Coronavirus

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Shit

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, shit.

I mean someone should have been thinking about the production problems in advance. Since many more facilities should have been prepared to produce the vaccines. Since at this rate this will just take too long if we judge by the global numbers. What only adds to the probability of various mutations, which can potentially reset the whole mess.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Or how the world seems to be going broke.

 

[Vendrah]

Or how the world seems to be going broke.

Bankers will profit over this, as usual.
Basically, capitalism today seems to program profit for bankers regardless of what happens.
If the apocalypse came by, the bankers would probably still profit from it.
If suffering increases due to this, it doesn't matter [to them].

 

[Virtual ghost]

Bankers will profit over this, as usual.
Basically, capitalism today seems to program profit for bankers regardless of what happens.
If the apocalypse came by, the bankers would probably still profit from it.
If suffering increases due to this, it doesn't matter [to them].

Well to be honest I find everything under 30% growth on that graph to be reasonable, since there is indeed crisis going on. However if you have more than that in the first 3Qs there is probably something fishy going on. Since the system is probably established in a wrong way.


On the other hand as I explained to you this crisis could be complete catastrophe for the bankers, since the global sum of debt is approaching 300 Trillion dollars. While at the same time economic and political processes are completely disrupted. What can objectively brake the whole system. Especially if the pandemic isn't solved for the most part by next Summer (by the standards of the northern hemisphere). Since with 2 disrupted Summers in a row this will completely sink the tourist and related industries globally. What will probably start all kinds of chain reactions in the terms of severe economic problems.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To hit Commission target, EU vaccine rollout should be 5 times faster



This is indeed just too slow, since there is simply catastrophic lack of vaccines in supply.
What also means that around 3rd world it is generally even worse. What then openly threatens the whole financial system.

 

[FemMecha]

Or how the world seems to be going broke.

Wow. I have heard concern expressed about Canada, and it looks out of control on this chart.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I find it telling that people talking about the climbing suicide rates seem to not grasp that the reason for suicides was frequently the same reason BEFORE Covid.

Poverty, lack of health care access, lack of health care affordability, lack of child care, lack of jobs, lack of food access - the total bootstraps brainwashing in the US. A government so derelict in its concern for its people then add the last 4 years of chaotic stupidity plus the absence of a comprehensive federal response to the pandemic - it's fucking obvious that it's MUCH more than just the lockdown.

The UK paper also cites these things, Psychology Today does not.

This in particular is something that keeps triggering a lot of anger in me, when people I know turn the suicide and hardship into a "clear" by-product of the lockdown (not of the pandemic, but of the lockdown - with an inability to grasp any amount of hardship being a direct result of an existing pandemic). Add to that, four years of living in a country that elected Boss Hogg to be president with nearly half its citizens enabling and cheering on the corruption and abusive behavior - the latter alone is enough to cause a spike in en masse despondency (and consequently, increased suicide). It's infuriating.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

You're More Likely to Get COVID From Someone [Talking] Than Coughing

Geez.

Link didn't work for me. Is it because. Coughing instinctively makes people back away, whereas transmission via talking sneaks up on people unawares (because it's easy to still keep forgetting that we're sticking our faces into a pool of someone else's exhale)? Or is talk exhale actually somehow more loaded with contamination than cough exhale?

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is why people should talk with their mask on.

 

[Totenkindly]

Link didn't work for me. Is it because. Coughing instinctively makes people back away, whereas transmission via talking sneaks up on people unawares (because it's easy to still keep forgetting that we're sticking our faces into a pool of someone else's exhale)? Or is talk exhale actually somehow more loaded with contamination than cough exhale?

Weird, the link broke.
Talking is worse than coughing for spreading COVID-19 indoors | Live Science

Coughing contains heavier particles, the finer particles involved in talking circulate much longer. This is especially a problem in poorly ventilated areas.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

^I remember reading something similar about single layer, polyester/nylon masks and/or gators; instead of blocking the particles, it breaks them up into smaller pieces which linger longer in the air than if a person weren't wearing any face covering at all. But maybe it wasn't accurate, because I can't find anything about it now.

 

[ceecee]

^I remember reading something similar about single layer, polyester/nylon masks and/or gators; instead of blocking the particles, it breaks them up into smaller pieces which linger longer in the air than if a person weren't wearing any face covering at all. But maybe it wasn't accurate, because I can't find anything about it now.

I think it was more about those pieces of thin fabric that ties behind the head but hangs loose. They're not gaters, they're like face scarves. But I see more and more places banning anything that doesn't fit the face snugly which is sensible in terms of particle blocking.

 

[Red Herring]

I think it was more about those pieces of thin fabric that ties behind the head but hangs loose. They're not gaters, they're like face scarves. But I see more and more places banning anything that doesn't fit the face snugly which is sensible in terms of particle blocking.

Germany made medical masks (surgical or FFP2*, in Bavaria only FFP2) compulsory this month in stores (those that are still open) and on public transport. Masks have obviously been compulsory since april, but many people (myself included) had been wearing reusable multilayer textile masks until now.


*FFP2 = up to 95% filtered, an EU standard

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The reason I couldn't find it is because I spelled gaiters wrong. But initially there was a story about how gaiters are worse than no mask at all, and here's an MIT piece refuting it: Are neck gaiters worse than no mask at all?

But that’s not what the media took away from his paper. Rather, news reports focused on one anomalous result — his single test of the neck gaiter, which produced slightly more, and smaller, respiratory droplets than he’d measured in the baseline, no-mask condition. Fischer and his colleagues, none of them aerosol scientists, speculated that perhaps this particular fabric somehow functioned to splice large respiratory droplets into smaller ones. If true, this would, indeed, make a gaiter worse than no mask at all.

But, based on aerosol science, this is unlikely. Multiple tests of face coverings have shown that any face covering will block at least a small percentage of droplets generated when we speak or cough. While researchers have ranked the effectiveness of various cloth face coverings, no previous study has ever identified any face covering that is less effective than no face covering at all. Fischer’s results on this single test of a single neck gaiter may be due to any number of variables for which this proof-of-concept study did not control: Was he talking louder? Did the material of the neck gaiter retain moisture? Did he have more mucus on his vocal cords at that moment?

Even Fischer expressed dismay at the media’s coverage of his work. “Our intent was not to say this mask doesn’t work, or never use neck gaiters,” he told the New York Times. “This was not the main part of the paper.”

Research on the effectiveness of gaiters and other face coverings is likely to continue. Already Jin Pan, a Virginia Tech graduate student who studies biological particles, is reporting on his preliminary testing of two types of gaiters — a single-layer gaiter made of 100 percent polyester and a two-layer gaiter, made with 87 percent polyester and 13 percent spandex. Pan and his colleagues used mask-testing protocols established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and found that both gaiters were at least somewhat effective at blocking respiratory particles. Both blocked 100 percent of very large, 20-micron droplets and at least 50 percent of one-micron aerosols. When it came to smaller particles, the single-layer gaiter blocked only 10 percent of 0.5-micron particles, while the two-layer gaiter blocked 20 percent. However, when the researchers doubled the single-layer gaiter, it blocked more than 90 percent of all particles measured.

Bottom line? Cover your face. Overall, research shows that two layers of anything are better than one and that fit matters — no face covering will be effective if it’s not snug on your face. As research on mask effectiveness continues, we’ll report on the results here. And Fischer hopes his methodology will be part of that story going forward. As he told the New York Times, “Our intent was for this technology to get out there so companies and organizations can test their own masks. A mask doesn’t have to be perfect for it to work."
​

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Dr. Deborah Birx on Face the Nation, about 9 minutes in: “I saw the president presenting graphs that I never made. So I know someone inside, or on the outside, was creating a parallel set of data and graphics that were shown to the president. I know what I sent up, and I know what was in his hand was different from that."

She seems to imply he wasn't involved with (or aware it was happening) creating that "parallel set of data." Or she won't say it, if she suspects it.

Interview lady: Do you think the administration was suppressing vital information to win the election?

Birx: I don't know what their motivation was. [This was just after explaining how dangerous it is to have a pandemic in an election year - so, she clearly suspected it, because she just explained it.]

It's pretty clear she resents any association with the Trump administration. She repeatedly emphasized that she's a career professional. She doesn't seem to realize that her unwillingness to speak out sooner very much comes across as enabling - even if she was afraid (she refused to be interviewed until after Biden was sworn in), she should have quit and let someone with more mettle step in. That's why there's an association - it's not simply because she worked during Trump's time in office. Fauci did too, and he doesn't have that stink on him.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Globally we passed 100 000 000 detected cases since the start.

 

[JAVO]

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

...

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.

Great Barrington Declaration

Authors:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.


Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England

Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany

Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England

Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England

Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany

Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

 

[JAVO]

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease - PubMed

From the abstract:

Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

 

[Vendrah]

Scientists uncover potential antiviral treatment for COVID-19 | EurekAlert! Science News

What do you think?
This could be the real chloroquine!

PS: I could not find the actual article of this. I first read it in portuguese, but I found this one in English.