At the Oval last weekend nobody was wearing masks, nor did anyone have to provide confirmation of a negative test result to go. The only recommendation was to wear masks whilst moving around the ground. Barmy when they weren’t recommended when sitting in your seat, close in to everyone around you, for hours without moving, often calling out, cheering or singing.
Yeah, being outside is often touted as safe, but it is safe because of the conditions that normally come with that. If you are outside but then reproduce all the characteristics of transmitting it inside, then you’re not really being protected.
There’s a fair amount of data so far showing that these sorts of events can be safe, but we have to careful to not overinterpret that to mean that anything outside is low risk. You’d have to show me a lot more data from football games to convince me that anything approaching returning to normal without vaccine passports or test requirements is a good idea.
1 Like
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00558-2/fulltext
What’s going on here? Clearly there will be people with asymptomatic infections that never got tested so the % of fully vaccinated having a severe form of the disease is in reality much lower, but a little surprising how Pfizer-vaccinated patients had a much higher incidence of severe disease Vs Moderna, even with relatively similar inoculations in Connecticut (Pf:1.3m, M:1m).
Although the first 31,000 doses in the state were Pfizer, and therefore the most at risk with co-morbidities probably had Pfizer, Moderna wasnt far behind - both had 55k+ doses distributed to the state in late Dec¹. That’s a weird one. As always these days, tiny datasets make interpretations difficult. But something definitely requiring further research.
1 Like
Why were 25 hospitalised if they were asymptomatic? 
Patients admitted for something else, but upon routine PCR testing came up positive.
It’s really difficult to know without knowing the demographics of who was given the vaccine.
Take Scotland as an example. Let’s say Pfizer was given to those within the inner city Glasgow, whilst Moderna was given to those on the suburbs. Given vastly different demographics (life expectancy, health, wealth) you would probably get similar distribution.
Perhaps Pfizer was preferentially given to those in nursing homes.
Alternatively perhaps is reflective of time lines. Pfizer was approved earlier. So breakthroughs could simply reflect decline in protection.
2 Likes
Interesting stat with Delta and NZ which has relatively low vaccination rate (except the elderly)
Of the 868 cases, 121 have been children aged 9 or under.
Generally we look on track to eliminate Delta here (low number of new cases). I would hope another week or two.
One of the few nations left where we can take testing data at face value, given figures from test & trace in a nation aiming for zero covid is going to be nicely aligned to the truth.
To even try understand that child infection figure, I guess we’d have to understand the lockdown procedure once that New South Welshman came across and spread the virus.
Was it area-based lockdown with strictly no contact between households? Schools closed?
Possibly household-based spreading from parent to children?
It’s now a fairly consistent finding. A this point, Moderna is standing up better than the Pfizer vac. Unsure whether it’s due to better protection against delta, or less waning of immunity over time. The latter seems likely and related to it being given at a higher dose than the Pfizer version.
this makes no sense. then they weren’t hospitalized for Covid. why record the stat.
2 Likes
This guy is on national radio here in the UK. As mentioned yesterday, I’m far from convinced by his arguments. Certainly like to hear if people’s thoughts back my own.
From my very basic level of understanding. I’m more than ready to be corrected put straight here. I deal in concrete, not medicine. Much of this comes from @Limiescouse
a) Viral load from the Delta variant is higher in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated population. He fails to consider this in the unvaccinated population
b) On average vaccinated people are less susceptible to serious illness. He agrees with this
c) Maajid fails to consider timescales. Vaccinated people have the virus for a shorter period than those that are unvaccinated and therefore less infectious overall.
d) Here’s where some advice would be particularly useful. Risk of vaccine resistant variants going forward and how this changes within vaccinated population and a partially vaccinated one.
His comment they are more likely to become infected is bollocks. you see some areas where case load is higher in Vax than unvax, but that’s just bad stats to interpret that in that way. It’s been addressed on this thread mutliple times now that this is just an example of the effect of that cohort being larger. The correct comparison is % of cases within each group (vax vs unvax). Thjis is basically the measurement of Vaccine Effectiveness. While it has come down in recent months, because of the combined effects of waning immunity, delta escape and increase natural immunity in the unvaxxed group, the difference is still significant.
For the points you raise, C is the real key. Much has been made of the findings of comparable level of viral load in symptomatic people between the vax and unvaxxed, which was commonly interpreted to mean they are equally as contagious. But it doesn’t for a couple of reasons.
- Firstly, the measure used (Cycle threshold of the sample) is only a surrogate measure of concentration and even less directly related to contagiousness.
- Secondly, it is a point in time measurement. One of the issues that has made COVID such a fucker is the length of time while asymptomatic that it can be transmitted. Further evaluation of this phenomenon has shown pretty clearly that comparable CT levels between the groups is only observed for a very short period of time. So, to the degree that can be used to determine contagiousness, it is only equivalent for a short period. The net effect on community transmission is considerable. Rather than being used as an argument against the vaccine, arguing it doesnt work in that way, it actually argues the opposite, and quite strongly.
It also ignored that is only focusing on vaxxed people who become contagious. We have tons of RWE of how much protection the vax has of preventing the development of symptoms (in turn related to contagiousness) after being exposed.
2 Likes
I’ve recently been directed to listen to the show from that day by someone. I’m far from convinced by his musings, but he does ask interesting questions.
I wanted to see the report he was reading from, which I did find - COVID vaccine protection wanes within six months - UK researchers | Reuters
My reading of it came out different to what he seemed to be suggesting. I note on twitter he’s being attacked by a lot of people, but then reading on, can see he also blocks and shuts down a lot of people.
Nawaz is a crank.
Always suspicious, 100% confirmed yesterday and today.
2 Likes
Within 12 hours the entire country went straight into level 4.
This meant pretty much everything was closed. You are able to leave your house to go to supermarket or pharmacy but thats about it. Unless you are an essential worker or making an essential trip (eg food). You should not be using your car. Only one person from bubble allowed into supermarket (unless you need to take a child) and numbers allowed in strictly controlled. Eg local pharmacy is one person in at a time.
Mask use mandatory anyone over 12 so is recording location.
Everyone to keep it their household bubble. All schools, playgrounds closed. Any recreational actors must be walking/cycling distance.
The NSW man infected his workmate, a guy in his 20s flat sharing with 4 others. Being young these guys were a few key super spreader events before it was known to be in NZ. Church, night club, Casino, School, University.
What has been described by the medical experts here are 2 major differences with Delta. People are infectious earlier before being symptomatic, and basically if one person in a household gets it, everyone will.
I think almost all kids infections will be household infections.
They country has since gone to level two, except Auckland which has the few remaining new infections.
1 Like
I will concede that he at times has guests on who share interesting and credible information. The problem is, he isnt Larry King. For episode where he brings on a good expert and Joe sits back and acts like he gets it, there are multiple episodes where all that goes out the window and he’s back to his old baseline. I mean, he’s had multiple good guests on in the past 18 months to give credible information on Covid and yet he’s still espousing his dumb views. Im sure he’ll do exactly the same the moment Patrick is gone from his studio.
As for what he’s said, even if we ignore the politics side of things and focus just on the scientific bits he’s got really bad takes. He has been a long standing “its only the flu” person. He continues to misunderstand the public health aspect of dealing with this sort of pandemic (its not just about personal health), and I think this colors everything else he says about it. From shut downs, vaccine based restrictions, and his recommendation that health young people skip getting the shot. It’s not just I think he takes the wrong political view, it’s they are premised on not understanding what the fuck he’s talking about. And this despite having 1-1 access to some of the world’s smartest people.
This is an odd direction to take it, and I’m not going to engage you on the specifics because we’ve been down this road before, other than to say that you seriously misunderstand this area and make conclusions that are not supported by the totality of the evidence, and often not even the evidence you use to support your conclusions. It is therefore a useful if unexpected example to use in this thread as it is illustrative of what happens when people without sufficient depth of knowledge in an area decide the “experts” are wrong after doing their own research. It’s the ultimate Rogan take.
2 Likes
OK
We will not agree - that is fine. You continue to subscribe to the nutrition / weight loss model / rationale that keeps people fat and sick. I will keep searching for the real causes and solutions that provide lasting answers.
.
As I said before - this is not the thread for this discussion - though my example does illustrate that Govt advice on health should be constantly and effectively scrutinised and examined to prevent harm. As a result the message that the last 50 years of government nutritional advice has been wrong is getting through - basically because people can see with their own eyes in the real world what that advice leads to.
If we were to apply seatbelt law in the current era (equivalent to trying to get people vaccinated), it could be something like this…
7 Likes
I laughed, but I wanted to cry actually 
1 Like