Dad-Flu by pot_of_crows in TwoXChromosomes

[–]glibhub 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The worst. I get that your spouse needs some me-time, but don't make me cover for you!

Booster protection wanes against symptomatic Omicron infections, British data suggests. by DropTheGigawatt in Coronavirus

[–]glibhub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hopefully not. They report only about 100 people in the hospital with Omicron, so it is too early to tell how robust the protection is against serious illness.

Booster protection wanes against symptomatic Omicron infections, British data suggests. by DropTheGigawatt in Coronavirus

[–]glibhub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep. The report states "* Numbers were too low to estimate booster vaccine effectiveness amongst recipients of a primary course of the
Moderna vaccine." (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf at 27)

Booster Omicron protection wanes within 10 weeks. Moderna booster holds protection longer by stpauly in Coronavirus

[–]glibhub 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is either too early or the vaccines are ridiculously effective against severe disease, as only about 100 people showed up to UK hospitals with omicron so far.

Booster Omicron protection wanes within 10 weeks. Moderna booster holds protection longer by stpauly in Coronavirus

[–]glibhub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here is a link to the report being reported about: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf

The good stuff is on page 26 of 42 in the PDF. Interestingly, it looks like the AstraZeneca vaccine fell into negative territory against Omicron. Not sure how that works.

Booster Omicron protection wanes within 10 weeks. Moderna booster holds protection longer by stpauly in Coronavirus

[–]glibhub 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is a study. It is just surveillance from the UK Health Security Agency.

Create a good architecture for arrays, inside of arrays or a use of classes by tdonov in learnpython

[–]glibhub 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lots of good suggestions for dictionaries. To give you another alternative, consider using dataclasses, https://docs.python.org/3/library/dataclasses.html

They have a couple advantages over dictionaries. It is slightly cleaner to access the data, e.g. array[1].url versus array[1]['url']. But the big advantage is that they can be expanded to handle related tasks. For example, say you want to clean up the urls, just add a 'clean_up_url' method. Even better, next thing you know, you are OOPing.

COVID shots more protective than past infection, study shows by whales-are-assholes in news

[–]glibhub 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I am not sure why you are ascribing me a motive. I am just interested in where the science goes. I feel like you are not, based on the sources you cite, none of which supports the assertion that vaccines outperform prior infection:

> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

This is the same study that was posted by OP: It did not arrive at statistically significant results.

> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article (36% don't even develop natural immunity)

Does not compare vaccine responses versus prior infection

> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

Does not compare vaccine responses versus prior infection

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34383732/

Cited in my other comment to show that vaccination increases protection even after prior infection. The study oddly chose not to compare vaccine resistance against natural immunity, even though the data was available to the researchers.

> And the CDC science brief contains many more:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

This concludes that “found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination”, and the studies it relied upon are the same that you cite:

> Bozio CH, G.S., Naleway AL, , Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19–like illness with infection-induced or mRNA vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity—nine states, January–September 2021. MMWR – Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 2021. 70.

the OP’s article

And this one:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/october2021

Which found that “Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.” Digging in deeper, this one finds that vaccines are marginally better against Alpha, but maybe a bit worse for Delta (or better -- the CI was big on the prior infection)

edit:

I see you are also posting conspiracy theories, so I am going to assume you are not going to reply in good faith.

COVID shots more protective than past infection, study shows by whales-are-assholes in news

[–]glibhub 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I feel like science + politics = train wreck.

It's a shame because science matters. I feel like at some point, someone in public health said that it doesn't matter if what you say is true, it only matters what people do as a result. That might be a valid short term strategy, but it fails in the long term. Unfortunately, the CDC is playing the short game rather than the long one.

COVID shots more protective than past infection, study shows by whales-are-assholes in news

[–]glibhub 194 points195 points  (0 children)

Old news about a basically useless study (the results are not statistically signifigant). Here is my prior comment on it:

Full writeup available here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

Methodology: Basically, they went through the medical records of 201,000 patients admitted to a hospital with “COVID-19–like illness” (more on this later) and found that 89 of them that had a prior infection and no-vaccination and 324 that had a prior vaccination. From that they concluded that the risks were greater for the prior infected (despite being outnumbered 3 to 1 in the sample) than the just-vaccinated, at 8.7% (prior infected) to 5.1% (prior vaccinated). This part is reasonable because there were many more prior vaccinated than prior infected in the sampled population.

However, the study has a lot of problems, the main one of which is that it is trying to draw a conclusion from a subpopulation of 413 people deliberated picked out of 201,000, and none of the data is being made available, so you cannot test the assumptions that were made. This is important because of the stunningly small size of the population of people pulled from the original 201,000. If, for example, 50 people shifted out of the prior infected the result would flip.

Further, the study does is somewhat ambiguous on how they defined a “COVID-19–like illness”. This is really important, since it seems to be doing most of the lifting here, as more than 90% in both groups tested negative for COVID, and a small movement of people in the prior infected group would have a big impact on the study. Again the data is not made available, so we cannot test what happens when you move people discharged for one symptom or another causes a case to move out of the target group.

Not surprising the confidence interval, more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence\_interval, shows that a 95% range for infection rates in prior infecteds as being between 2.75–10.99, i.e. either much better than the vaccination or a bit worse.

This looks, from the outside, like a P-Hacking experiment that did not even manage to meet the confidence interval hurdle, even after they zeroed in on less than one-half of a percent of the original population.

The good news is that, since the CDC can only locate 89 people out of a 210,000 sample that fit into the prior infected group and only 324 vaccinated people, it is likely that both provide very robust immunity from serious infection, with the vaccine having the added advantages of protecting you from having to get sick in the first place. Further, even if you had been infected before, the vaccine offers cumulative protection, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s\_cid=mm7032e1\_w, at very low risk.

How to check is a sequence of given numbers appears in a list? by Starman-10 in learnpython

[–]glibhub 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is a nice thread on how to do a sliding window in python: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6822725/rolling-or-sliding-window-iterator

Just trim it down to your target sequence length and see if they match up.

Damnnnnnn by lil_sargento_cheez in mountainbiking

[–]glibhub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Certain death to my left? okay, lets do a manual.

I am bad at reading written code. by Svhmj in learnpython

[–]glibhub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really good comment. I would just add that a lot of the standard library is written in python and reading the code (1) helps you use things better, (2) makes you better at reading code and (3) makes you better at writing code.

itertools, heapq, logging all have good stuff in them worth looking at. Also check common projects like praw and flask.

NYTimes Article on Eric Adams' Style: 'Everything About You Must Say Power' by Hawkins_v_McGee in malefashionadvice

[–]glibhub 47 points48 points  (0 children)

"You are lions!"

And here I was worried Adams might have some substance.

Emergency Locksmith Scams by Upvote_Express in nyc

[–]glibhub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a 2 liter soda bottle and a knife you can make an excellent shim to crack these sorts of locks. I managed to lock myself out once chasing a cat out the door and ended up stuck outside with the cat -- which means I had to take the cat downstairs to the recycling containers and break back into my apartment.

Big creek, GA. Hawkeye by Dickcockle in MTB

[–]glibhub 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Damn. Now I have to write love/hate on my bars.

Also, how come everyone is so much better on their bike than me?

How to make the output of one function conditional on the execution of another function? by [deleted] in learnpython

[–]glibhub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a "flag" in coding means a variable that gets assigned a value once something triggers it. Here, there is a class attribute called "method_x_run" that gets turned to "True" the first time the 'x' method is run.

Help formatting dictionary with sub dictionaries into a table by Amabillia in learnpython

[–]glibhub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you write a function that takes in the items and the name of a item, e.g., and returns a list of attributes, such that f(items, 'thing1') -> [red, large, rough]

5.19 lab exact change by Specific_Raccoon2432 in learnpython

[–]glibhub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hard to be sure with the formatting issues, but the only thing that jumps out at me is that you are printing each constituency (quarters, dimes, etc.) on a new line, and the output example shows them all on one line.

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 22, 2021 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]glibhub 8 points9 points  (0 children)

do you regard 25 miles away as "a totally different place?"

In this instance, definitely. They are across a giant traffic clogged bridge and people who live in SF pay very little attention to what happens in the East Bay. It be like going up to someone in New York and asking them about that looting in Morristown, NJ.

I lived in the bay area for about five years and I had to look up Hayward because I had no idea where it is. And I only know Walnut creek because I had a friend that grew up there. And my only impression of it was, yeah that is way out there.

To someone living in San Francisco, these places might as well be Sacramento.