If memory serves, what I remember reading about the vaccines is that they won’t prevent one from becoming infected – rather, they significantly lower the chance that the infection will manifest as actual illness. If that’s accurate, then Lynch’s positive test result shouldn’t be surprising, as it sounds like he was exposed from a staff member.
Well, if it works 90-95% of the time, it’s not going to work 5-10% of the time.
Eta: though what Kenobi said is somewhat true, it was my understanding that the phase 3 trials did show 90-95% efficacy in people not testing positive not just “being ill”. I’m open to correction and will probably look it up immediately after posting. Lol.
I can’t immediately back up my recollections but I do know that the Israelis are definitely testing as they go. We’ll get that on their over 65 demographic in a few weeks, hopefully.
It does not serve. What you’ve likely read is that at this time they do not have enough data to prove the vaccines prevent infection. Which is not at all the same thing as saying they know for sure that they don’t prevent infections.
Thank you for the clarification.
Woah woah. You’re not really wrong. I’ve posted this before:
One thing that a lot of people don’t know about Belgium is that they didn’t have a proper sworn-in government between May 2019 and October 2020 (cite)
So if you believe (as I do) that both the amount of death in each country and the efficiency of a testing regime are heavily dependent on the organisational skills of the government in charge, this all makes total sense. Death reporting is fine, because the people doing this have been doing it forever and need no oversight. Testing efficiency is way down and overall deaths way up, because both of these depend on an effective government overseeing the process and making decisions.
It he was tested because he had COVID symptoms, that’s one thing.
If he was tested because he’s a VIP, I don’t think this means anything.
Even if the false positive rate is very low, and even if the test was repeated, if thousands of VIP’s are being tested every week or two, there are going to be be some. This is in addition to the possibility that the test was accurate but the virus load insignificant.
102,635,253 total cases
2,216,418 dead
74,329,277 recovered
In the US:
26,512,193 total cases
447,459 dead
16,199,572 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
The high number of deaths might suggest “their accounting method is more accurate”, but the shape of their infection/death curves suggests otherwise.
Iin the middle stage of the severe outbreak, the number of deaths stabilized when it should have been still rising. Either the number of infections counted was too small in the early stage of the outbreak, or the number of deaths included was too great before the peak.
Possibilities include (exaggerating for clarity)
-
“in the early stage of the outbreak, when not many people were infected, everybody that got infected died”
-
“in the early stage of the outbreak, when not many people were infected, anybody that died got counted as COVID”
-
“in the early stage of the outbreak, when not many people were infected, only the deaths were counted, not the cases”
-
“in the middle of the outbreak, when a lot of people got infected, they were infected with something that didn’t cause any deaths”
Some of those suggestions are more likely than others, there may be a mix of reasons, but whatever the true reason, it has to account for the number of deaths leveling off at almost the same time as the number of new cases, (rather than 3 weeks later).
All the outbreaks in Belgium show the rise in deaths lagging the rise in cases, and all subsequent outbreaks show the fall in deaths lagging the fall in cases, but something odd seems to have been happening with their statistics at the time of the biggest outbreak.
IIRC, in the Astra-Zeneca study they routinely tested for infection as well as for overt signs of disease, and the indication was that there was some effect on infection rate. None of the other studies thus far published had any evidence in re whether the vaccine had an effect in infection rates (again, IIRC).
j
I would say that those were not really “anti-lockdown”. It’s just that the curfew is easy to rebel against and people are getting REALLY bored.
And another entry in the “FFS, what is wrong with people” category:
Anti-vaccine protesters briefly forced officials to close the Covid-19 vaccination site at Dodger Stadium on Saturday as hundreds of people waited in their cars to receive doses, Los Angeles Fire Department officials said.
No one was arrested, but the Los Angeles Police Department deployed “a sufficient amount of officers” to the stadium, a spokesperson said. L.A. police also said that all vaccines would be administered despite the delay.
You left out the one that applies, IIRC. He was tested due to being exposed to someone who had it – someone in his office, I believe.
ETA:. I did recall correctly.
103,138,668 total cases
2,229,505 dead
74,759,867 recovered
In the US:
26,655,740 total cases
450,381 dead
16,328,950 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
Has anyone seen reports lately about the drug Aplidin (generic name: plitidepsin) to kill the virus? It’s a known drug, used mainly to treat multiple myeloma (a type of cancer) that somebody noticed seems to wipe out the Covid virus.
The drug does not inhibit or block any part of the virus. Rather, it inhibits a protein in the human cell that the virus needs in order to replicate. Thus, it is expected that mutations in the virus will not be able to circumvent this.
(Googling for more information, it appears that the story is being picked up by many news sites. Poking around a bit, I didn’t see any stories that had much more information than any other stories.)
I’d possibly pay that research more attention if they weren’t a lot of the same people who told us hydroxychloroquine was promising back in April. While I would love for us to find something that would easily make this all go away, we’ve seen that promise before. Let them get through some real human trials and see where it lands.
In the meantime, we have vaccines that have actually worked their way through the process and have been proven effective.
In other words, you’re saying “If at first you don’t succeed, give up” ?
No, I’m saying it’s not a good idea for doctors to give their patients a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, pliltidepsin, ivermectin, amodiaquine, zuclopenthixol, nebivolol, astemizole, clofazamine, regeneron, molnupiravir, fluvoxamine, statins, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, tocilizumab, sarilumab, interferon beta, toremifene, and a bunch of other drugs too numerous to mention.
I’m all for testing each and every one of those (and more and newer options as they come up) in human trials using controlled testing methodologies and at least some of those trials are underway. Others have already been eliminated. If any of those drugs turns out to be a miracle cure, I’ll shout it from the rooftops.
@Senegoid, I can see in hindsight that my hydroxychloroquine post you responded to appears to attack the authors of the paper. I have no beef with them now, nor back in the early days when we were doing lab tests on every drug known to man. It’s when the media and/or doctors pick it up and run with it that I truly take issue. The media gives people unfounded hope with each new study and many doctors seem willing to blindly follow along.
Again, it wasn’t meant as an attack on you and I apologize for what is obviously snarkiness towards the authors of the study, who don’t deserve it.