Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105132

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is a microcosm of the world we live in, and a byproduct of the internet. One person googles a bunch of articles and studies that fit their predetermined narrative, cherry picking the data and numbers they want, while the other party had studied the subject for 50 years and has to explain to the first person why they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. 

The problem is unlike 50 years ago, the internet guy still thinks he’s right after the conversation 

 

Sweet Jesus, THIS.

And I say that as someone who regularly DOES independent research of complex technical issues (they come up in many of my cases).  And I will regularly be working with my expert for the first time, or early in the case, and I'll offer "so, as I understand it, the fliggle failed because the engineer failed to account for fargle, bargle, and wargle.  Is that right?"  I get a blank stare, then a gentle "well, not exactly..." which is then followed by an explanation that REALLY means "no, not even close, and WTF is a bargle and wargle anyway?"  I'm not a dumb guy, I know how to research things (and a lot of the times, I'm at least on the dartboard even if I don't hit the bullseye).  But I also miss, WAY off target, plenty of times.  Because some of this shit is complicated as hell and literally does take a lifetime of study and institutional knowledge to understand and explain it.  And I've learned to accept it when my experts tell me I'm full of shit (I still push back, because I need to test their opinions and how they'll hold up on cross -- every now and then, I find a weakness, but I can't think of an occasion where I've caused their whole opinion to fail).  I still need them to explain it to me, because it's important that I understand it, but I don't think that I know more than they do.

But in modern society, the guy who has spent his lifetime to studying and practicing in a subject, and maybe even wrote the damned book on it....well, he's an idiot compared to the conclusions I found in articles on Americafreedompatriotnews.com, TheRealTruth.org, and Surewe'rewackjobsbutwesaywhatyouwanttohear.com.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

Gap03

Gap03 3306

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is a microcosm of the world we live in, and a byproduct of the internet. One person googles a bunch of articles and studies that fit their predetermined narrative, cherry picking the data and numbers they want, while the other party had studied the subject for 50 years and has to explain to the first person why they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. 

The problem is unlike 50 years ago, the internet guy still thinks he’s right after the conversation 

 

I posted this video not long ago, but I was having flashbacks watching Rand so I feel compelled to share it one more time:

Rand with another "global wobbling" / "CO2 toxicity" / "ice cube displacement" moment, brought to you once again by the Republican Party ...

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8558

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is a microcosm of the world we live in, and a byproduct of the internet. One person googles a bunch of articles and studies that fit their predetermined narrative, cherry picking the data and numbers they want, while the other party had studied the subject for 50 years and has to explain to the first person why they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. 

The problem is unlike 50 years ago, the internet guy still thinks he’s right after the conversation 

 

A student emailed our Provost, President, and the industrial hygienist that we've been working with and used the following sentence-

"I took General Microbiology last spring and have a solid basis of understanding the ways that COVID-19 is transmitted and detected."

And then went on to talk about how we should either be doing daily tests for everyone or be a mask-free campus to build herd immunity.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

A student emailed our Provost, President, and the industrial hygienist that we've been working with and used the following sentence-

"I took General Microbiology last spring and have a solid basis of understanding the ways that COVID-19 is transmitted and detected."

And then went on to talk about how we should either be doing daily tests for everyone or be a mask-free campus to build herd immunity.

Daily tests for everyone seems like a good idea (if it were feasible).  Mask-free campus as the alternative, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8558

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Daily tests for everyone seems like a good idea (if it were feasible).  Mask-free campus as the alternative, not so much.

Totally agree. But the leap in logic there (in a conversation with the PhD in Immunology Provost) was just tremendous.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NWBuck said:

A student emailed our Provost, President, and the industrial hygienist that we've been working with and used the following sentence-

"I took General Microbiology last spring and have a solid basis of understanding the ways that COVID-19 is transmitted and detected."

And then went on to talk about how we should either be doing daily tests for everyone or be a mask-free campus to build herd immunity.

Is she blonde?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted

Is the data on cross reactivity as clear cut as Fauci suggests?  Cause the literature appears to be all over the place.  As little as a month ago he was talking about cross reactivity as it relates to prior coronavirus infections, based on work by the NIAI published in Science.  There appears to be a strong overlap between some of the T-cell adherents and the HCQ adherents, which is a red flag to me, but it would be nice if some cites were deployed during the exchange...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article244852012.html

“It’s sort of like a one-two punch,” Fauci said. “It’s conceivable that the T cells that you’ve made in response a couple of years ago — three, four, five years ago — when you were exposed to a relatively benign coronavirus that causes the common cold, could actually hang around, and when you’re exposed to the SARS-Coronavirus-2, could have some degree of protection,” he said, referring to the novel coronavirus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PsychMike

PsychMike 1552

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Is the data on cross reactivity as clear cut as Fauci suggests?  Cause the literature appears to be all over the place.  As little as a month ago he was talking about cross reactivity as it relates to prior coronavirus infections, based on work by the NIAI published in Science.  There appears to be a strong overlap between some of the T-cell adherents and the HCQ adherents, which is a red flag to me, but it would be nice if some cites were deployed during the exchange...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article244852012.html

“It’s sort of like a one-two punch,” Fauci said. “It’s conceivable that the T cells that you’ve made in response a couple of years ago — three, four, five years ago — when you were exposed to a relatively benign coronavirus that causes the common cold, could actually hang around, and when you’re exposed to the SARS-Coronavirus-2, could have some degree of protection,” he said, referring to the novel coronavirus.  

Thanks for posting that article. Your awareness of the "adherents" is notable and appropriate. As to whether it is "clear cut," I merely point out the actual quote you included. He used the words "conceivable" (which means what he thinks it means) and "could have." Such is the way science works. The public sometimes takes the wrong message from his words (yes, this includes the media, who are usually not trained in science and health). Also, a quick answer to a question might not allow him the appropriate context that he would supply if he were lecturing or publishing. I'm very sensitive about how Fauci is perceived (not that I think you've done anything wrong here, in fact I think you are one of the more rational posters on this topic). Remember when "you-know-who" was bashing him about Vitamin D? Not only was the trial he cited less then impressive about the potential benefits of Vit D (and, incidentally, in that study all patients were receiving HCQ and many did poorly despite that -- I know, big surprise, right?), but the implication was that Fauci withheld this important information all along until Jennifer Garner coaxed it out of him recently (and she could coax me into saying just about anything). But he hadn't hidden anything: making sure you aren't deficient in immune-boosting nutrients has been touted  by everyone this whole time, and he focused his attention to the things that make the biggest difference, such as social distancing and benefits of wearing masks.

Here's the blurb in the JAMA network back in June:

Quote

Dr Bauchner:People always raise the issue about vitamin D and whether or not it could be helpful in treatment. Do you have a sense of vitamin D and its role with COVID-19?

Dr Fauci:I think it really relates to the importance of vitamin D in host defense against infection. There’s no doubt that if you are vitamin D deficient, you might have a poor outcome or a greater chance of getting into trouble with an infection. Most people in the developed world are not vitamin D deficient, so adding additional vitamin D may not actually have a substantial clinical effect. That doesn’t lessen the importance of a normal level of vitamin D. In some of the developing countries, there have been studies with tuberculosis and other diseases. Those who are vitamin deficient, including vitamin D and vitamin A, they do worse.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2767208

Push back on anyone who bashes Fauci. They either have their own agenda, are ill-informed, or both.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45933

Posted
Posted

I'm curious -- how are "most people in the developed world not vitamin D deficient"?

It's hard to get from food.  It's hard to get from sunlight, especially if you live north of, say, Dallas, and especially so if you are an adult (and certainly an older adult) who doesn't get a lot of outside time.

Seems to me vitamin D deficiency would be a pretty common affliction.  I take a bunch because I'm 57, white, and work most days (including weekends), so it's not like I'm out waterskiing on Lake Austin twice a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
  • Author
Posted
25 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

Thanks for posting that article. Your awareness of the "adherents" is notable and appropriate. As to whether it is "clear cut," I merely point out the actual quote you included. He used the words "conceivable" (which means what he thinks it means) and "could have." Such is the way science works. The public sometimes takes the wrong message from his words (yes, this includes the media, who are usually not trained in science and health). Also, a quick answer to a question might not allow him the appropriate context that he would supply if he were lecturing or publishing. I'm very sensitive about how Fauci is perceived (not that I think you've done anything wrong here, in fact I think you are one of the more rational posters on this topic). Remember when "you-know-who" was bashing him about Vitamin D? Not only was the trial he cited less then impressive about the potential benefits of Vit D (and, incidentally, in that study all patients were receiving HCQ and many did poorly despite that -- I know, big surprise, right?), but the implication was that Fauci withheld this important information all along until Jennifer Garner coaxed it out of him recently (and she could coax me into saying just about anything). But he hadn't hidden anything: making sure you aren't deficient in immune-boosting nutrients has been touted  by everyone this whole time, and he focused his attention to the things that make the biggest difference, such as social distancing and benefits of wearing masks.

Here's the blurb in the JAMA network back in June:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2767208

Push back on anyone who bashes Fauci. They either have their own agenda, are ill-informed, or both.

IMO, you are spot on in the description of the public sometimes taking the wrong message as well as your reference to context. We have multiple scientists in the family, and this is the lingo, so to speak. I've learned how to adjust and knowing one's audience is absolutely critical. Unfortunately, educating someone who has a 'talking point' stuck in their head is practically impossible unless one is able to reframe the conversation so that they come to the conclusion on their own. Sometimes. The. Penny. Never. Drops.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PsychMike

PsychMike 1552

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm curious -- how are "most people in the developed world not vitamin D deficient"?

It's hard to get from food.  It's hard to get from sunlight, especially if you live north of, say, Dallas, and especially so if you are an adult (and certainly an older adult) who doesn't get a lot of outside time.

Seems to me vitamin D deficiency would be a pretty common affliction.  I take a bunch because I'm 57, white, and work most days (including weekends), so it's not like I'm out waterskiing on Lake Austin twice a week.

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency depends on the threshold used to define vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It varies based on latitude and season (both relate to sun exposure). Around 10% whites in the US below the highest threshold, whereas up to half are below lower thresholds. The black population are closer to 50% at each definition, which is one of the hypothesized reasons they suffered Covid to a higher extent. Fauci was not completely wrong in the characterization I quoted, but he could use an update on the incidence from his internal medicine colleagues and should craft a better message accordingly.

JJ, you are well within reason to take supplements. I do not. I have no idea how much sunshine exposure is appropriate, but I almost certainly get plenty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45933

Posted
Posted

Yeah, my sun exposure is limited to about two hours on the average weekend (son's soccer), and maybe an hour 3-4 hours a week when I go out for a walkjog.  I surely don't get enough.  So, 5000 IU per day, because I'm a severe asthmatic and I'm wholly uninterested in having my lungs fill with covid goo, as much as I can avoid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PsychMike said:

Push back on anyone who bashes Fauci. They either have their own agenda, are ill-informed, or both.

He deserves to be treated respectfully and with an appropriate amount of esteem.  Nobody should be bashing the guy, but not sure that I would build his pedestal too high of the ground. 

2 hours ago, PsychMike said:

As to whether it is "clear cut," I merely point out the actual quote you included. He used the words "conceivable" (which means what he thinks it means) and "could have." Such is the way science works.

See, but that is precisely my point.  In the exchange during testimony he did not use that posturing, he was quite definitive in fact with his choice of terms.  He was pissed at Paul and trying to engage "shut it down dunk mode". "Pre-existing immunity to coronaviruses that cause the common cold DO NOT cross react with the COVID-19."  A month earlier he used the more careful phrasing related to the findings of the NIAI study on cross-reactivity. Very well that the evidence may have evolved since Mid-August, and he feels quite definitive now in his position, contrary to his prior posture.  Which would be fine, but my point is that the evidence does not appear quite as clear cut as he suggested in that video, and I'd like to see the cites that made him shift his opinion to be so definitive in that congressional testimony.

It appears to me that Paul and Fauci are citing research that is looking at the issue of cross-reactivity from different perspectives, T-cell  vs. antibody cross reactivity. I believe that these are the lines of research they are relying on...

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa593/5907985

Ironically, it appears that Paul is referring to the work of the NIAI and Fauci the work of Takeda. 

Like I said, I don't think that the picture is a clear cut as Fauci tried to make it appear in his testimony. But that doesn't really matter in our twitter driven sound bite world at the moment. Engage dunk mode for retweets is what is most important. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I like to think I have a pretty good bullshit filter.  I think Rand Paul is full of shit, and Tony Fauci is doing his best to convey science and policy in short soundbites.  I know which one I would scold and which one I'd pat on the back, should I run into them.

I like to think the same.  Watching that exchange, my detector goes off a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Wanker Bob said:

When the wife and I were first dating several years ago her very country Mexican family took me hunting. I asked if we were going to be in a blind and they started laughing and said only pussies and lazy fucks hunt in blinds. 

So I had to mess with you. 

Interesting. Cause her parents never said shit to me when she came out to the blind to keep me company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PsychMike

PsychMike 1552

Posted
Posted
On 9/18/2020 at 2:11 PM, Anastasis said:

The protocols for the MRNA and PFE Phase III trials have been released (they are posted on the DT medical thread).  The planned interim analysis points suggest Nov could be in play if the interim data shakes out just right, but it is entirely dependent on the case counts. If I am interpreting it right, It does not appear to me that they need a whole bunch of positive cases, like a very small number <50 in a trial with N=30k, that shake out strongly favoring the vaccine to trigger their submission for approval. If they submit for an authorization of some form at these early read outs, the concern in my mind then becomes whether they have enough follow-up to detect potential safety signals. I am sure that any numerical imbalances of safety events will be heavily scrutinized, but it just does not seem like a lot of exposure time to detect infrequently occurring events.  

You are correct, sir. At least with respect to the Moderna trial. From the protocol:

Quote

Under these above assumptions including 6-month incidence rate of 0.75% on placebo, with 30,000 participants, it will take approximately 5, 8, and 10 months from study start (first subject first dose), respectively, to accrue 35% (approximately 53), 70% (approximately 106) and 100% (151) of the target number of cases.

So in the first interim analyses which takes place when 53 cases are recorded (NOTE: cases don't count for subjects unless they take place > 14 days after the 2nd injection), if the criteria are met for efficacy (60% reduction in hazard rate). So you are correct that they don't need many cases...they are planning that the final analysis (should the 2 interim analyses fail to demonstrate efficacy) will be done at 106 cases.

You make an excellent point about long-term safety. The study is to follow subjects out 2 years, but if the vaccine(s) is (are) approved, we citizens will have to decide whether to wait it out or just accept the risks and take a step towards returning to normal. I will do my best to examine the entirety of the data and make the decision, and I lean towards doing so unless there are surprises.

BTW, as of last Friday at 5 pm, the status of the trial was: 25,976 participants enrolled in the COVE Phase 3 Study as of Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm ET. 11,879 participants have received their second vaccination. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

You make an excellent point about long-term safety. The study is to follow subjects out 2 years, but if the vaccine(s) is (are) approved, we citizens will have to decide whether to wait it out or just accept the risks and take a step towards returning to normal. I will do my best to examine the entirety of the data and make the decision, and I lean towards doing so unless there are surprises.

I think that we will have a fairly good sense of acute safety wrt common events at all the interim analysis points based on the study protocols.  Two round of vaccine administration, relatively large sample size. Seems like we will pick up the low hanging fruit. Rare acute events, and longer term outcomes are the real concern, imo. 

As I indicated earlier, I would be probably line up for the PFE or MRNA vax under a EUA. Wouldn't put my kids in the line, but I would probably be down. I would slow play the adenovirus vector vaccine. But the reality is that it is all somewhat of a crap shoot, similar to any other new drug, until we have substantial exposure and longer term follow up. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

BTW, as of last Friday at 5 pm, the status of the trial was: 25,976 participants enrolled in the COVE Phase 3 Study as of Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm ET. 11,879 participants have received their second vaccination. 

Oh, and were do you get these real time data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PsychMike

PsychMike 1552

Posted
Posted
On 9/21/2020 at 7:42 PM, Bama Chick said:

Maybe so.

 

But I want details on the demographics and make up of the trial participants.

 

Are they excluding folks over a certain age?

 

Are they including people with - asthma? COPD? High blood pressure? Diabetes? Auto-Immune disorders? Cancer? What medications are they on?

 

What’s the racial make up? How many men and women? What’s the age breakdown?

 

Lots of clinical trials exclude unhealthy people for reasons spanning actual safety concerns to not wanting “sick” people to taint the results.

 

These trials need a wide variety of people in these trials - young, old, sick, healthy, black, white, hispanic, fat, thin etc.

 

Because in a perfect world, this vaccine will be for everyone. And chances are the healthy 31 year old CrossFit dude will fare better than the 67 year old sedentary woman with COPD if there is a problem with the vaccine that doesn’t manifest itself until given to a less than healthy patient.

 

And if the trial subjects lean more towards the CrossFit dude, we won’t have any idea how safe and effective this vaccine truly is until we roll the dice when the “real people” start getting injected.

You have to be at least 18 years old for the Moderna study and I couldn't find an upper limit. The AstraZeneca study allows subjects as young as 5 yrs old.

Randomization will be stratified based on age and, if they are < 65 years of age, based on the presence or absence of risk factors for severe illness from COVID-19 based on CDC recommendation as of Mar 2020. There will be 3 strata for randomization: ≥ 65 years, < 65 years and categorized to be at increased risk (“at risk”) for the complications of COVID-19, and < 65 years “not at risk”. Risk will be defined based on the study participants’ relevant past and current medical history. At least 25% of enrolled participants, but not more than 40%, will be either ≥ 65 years of age or < 65 years of age and “at risk” at Screening.

Participants who are < 65 years old will be categorized as at risk for severe COVID-19 illness if they have at least 1 of the following risk factors at Screening:

Chronic lung disease (eg, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis) or moderate to severe asthma

Significant cardiac disease (eg, heart failure, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathies, and pulmonary hypertension)

Severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m2)

Diabetes (Type 1, Type 2 or gestational)

Liver disease

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well damn, I used to go there for "happy" "hour".  Hope I never met Anastasis' mom.

You might have. She was a pretty hot milf before a milf existed. Hell even before a cougar existed.

I of course being a total Young stupid dumbass rarely enter there. Same with Southwest Texas State. If only I knew then what I know now. Sigh....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4085

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Most astonishing is that 36% acknowledge the CDC is a superior source to Ill Douche on covid and STILL. identify as Republican. They see Trump undermining health experts, politicizing the CDC, 200k dying and think 'they have my vote'.

I feel like we're in a steep dive and running out of sky to pull up. I'm not even sure we know which way that is any more.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...