same formula or whatever for all vaccines? Something like an open source vaccine I guess.
The vaccines themselves are different: there are mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna), human adenovirus vector (Sputnik), chimp adenovirus vector (AstraZeneca), inactivated virus (Chinese CoronaVac). Another thing is that making a vaccine or a drug can sometimes be easier than the testing phases by many orders of magnitude. And also while anticapitalist sentiments have been on the rise lately, these vaccines -- some of them extremely good -- have been created efficiently, safely, and quickly. The combination of strict testing requirements on top of the profit incentive has worked well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gethsemani

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,775
310
88
Country
USA
Is there any actual reason (besides capitalism I mean) to not just use the same formula or whatever for all vaccines? Something like an open source vaccine I guess.
Having options is a good thing. Having different manufacturing costs, storage requirements, distribution methods, etc allows for different solutions to be enacted where and when they are better suited. Like, if everyone was copying the vaccine that needs ultra-cold storage, we'd be having even bigger distribution problems. And god forbid one of these vaccines causes unforeseen issues way down the line, it's better not to have all your eggs in one basket.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
773
662
98
Country
United States
...and silence the homegrown idiots who didn't believe and/or embraced the horrors for political favor.
Bear in mind these are the exact people who wound up in power after the war, thanks to the Democratic political machine strong-arming FDR to nominate their guy as VP in '44 instead of Wallace, who would have done a damn sight better than Truman. "Anti-Communist" in the US is just a euphemism for "fascist".

The Dulles brothers, J. Edna, the entire Bush family down to the genetic level, Lindburgh, the whole lot of wealthy and well-connected Hitler fanboys should have been put against the wall the day Germany declared war against the US.