Coronavirus (No Politics)

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Just to add something positive about the pandemic: My son, who is a careful type of person, has had to learn to enter school and be on different activities without us parents. Which has helped him grow and be more confident.

Schysst. As a father of small children has-been, I can really see the benefit of that.

an incarnation of pibbur who now has to decide if the whole thing is worth it.

Originally Posted by a pibbur
As a father of small children has-been, I can really see the benefit of that.

an incarnation of pibbur who now has to decide if the whole thing is worth it.

Yes, as long as the child (and the parents!) can deal with it, it can be a small push in the right direction.

Somewhat off-topic, but related to the latest exchange: If your toddler is old enough to go to the bathroom, but refuses to do so because it's more practical (doesn't interrupt playing) to let it go into diapers, chickenpox is a blessing.

an incarnation of pibbur who knows

Originally Posted by a pibbur
Somewhat off-topic, but related to the latest exchange: If your toddler is old enough to go to the bathroom, but refuses to do so because it's more practical (doesn't interrupt playing) to let it go into diapers, chickenpox is a blessing.

an incarnation of pibbur who knows

Hahaha, yes I imagine the stinging and itching will motivate them

AstraZeneca says COVID-19 vaccine is actually 76% effective.

Link - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h…-idUSKBN2BH03H

Unless it's their only available option, I can't understand why anyone would choose to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Unless it's their only available option, I can't understand why anyone would choose to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.

If you want the vaccine to not use the new mRNA approach, and rather use the classic aproach to how vaccines were developed up until now (which at least historically has proved safer) you have Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. I remember reading that J&J has an even lower efficacy rate. Around 72% I think. And I believe this efficacy rate refers to the probability you'll develop the anti-bodies. Once/If you develop the antibodies, they're effective as any other, from what I understand.

But I'm also biased. I got AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is also the cheapest to buy. Moderna and Pfizer are a lot more expensive.

The sucky thing about these vaccines is that production of them is controlled by private companies which refuse to allow developing nations to produce their own generic version. Real corporate criminals leading these companies. Pfizer, for example, had its R&D done in Germany by BioNTech, which receveid a 400+ million dollar grant from the German state. So, crony capitalism at its best. Develop the vaccine with public money, and then Pfizer gets to own the vaccine and sell it back to Germans. And also not allow other states to use the research. Shit world we live in. A similar thing happened with Astra Zeneca which was developed by Cambridge, and then convinced, by the Gates Foundation, to sell the research to a private company. Nice job. At least, AstraZeneca is not selling it for a huge profit.

Lovely when you're trying to solve a global pandemic but also allow crony capitalism to take place and milk countries of everything they got.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
AstraZeneca says COVID-19 vaccine is actually 76% effective.

Link - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h…-idUSKBN2BH03H

Yes, but at the same time 100% effective against severe covid.

To be fair, most vaccines probably lose efficacy as time goes on, due to mutations. Hopefully what this leads to in the long run is a better understanding of viruses and how we can protect against them in general.

Your failing to see the point they lied with their initial data. That's a big no-no. Anyway I would like to see more single shot vaccines like Johnson & Johnson just more effective.

As for off-topic yeah most antibiotic's are getting less effective. It should be worrying.

I talked to my dad yesterday. Being 72, overweight, had cancer a year ago, has high blood pressure and an autoimmune disease, he's definitely at risk. They are finally approaching his age span in his area, so hopefully he gets the vaccine in a week or two.

I would be very happy if he gets it before Easter, but that's only a week away, so it is unlikely. I really miss him and would love to celebrate Easter with him.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Your failing to see the point they lied with their initial data. That's a big no-no. Anyway I would like to see more single shot vaccines like Johnson & Johnson just more effective.

As for off-topic yeah most antibiotic's are getting less effective. It should be worrying.

Yeah, lying isn't good. I agree with you there.

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
If you want the vaccine to not use the new mRNA approach, and rather use the classic aproach to how vaccines were developed up until now (which at least historically has proved safer) you have Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. I remember reading that J&J has an even lower efficacy rate. Around 72% I think. And I believe this efficacy rate refers to the probability you'll develop the anti-bodies. Once/If you develop the antibodies, they're effective as any other, from what I understand.

For some reason I thought the J&J vaccine had a higher efficacy rate, but I just looked again, and you're right. It's around 72% apparently.

Not sure if they're all the same once you develop antibodies. I thought it was a little more complex than that.

Price isn't an issue over here though. They're all free afaik.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not sure if they're all the same once you develop antibodies. I thought it was a little more complex than that.

I don't know the technicalities, but at least in principle considering that the antibodies are what's fighting the virus, in theory they should be the same? I'm not sure though. Haven't researched it enough.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Price isn't an issue over here though. They're all free afaik.

Of course it's an issue. Where do you think that money comes from? From the state. The classic, easiest way to rob the state. Doing business with it. Since no one there is there to actually protect it.

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
Of course it's an issue. Where do you think that money comes from? From the state. The classic, easiest way to rob the state. Doing business with it. Since no one there is there to actually protect it.

I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. I'm talking about it being an issue to the individual recipient who may or may not be able to afford it at the moment.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. I'm talking about it being an issue to the individual recipient.

It will be. Robbing the budget with this, will give the same politician the bullshit excuse to cut other programs (usually social ones).

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
It will be. Robbing the budget with this, will give the same politician the bullshit excuse to cut other programs (usually social ones).

Sure? You're going off on a tangent now, but ok.

Also, no politics here.

Moved all the other stuff to the other coronavirus thread, as politics came into the picture again. Just made it a rough cut, to simplify it.

Promise - no politics.

There have been two small scale studies but they have a big requirement. This only applies to those who have had covid-19 and a 1st shot of a vaccine. The 1st study (in New York) , 32 people, they found that if you had had covid-19 then your levels of anti-body are similar to those who had two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

Still in New York a 2nd study of 109 people who had either P/B or Moderna gave similar findings.

In this situation maybe a 12 week delay to the second dose is fine or not bothering is ok. There is a but - T-cell activity may be better with two shots.

To me this seems logical. The vaccine is acting like a booster for those who have had covid-19 but I am not a scientist.

I haven't seen those studies yet. If T-cell response is significantly improved with two shots, that strikes me as potentially important.

I had my second Pfizer last week. My arm was a bit sorer this time, so that it woke me up if I rolled on it. The next day, I was very tired, and felt a bit like I was coming down with something. The day after, I felt better. Standard stuff, really, like we'd often see with flu jabs. But, anecdotally, it does seem that a lot of people are feeling a bit rough after the second one, and the vaccinator was recommending an early night, and a day off if possible.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I haven't seen those studies yet. If T-cell response is significantly improved with two shots, that strikes me as potentially important.

I had my second Pfizer last week. My arm was a bit sorer this time, so that it woke me up if I rolled on it. The next day, I was very tired, and felt a bit like I was coming down with something. The day after, I felt better. Standard stuff, really, like we'd often see with flu jabs. But, anecdotally, it does seem that a lot of people are feeling a bit rough after the second one, and the vaccinator was recommending an early night, and a day off if possible.

Do people normally react to flu vaccines? I never got any "sicknessy" reaction, at least as far as I can remember. Just a tiny bit of soreness in the arm (and once in the butt… ).