The new Corona virus, should we worry?

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
I guess we don’t understand everything about the virus.




U.K. variant isn't linked to more severe disease or death, study finds​


Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, who was not involved with the new study, said the conflicting results show how much there is still to learn about the B.1.1.7 variant.

"The new findings don't nullify the other papers — they just make you think," he said. "Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. This study says there's no higher death rate, but they did find more need for oxygen, so there's something going on there with respect to this variant."

Although there have been some indications that the B.1.1.7 variant is affecting young people more than previous strains, there is not enough data to know for sure, Topol said. And it can be difficult to separate out other factors that may account for the trend.

"That's one of the tricky things about this variant epidemiology," he said. "There are a lot of moving parts — age, resources, co-existing conditions — and you can't always adjust for all of that stuff."



 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,889
Reaction score
2,559
Points
113
I take it it's the Boomer version of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night."
It was an ad campaign for Vick's Formula 44 Cough syrup. It used two different actors who were best known for playing doctors on TV Soap operas - one from All My Children and then later one from General Hospital.

The commercials showed them dressed like a doctor and saying the line, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television," and then going on to promote the cough syrup. You can find them on Youtube.

Fun fact - the 1st actor who did the commercials was convicted of tax evasion, so vick's dumped him and got a different soap opera doctor and continued the campaign.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Awesome, you actually think you know more about Covid than Osterholm. You really can't make this S up.

Interesting choice of words considering the subject of our discussion? These are not my opinions, these are the findings of some papers, and known vaccination difficulties in seniors and possible worse vaccine performance with the variants, and the empirical case and hospitalization evidence we all have access to.

Osterholm has repeatedly made claims that are not grounded in any solid evidence or at least any he’s willing to share or link to. He’s been going off half-cocked for some time now. When Dr. Jha and others are saying you’ve lost the plot maybe there is room for debate.
 
Last edited:

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
Interesting choice of words considering the subject of our discussion? These are not my opinions, these are the findings of some papers, and known vaccination difficulties in seniors and possible worse vaccine performance with the variants, and the empirical case and hospitalization evidence we all have access to.

Osterholm has repeatedly made claims that are not grounded in any solid evidence or at least any he’s willing to share or link to. He’s been going off half-cocked for some time now.
You're definitely pompous.

The guy knows his stuff. Is he always 100% accurate? No. So what? (No one is.) You've read some select papers and what you read is clearly chosen not at random, but papers you intend to support your viewpoint. Why not review the situation more broadly? That's what the experts in the field are doing...
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
It was an ad campaign for Vick's Formula 44 Cough syrup. It used two different actors who were best known for playing doctors on TV Soap operas - one from All My Children and then later one from General Hospital.

The commercials showed them dressed like a doctor and saying the line, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television," and then going on to promote the cough syrup. You can find them on Youtube.

Fun fact - the 1st actor who did the commercials was convicted of tax evasion, so vick's dumped him and got a different soap opera doctor and continued the campaign.

Considering the many docs I am acquainted with or know of that have been convicted or charged with tax evasion or Medicare fraud - one of which fled the country and supposedly died in Mexico...and another fled to Israel and was recently convicted on 50M tax evasion, yes 50M (buys you 20 years) - perhaps this actor just REALLY got into his role.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
You're definitely pompous.

The guy knows his stuff. Is he always 100% accurate? No. So what? (No one is.) You've read some select papers and what you read is clearly chosen not at random, but papers you intend to support your viewpoint. That's not good information seeking or related to good science, that's selective/biased information. Experts in the field who look at the information as a whole are coming up with quite different conclusions than you, and their conclusions are reasonably correlated around real data. I trust those who are not so blatantly selective in the information they take in and the information they return to us, not those with an emotional/political axe to grind.

You don’t think Osterholm is biased? Do you really believe epidemiologists are in agreement on the future course of the pandemic?
You seem to have a penchant for selection bias as well?
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
You don’t think Osterholm is biased? Do you really believe epidemiologists are in agreement on the future course of the pandemic?
You seem to have a penchant for selection bias as well?
You are asking me/us to trust you over experts in the field, and pompously acting like you know more than them. Arrogance does not an expert make. If you have actual credentials in this area, state them now.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
You are asking me/us to trust you over experts in the field, and pompously acting like you know more than them. Arrogance does not an expert make. If you have actual credentials in this area, state them now.

I’m not asking you to “trust“ me, just giving my opinion on a vocal expert that has made a bevy of curious statements in recent months, and prognostications that are not panning out. In the past he’s strayed from his lane into economics, etc, which is clearly not his thing. You are free to tell me I’m full of manure, which you have, and I’m fine with that.

Can you find evidence to support HIS arguments? He could still turn out to be right - a huge spring surge is brewing, opening schools will be a catastrophe, and one dose will prove to be as effective vs the variants as two doses in high risk and seniors. Many high level scientists, physicians, and epidemiologists disagree with Osterholm. Don’t take my word for it, expand your spectrum of news sources.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
I’m not asking you to “trust“ me, just giving my opinion on a vocal expert that has made a bevy of curious statements in recent months, and prognostications that are not panning out. In the past he’s strayed from his lane into economics, etc, which is clearly not his thing. You are free to tell me I’m full of manure, which you have, and I’m fine with that.

Can you find evidence to support HIS arguments? He could still turn out to be right - a huge spring surge is brewing, opening schools will be a catastrophe, and one dose will prove to be as effective vs the variants as two doses in high risk and seniors. Many high level scientists, physicians, and epidemiologists disagree with Osterholm. Don’t take my word for it, expand your spectrum of news sources.
I'm sincerely asking your credentials. You talk about reading a paper on some subject, and concluding that the paper basically proves Osterholm wrong. Are you sure you know how to properly interpret the paper? What makes you think that the paper's results are trustworthy AND directly applicable to your thought processes?

I read scientific papers on a regular basis as part of my job. There are good ones, there are not so good ones. Some are outright bad. But the only reason I can make that determination is because I am an expert in that field, and have a solid background on the subject, so I can point out errors in their thought processes or evaluation techniques. What I'm asking you here is just that - what makes you so sure your background allows you to interpret these papers in the appropriate light?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but back some months ago weren't you one of the folks touting some paper(s) on droplet behavior through masks that you claimed proved masks don't work? It did nothing of the sort. It provided information, but folks who then attached that to some global claim about masks were projecting way beyond what the study actually said. This is how misinformation starts and propagates and evolves. Misinformation is unhelpful.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
Where is JTF fo debunk this for me? I think we are getting close to covided out, how soon until Dems change the narrative and claim Trump was responsible for the shutdowns?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
3,616
Points
113
Where is JTF fo debunk this for me? I think we are getting close to covided out, how soon until Dems change the narrative and claim Trump was responsible for the shutdowns?
Economists are just paid shills.😛
The narrative changes to touchy feely when it suits them. That said I am about done with Covid, get my first shot this afternoon.😯

WHO says Covid pandemic is growing ‘exponentially’ at more than 4.4 million new cases a week​

 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
I'm sincerely asking your credentials. You talk about reading a paper on some subject, and concluding that the paper basically proves Osterholm wrong. Are you sure you know how to properly interpret the paper? What makes you think that the paper's results are trustworthy AND directly applicable to your thought processes?

I read scientific papers on a regular basis as part of my job. There are good ones, there are not so good ones. Some are outright bad. But the only reason I can make that determination is because I am an expert in that field, and have a solid background on the subject, so I can point out errors in their thought processes or evaluation techniques. What I'm asking you here is just that - what makes you so sure your background allows you to interpret these papers in the appropriate light?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but back some months ago weren't you one of the folks touting some paper(s) on droplet behavior through masks that you claimed proved masks don't work? It did nothing of the sort. It provided information, but folks who then attached that to some global claim about masks were projecting way beyond what the study actually said. This is how misinformation starts and propagates and evolves. Misinformation is unhelpful.

Yes, qualified. This is a bulletin board, we’re not setting policy. Is there any opinion topic where we have to be flash credentials and work directly in that field? Don’t be ridiculous. You are btw contradicting yourself in your first and second paragraphs. Contradictory evidence is exactly what I’m referring to, versus certainty of expert opinion (in some cases). Osterholm is seemingly proclaiming the outcome of the experiment before it’s occurred. Too many variables at play.

You are wrong. It wasn’t me regarding the droplets/masks. I have no idea what you’re referring to. Face coverings happen to be a topic I totally agree with Osterholm, and one he disagrees with his peers - and the data seems to support Osterholm. He’s taken heat for “going off message”.

Ok, getting back to scientific evidence and strength of evidence what does it tell you when someone that vigorously advised delaying second doses went and took one anyway? He doesn’t appear to have strong faith in his own advice which should be a strong bullet point of evidence the body of research he was relying on is fairly weak. Somebody talked him out of it, perhaps his daughter who IIRC is a clinician. Who knows.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,331
Reaction score
805
Points
113
Arrogance does not an expert make.
This is rich, coming from you.

Friendly tip; you're fighting out of your weight class here with Pompous. Even you should be able to see that. I kinda want you to keep at it though, it's wildly entertaining to say the least.
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
I'm sincerely asking your credentials. You talk about reading a paper on some subject, and concluding that the paper basically proves Osterholm wrong. Are you sure you know how to properly interpret the paper? What makes you think that the paper's results are trustworthy AND directly applicable to your thought processes?

I read scientific papers on a regular basis as part of my job. There are good ones, there are not so good ones. Some are outright bad. But the only reason I can make that determination is because I am an expert in that field, and have a solid background on the subject, so I can point out errors in their thought processes or evaluation techniques. What I'm asking you here is just that - what makes you so sure your background allows you to interpret these papers in the appropriate light?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but back some months ago weren't you one of the folks touting some paper(s) on droplet behavior through masks that you claimed proved masks don't work? It did nothing of the sort. It provided information, but folks who then attached that to some global claim about masks were projecting way beyond what the study actually said. This is how misinformation starts and propagates and evolves. Misinformation is unhelpful.
I've tried this before. He won't do it.

Must be a small, specialty field that would be easy to look up with the right hints, and he is very protective of his real world identity (fair enough).
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,584
Reaction score
4,306
Points
113
This is rich, coming from you.

Friendly tip; you're fighting out of your weight class here with Pompous. Even you should be able to see that. I kinda want you to keep at it though, it's wildly entertaining to say the least.
CRINGY is as looney as looney gets. I find a lot of entertainment reading his posts. Did you know he would be OK with what is going on in Georgia RE: voting.... if they only gave away free IDs. Ummmm...... Too Good.
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
This is obviously geared towards investors, but still interesting nonetheless:

One jab to rule them all

The first efforts of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) can be traced back to 1893. The group works with both military and civilian professionals to develop products for both existing and potential threats. The organization's infectious disease branch was the one that took on the COVID challenge 15 months ago.
The team's goal was to develop a drug that would inoculate recipients against all coronaviruses. To do it, they would have to come up with a different approach. The currently authorized vaccines feed instructions to the cells so they can make the famed spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When the body sees it and recognizes it as foreign, it develops antibodies to fight it if it ever returns.
Rather than provide instructions, the WRAIR vaccine presents both a nanoparticle with 24 spike proteins and an adjuvant, an ingredient that helps boost the immune response. What is injected actually looks like a virus, not just part of one. That helps the body recognize more than just one distinctive marker. The result is a more robust immune response to any SARS virus, even the variants now circulating around the globe.

Put simply, the group believes it is on the path to a vaccine that could protect against all SARS coronaviruses. So far, tests in thousands of mice and dozens of monkeys have shown the drug to be effective against variants of the current virus, as well as other coronaviruses like SARS-1. Even better, the Army's development process prioritized practicality, so the vaccine doesn't need any special handling. It's stable enough to be tossed in a cooler on the back of a motorbike and driven to whatever remote location needs it.

Banking on a booster

Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) are all expected to make billions this year as COVID-19 vaccines are distributed. The guaranteed government contracts they signed were a major reason they made the investments required to get a vaccine in less than a year. While Johnson & Johnson is expecting about $8.5 billion more in total revenue this year, Moderna and Pfizer expect $18.4 billion and $15 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales, respectively.
Analysts predict that continued spread and mutations will keep demand high for the jabs. Some estimates show the market tapering off from $75 billion this year to $23 billion next year, gradually reaching about $6 billion in 2025. That's an enormous financial opportunity that would be in serious doubt if the U.S. government developed an all-encompassing vaccine of its own.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,889
Reaction score
2,559
Points
113
numbers - not opinions.

MN Covid-19 Update - Tuesday, April 13

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 511,492 +1,223. Including probable cases 545,404.

Positive test rate 8.9%.

Health-Care workers with positive cases 40,077 +76.

Cases no longer needing isolation 520,800 +2,142.

Active Cases 17,642 -787.

Deaths 6,577 +3. Including probable deaths 6,962.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 4,081 (same). Including probable cases 4,319.

Patients currently Hospitalized 676 +25. Cumulative 28,509 +254.

Patients currently In ICU 159 -2. Cumulative 5,830 +49.

Total PCR tests processed 8,042,747 +13,718. Including antigen testing 8,641,543.

Number of people tested 3,835,496 +5,247.

 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
3,616
Points
113
That's an enormous financial opportunity that would be in serious doubt if the U.S. government developed an all-encompassing vaccine of its own.

The research will go to big pharma company who will make all the money.

Waiting, about to get my vaccine.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
Yes, qualified. This is a bulletin board, we’re not setting policy. Is there any opinion topic where we have to be flash credentials and work directly in that field? Don’t be ridiculous. You are btw contradicting yourself in your first and second paragraphs. Contradictory evidence is exactly what I’m referring to, versus certainty of expert opinion (in some cases). Osterholm is seemingly proclaiming the outcome of the experiment before it’s occurred. Too many variables at play.

You are wrong. It wasn’t me regarding the droplets/masks. I have no idea what you’re referring to. Face coverings happen to be a topic I totally agree with Osterholm, and one he disagrees with his peers - and the data seems to support Osterholm. He’s taken heat for “going off message”.

Ok, getting back to scientific evidence and strength of evidence what does it tell you when someone that vigorously advised delaying second doses went and took one anyway? He doesn’t appear to have strong faith in his own advice which should be a strong bullet point of evidence the body of research he was relying on is fairly weak. Somebody talked him out of it, perhaps his daughter who IIRC is a clinician. Who knows.
Osterholm is making his best guesstimate. He should, as should other experts. Why shouldn't he? As for the rest of your post, I'll take your word for it. Except for one thing: you claim qualification....so you are an expert in virology, disease transmission, or the like?
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
I've tried this before. He won't do it.

Must be a small, specialty field that would be easy to look up with the right hints, and he is very protective of his real world identity (fair enough).
Right. Fair enough.
 

WorkingMyTailOff

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
5,558
Reaction score
253
Points
83
Your move, Osterholm. Show us your numbers that refute HHS.


Recent data shows that B.1.1.7 hasn’t changed the pediatric hospitalization rate and that severe COVID-19 remains rare in kids.

The pediatric hospitalizations rate was 1.9 per 100,000 of hospitalizations on January 1, 2021 and 1.4 per 100,000 of hospitalizations on April 1, 2021, per data sourced from the HHS Protect Public Data Hub.

“There is no evidence in those under 18 that you’re seeing increased severity of disease,” said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases specialist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

A variant that’s easier to contract would naturally lead to more cases and ultimately more deaths — but the clinical course in illness caused by B.1.1.7 doesn’t appear to be different.

“I don’t see it being more virulent,” said Levy, noting that it’s unknown how many kids who get COVID-19 get really sick.



Well our 4th grader came down with what the doc figured was the British variant (tested positive on Saturday). She said it creates a strep throat looking situation which is what our daughter had. Luckily i had the second shot and my wife had her first. So far so good for us (cheers to the vaccine makers). Her symptoms were quite mild and we only have to be worry about quarantine for a few more weeks.
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
Well our 4th grader came down with what the doc figured was the British variant (tested positive on Saturday). She said it creates a strep throat looking situation which is what our daughter had. Luckily i had the second shot and my wife had her first. So far so good for us (cheers to the vaccine makers). Her symptoms were quite mild and we only have to be worry about quarantine for a few more weeks.
Be on the watch for MIS-C symptoms, and follow whatever your doctor says.

It is rare, so it shouldn't worry you. But better safe than sorry.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
3,616
Points
113
Well our 4th grader came down with what the doc figured was the British variant (tested positive on Saturday). She said it creates a strep throat looking situation which is what our daughter had. Luckily i had the second shot and my wife had her first. So far so good for us (cheers to the vaccine makers). Her symptoms were quite mild and we only have to be worry about quarantine for a few more weeks.
Kids don't spread it, so you're safe.
😎
 
Top Bottom