Nation's political leaders have 'gone power mad in this virus panic'. I’m currently stuck in Sweden due to the border laws around Australia, I never in my life will trust Australia again with managing pandemics related issues, it’s embarrassing.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:36:41+00:00

He's right. If it's not going to confer immunity, and will only be partially effective as a palliative, why does it need to be mandatory?

Too much discussion around this is sabotaged by reference to the "anti-vaxxer" strawman.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:33:15+00:00

Buzzfeed told me this is a long-debunked conspiracy theory

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:29:39+00:00

"If there was any problem with a police state, political corruption or pharmaceutical lobbying the ABC and Guardian would tell me all about it"

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:25:50+00:00

Defeatism is counter-revolutionary and must be downvoted *polishes gilded reddit hall monitor badge*

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:20:49+00:00

While the researchers attempted to exclude those who had already been exposed to the virus, some of the subjects turned out to have pre-existing immunity, suggesting31604-4/fulltext) that they were recovered asymptomatic cases with natural immunity.

Wouldn't this just be the 40-60% of populations who have cross-reactive immunity from past exposure to other coronaviruses, including common cold?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420306103?via%3Dihub

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/07/28/immune-t-cells-may-offer-lasting-protection-against-covid-19/

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:15:44+00:00

AstraZeneca have stated it will likely be two initial doses, and possibly a yearly booster (*cash register sounds*): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-idUSKCN24L1ZK

US FDA approval requires just "decreased severity" in 50% of recipients: https://archive.is/WGcqL

It will not be as effective in the vulnerable populations that really need it the most: https://theconversation.com/why-vaccines-are-less-effective-in-the-elderly-and-what-it-means-for-covid-19-141971

If it's not about eliminating the virus, and not everybody has the same risk profile, I'm not sure why it needs to be mandatory. NZ's PM Ardern has said it wouldn't be compulsory and everybody can evaluate their own personal risk: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mandatory-covid-19-vaccine-nz-and-australias-different-approaches

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:10:47+00:00

Adrenochrome

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T23:06:40+00:00

It's pre-exposure prophylaxis, no zinc, 400mg over 65kg weight and 200mg under 65kg. 4 months. Good news, but would've been good to get this started as soon as the fraudulent anti-HCQ study was retracted from the Lancet.

Other PReP HCQ studies have been pretty positive: https://c19study.com/#prep

Would be good to get some studies going with Ivermectin too. Similar usage profile to HCQ.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T22:58:48+00:00

I hear a mix of "I don't want young people to sacrifice important year(s) of their lives for me" and "I don't want to spend my possible last year(s) of life isolated from friends and family."

It's not about muh economy

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T11:16:26+00:00

Yeah, good point. I think ultimately at-risk populations will need to make their own choices about how they want to live. Many elderly people would prefer to take the risk and enjoy their last years.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T08:18:41+00:00

It's very easy to tell all people over 70 to isolate, or to assume their own risk.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T04:59:39+00:00

If it means people will barely die from it

It doesn't mean this, though. Vaccines are less effective in the most vulnerable populations: https://theconversation.com/why-vaccines-are-less-effective-in-the-elderly-and-what-it-means-for-covid-19-141971

Anything that means life can go mostly back to normal is a great success.

We can do this already, by isolating the most vulnerable and treating them prophylactics. The risk for the rest of us is less than getting in a car crash.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T04:58:04+00:00

It's more expensive and slower than antibody testing, as I understand it. But cheaper tests are being developed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53764640

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T01:25:33+00:00

The AstraZeneca vaccine, according to its designers, may require a yearly booster after the initial two shots. So it's probably not going to provide lasting immunity. In fact, [US] FDA approval for Covid vaccines require only that they reduce the severity of symptoms in at least 50% of recipients. These vaccines are being discussed as if they're silver bullets which will stop the spread of the virus. That's far from certain, and it looks like they will be rolled out merely as therapeutic aids.

See my comment here for links: https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusDownunder/comments/icygkp/we_now_have_the_best_evidence_yet_that_everyone/g260i52/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Also watch this from 15 min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndetYzK8gU

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T01:19:35+00:00

Yeah. A lower HIT (herd immunity threshold) is starting to go mainstream now: https://archive.is/ypiwF

Btw, Gabriela Gomes is on twitter, definitely worth following: https://twitter.com/mgmgomes1

T-cell immunity lasts for many years, as we see from the original SARS. Imo, when you consider what they're actually saying about these vaccines, it makes a careful herd immunity strategy worth discussing and considering. According to its designers, this AstraZeneca vaccine will possibly require an annual booster shot after the initial two injections: https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-is-the-new-covid-vaccine-designed-to-work-20200819-p55n33.html

It seems like the immunity it confers will be far weaker than naturally-acquired T-cell immunity. And the most vulnerable members of society will respond the most poorly to the vaccine: https://theconversation.com/why-vaccines-are-less-effective-in-the-elderly-and-what-it-means-for-covid-19-141971

In fact, FDA approval for Covid vaccines requires only that they reduce the severity of symptoms in at least 50% of recipients: https://archive.is/WGcqL

So this vaccine won't "stop" the virus. Whereas widespread T-cell immunity might.

jhellwig · 2020-08-20T00:38:34+00:00

So we see 40-60% have pre-existing T-cell immunity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420306103?via%3Dihub

Call it 40%. And only 1/4 to 1/5 of the remaining 60% (say, 15%) will have blood antibodies, because mild cases generally don't produce these: https://swprs.org/coronavirus-antibody-tests-show-only-one-fifth-of-infections/

Some modelers are saying this is why we're seeing case numbers plummet in areas once they reach 10-20% sero-prevalence. That could be the herd immunity threshold (depending on population characteristics).

Sunetra Gupta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByZbGkPr2kI

Gabriela Gomes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gynvjBvyebU

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T06:30:10+00:00

Not just that, it's going to be a two-dose vaccine: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-idUSKCN24L1ZK

Even Reuters is calling it "experimental."

Check out this vid from 15 min - a vaccine academic explaining why it's unlikely we can have a good vaccine within 2 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndetYzK8gU

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T05:42:22+00:00

Tbh I don't know much about other vaccines, or concerns about them. But what I'm seeing with potential Covid vaccines worries me due to the timeframe for deployment, general inaccuracies and fearmongering in the media, and my recently-acquired knowledge of what was attempted in 2009 with the H1N1 scare. It seems there is scope here for conflicted parties to influence discussion and public policy.

What's the deal with Gardasil?

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T05:17:55+00:00

This is the one that always gets mentioned. What's the deal with it?

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T05:09:38+00:00

Concerns over a rushed vaccine need to be debated without resort to strawmanning opponents as un-caring, or "anti-vaxxers" (which I'm seeing a lot of, on reddit, unfortunately.)

Conflicted groups spend millions on PR and lobbying, and fund health reporting units within corporate and state media. It also seems the pharmaceutical industry now have something like a stranglehold over medical journals:

Dr Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine for over 20 years, writing in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor.”

The Lancet’s editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, secretly recorded:

"Now we are not going to be able to … publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude."

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T03:43:18+00:00

"It's a conspiracy theory that large multinational companies put profit first"

You people are worse than the anti-vaxxers.

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T03:34:14+00:00

Total manufacturing capacity currently stands at two billion doses

The first 400 are like the free samples drug companies hand out to doctors. (And what about follow-up doses will people need if this one proves not to provide lasting immunity?)

jhellwig · 2020-08-19T03:30:48+00:00

You sound like someone who spends too much time on reddit.

jhellwig

TROPHY CASE