|
Post by hcpride on May 15, 2021 12:11:00 GMT -5
Future outbreaks like this are entirely preventable — if it turns out to be from a Wuhan lab leak. Took the ‘experts ‘ at CDC quite a while (if a year strikes you as quite a while) to notice the lack of outdoor transmission; the non-experts at the New York Times had to slam them on the outrageous ‘less than 10%’ fake science just last week: www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.amp.html(These were the same ‘experts’ who completely bungled the original Covid tests, BTW.) Wasn't in the end the biggest failure that US Intelligence seemingly wasn't onto what was going on in China in late 2020? It's pretty evident the virus was going around long before it started making the news in the US. It still remains quite puzzling that nobody apparently knows when the first cases began and more and more ‘experts’ in the scientific community are bravely confessing there seems to be no evidence to support the Chinese explanation of how it began. One would think the world, after 3+ million deaths, would be desperate to find out the latter (and certainly quite curious about the former). It has been a year and a half - what a strange pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 15, 2021 12:31:06 GMT -5
Wasn't in the end the biggest failure that US Intelligence seemingly wasn't onto what was going on in China in late 2020? It's pretty evident the virus was going around long before it started making the news in the US. It still remains quite puzzling that nobody apparently knows when the first cases began and more and more ‘experts’ in the scientific community are bravely confessing there seems to be no evidence to support the Chinese explanation of how it began. One would think the world, after 3+ million deaths, would be desperate to find out the latter (and certainly quite curious about the former). It has been a year and a half - what a strange pandemic. They know, or have a good idea, just not sharing Remember things are rarely as they appear-James Jesus Angleton-chief Counter Intelligence, CIA (1947-75)
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 15, 2021 13:14:17 GMT -5
I'd be as interested as anyone else in verification of origin, but I also sense one driver of this inquiry is a desire to blame China and keep scrutiny away from the performance of the previous administration. Now could left wing media/commentators be downplaying the origins for similar ideological reasons? Of course. The different amount of emphasis at the news channels can't be coincidental.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 15, 2021 15:32:34 GMT -5
I'd be as interested as anyone else in verification of origin, but I also sense one driver of this inquiry is a desire to blame China and keep scrutiny away from the performance of the previous administration. Now could left wing media/commentators be downplaying the origins for similar ideological reasons? Of course. The different amount of emphasis at the news channels can't be coincidental. When I punched in "Origin of Covid" to Google and then hit "news" I got four very recent articles. The first was WSJ (1 day ago), the second was NYT (1 day ago) , the third was the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ( the Nicholas Wade article) from 1 week ago, and 1 was WAPO1 day ago. And then the now-famous letter in Science. And then the MIT Technology Review 2 days ago. All with a similar theme: We don't know if it jumped naturally from wildlife to people or if the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. No mention on either Fox or CNN websites. Although the majority of print sources may be distinctly left-leaning (to put it mildly) I don't see this recent coverage favoring one administration or another. It may also be true that this administration and the last administration (and all other administrations around the world) had difficulties dealing with the pandemic. It certainly wouldn't help one administration or another (here or abroad) if one theory turns out correct and one does not. It also does not seem one particular ideology is responsible for this welcome return to data-driven science. (Apparently, scientific folks recently realized -- or at least vocalized -- the puzzling lack of data to support the current/former narrative on Covid origin.)
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 15, 2021 16:37:20 GMT -5
I'd be as interested as anyone else in verification of origin, but I also sense one driver of this inquiry is a desire to blame China and keep scrutiny away from the performance of the previous administration. Now could left wing media/commentators be downplaying the origins for similar ideological reasons? Of course. The different amount of emphasis at the news channels can't be coincidental. When I punched in "Origin of Covid" to Google and then hit "news" I got four very recent articles. The first was WSJ (1 day ago), the second was NYT (1 day ago) , the third was the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ( the Nicholas Wade article) from 1 week ago, and 1 was WAPO1 day ago. And then the now-famous letter in Science. And then the MIT Technology Review 2 days ago. All with a similar theme: We don't know if it jumped naturally from wildlife to people or if the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. No mention on either Fox or CNN websites. Although the majority of print sources may be distinctly left-leaning (to put it mildly) I don't see this recent coverage favoring one administration or another. It may also be true that this administration and the last administration (and all other administrations around the world) had difficulties dealing with the pandemic. It certainly wouldn't help one administration or another (here or abroad) if one theory turns out correct and one does not. It also does not seem one particular ideology is responsible for this welcome return to data-driven science. (Apparently, scientific folks recently realized -- or at least vocalized -- the puzzling lack of data to support the current/former narrative on Covid origin.) Hcpride I work on this everyday. Our learnings about the virus are evolving, there is no clear visibility into the facts and both parties are using or spinning it to their advantage. As Crucis said and I believe the epidemiologist, docs and scientists on this board will tell you, we need t cell solutions to create a clear path against this and future viruses. That doesn't fit the narrative and BARDA/ASPER have no plans to invest in future Covid vaccines-- a shame The experts, including our great leading scientist, know and understand the politics. No different than what happened, or perhaps didn't happen, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but then again we can discuss offline. In case you missed it the government finally is taking $2B from Barda and using it to do border testing for Covid- no comment so I can keep politics out of it, but you should know the WH Task Force had this before them in February and declined to take action.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 15, 2021 16:48:42 GMT -5
Singapore announces new restrictions after vaccinated airport workers become infected --- a sample of similar infection events around the world [after vaccination OR after catching COVID] Changi Airport in Singapore this week. The airport outbreak began with an 88-year-old member of the airport cleaning crew who was fully vaccinated but who tested positive for the virus on May 5. ... By Shashank Bengali May 14, 2021 NY TIMES SINGAPORE — Singapore said on Friday that it would ban dining in restaurants and gatherings of more than two people to try to stem a rise in coronavirus cases, becoming the latest Asian nation to reintroduce restrictions after keeping the illness mostly in check for months. The new measures came after the city-state recorded 34 new cases on Thursday, a small number by global standards, but part of a rise in infections traced to vaccinated workers at Singapore Changi Airport. The airport outbreak began with an 88-year-old member of the airport cleaning crew who was fully vaccinated but who tested positive for the virus on May 5. Co-workers who then became infected later visited an airport food court, where they transmitted the virus to other customers, officials said. None of the cases linked to the airport outbreak are believed to have resulted in critical illness or death, according to officials. In all, 46 cases have been traced to the airport, the largest of about 10 clusters of new infections in the country. “Because we do not know how far the transmission has occurred into the community, we do have to take further, more stringent restrictions,” said Lawrence Wong, co-chair of Singapore’s coronavirus task force. The measures will be in effect for about one month beginning on Sunday. According to preliminary testing, many of those infected were working in a zone of the airport that received flights from high-risk countries, including from South Asia. Several have tested positive for the B.1.617 variant first detected in India, which the World Health Organization has said might be more contagious than most versions of the coronavirus. Singapore health officials said that of 28 airport workers who became infected, 19 were fully vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, the only two approved for use in Singapore.
THIS INFO APPEARS TO CONTRADICT THE CDC ANNOUNCEMENT FRIDAY THAT THESE VACCINES ARE EFFECTIVE AGAINST COVID VARIANTS ETC AND REINFECTION AND EVEN GETTING COVID, ALBEIT AT A LOWER RATE??
“Unfortunately, this mutant virus, very virulent, broke through the layers of defense,” Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung told a virtual news conference on Friday. Mr. Ong also said that the rise in cases “very likely” means that a long-delayed air travel bubble with Hong Kong would not begin as scheduled on May 26. Singapore, a prosperous island hub of 5.7 million people, saw an explosion of infections among migrant workers living in dormitories, but a two-month lockdown and extensive testing and contact tracing contained the outbreak. Although Singapore has kept much of its economy open, its vaccination effort has not moved as quickly as many expected: less than one-quarter of the population has been fully inoculated.
Changi Airport, which served more than 68 million passengers in 2019, is operating at 3 percent of capacity as Singapore has paused nearly all incoming commercial traffic. Employees there work under strict controls, wearing protective gear and submitting to regular coronavirus tests.
Singapore joins Japan, Thailand and other Asian countries that have struggled to contain new outbreaks fueled in part by variants. But Paul Ananth Tambyah, president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, said that the rise in cases was not overly worrying.
“The reason for my optimism is that we now have effective vaccines, better diagnostics, proven treatments and even potential prophylactic,” he said. “If these are employed in a targeted approach, it is unlikely that we will end up with the same problems we had last year.”
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 15, 2021 20:02:21 GMT -5
The mutant variants are a reason why it's so important for the vast majority of people to get vaccinated because the virus can't mutate if it isn't circulating. We don't want to become like the team that gets a big lead but lets the opponent keep hanging around, hanging around and then gets beat.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 15, 2021 20:21:47 GMT -5
Brazil and India variants allegedly are a growing concern...
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 16, 2021 6:23:20 GMT -5
In 2014, NIH / NIAID (Fauci) began awarding grants for the study of the risk of corona viruses emerging from bats. The grant amounts in the early years were less than $1 million, annually. I don't have the most recent grant amount. Below is an excerpt from the most recent abstract of the grant's investigational area. Bolding mine. SARS is shorthand for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30670-X/fulltext#:~:text=Canada%20was%20affected%20by%20SARS,in%20Toronto%2C%20Canada's%20largest%20city. IIRC, SARS was much less contagious than COVID-19, there was no asymptomatic spread, but it was far more lethal. COVID's full name is SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). (The 19 is for 2019; SARS official name is SARS-CoV-1) Among the recent, 10+ journal articles emanating from this NIH-NIAID research are the following titles: "Host and viral traits predict zoonotic spillover from mammals", Nature, June 29, 2017 "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus" PloS Pathogens , November 30, 2017 The Nature and PLoS articles led to this letter: Even before NIH/NIAID began awarding grants for the study of coronaviruses emerging in bats, in 2014, there were numerous articles such as these: "More evidence emerges that bats may have spread SARS". Journal of the American Association (JAMA), 2013 "Bats may be SARS virus reservoir" JAMA, 2005 "Virology. What links bats to emerging infectious diseases" Science, 2005. ______________________ It is eminently fair to say that the world would have been up sh*t creek if these studies had not been undertaken in the years between 2003 and 2019. Because of this work, Fauci received the COVID-19 genome from Wuhan in mid-January 2020 (IIRC, January 14th) and work began on vaccines the next day. And Fauci promised shortly thereafter that there would be at least one or two vaccines available by/near the end of 2020. '
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 16, 2021 8:42:10 GMT -5
NY Times, January 30, 2004. The author of this article was none other than Nicholas Wade.
So I suppose one might fault Fauci for taking ten years (from 2004 to 2014) before there was funding of research into transmission of corona viruses into humans from animals in Asia, and there was no funding for a surveillance system.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 16, 2021 8:49:03 GMT -5
A man receives a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at[+]
William A. Haseltine Forbes 210515
AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Two new studies have shown the real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine rollout against two deadly Covid variants, B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. The news is decidedly positive, especially when considered alongside data from a third study, released today, on the effectiveness of a Moderna booster shot against B.1.351 and the P.1 variant. But despite the positive momentum, it remains far too soon to call the game in our favor nor trust too much in vaccines alone to end the virus’ spread.
The first set of data comes out of Qatar, which launched its mass immunization campaign with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in late December just as its second major wave of infection was beginning to rise. By mid-March, at least half of all cases in Qatar were caused by the B.1.351 variant and 44.5% were caused by B.1.1.7; around that point roughly 385,000 Qataris had received at least one vaccine dose and roughly 265,000 had received both doses.
The study found that, despite the prevalence of the variants, the vaccine was still highly effective at preventing infection. Two weeks after the second dose, the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness against infection from the B.1.1.7 variant ranged from 87-89.5%. Against the B.1.351 variant it ranged from 72.1-75%. More promising still, the vaccine was 97.4% effective at preventing severe or fatal Covid-19 from any SARS-CoV-2 virus, including both variants.
This is excellent news, but it bears noting that for the B.1.351 South African variant, the vaccine was still 20% less effective at preventing infection than in the initial clinical trial. Also worth noting is the difference in effectiveness after one dose compared to two. There were 6689 breakthrough infections and 5 deaths reported among those who had received only one dose of the vaccine and only 1616 breakthrough infections and 2 deaths in those who received the full two.
A second study — using national surveillance data from Israel during the first four months of its campaign which began just as the country reached the peak of its second big wave — echoed the positive findings from Qatar. The B.1.1.7 variant is by far the dominant strain across Israel, accounting for nearly 95% of all cases. In this study, seven days or more after the second dose, the Pfizer vaccine proved 95.3% effective at preventing infection and 97.5% effective at preventing severe or critical Covid-19.
This study also went a step further, analyzing vaccine uptake and its impact on the scope of the nationwide epidemic. It notes that as the percentage of vaccinated people in each age cohort grew, the number of coronavirus infections in that age group fell and that even in the face of the country’s phased reopening, reductions in new infections continued. Taken together, the authors note that this suggests that high vaccine coverage might prove to be a sustainable path towards resuming normal activities.
Again, excellent news but also not without caveat. The study contains only seven weeks of follow up data following the second dose of the vaccine — the longest follow up data we have to date but still not long enough to determine whether protection against the variants lasts as long as protection lasted against the non-variant strain dominant in the clinical trials. What both the Israeli and Qatari studies do show us definitively is that high titers correlate to broad protection, which will be important for measuring new vaccines and the effectiveness of booster shots.
And that is where the third study comes in, a Phase 2 study from Moderna on the effectiveness of its booster shot against variant strains of the virus. While the full data has yet to be released, Moderna’s press release shows a single dose booster shot given to someone who has already received both doses of the vaccine raises the body’s neutralizing antibody titers against both the B.1.351 variant and the P.1 variant which was first identified in Brazil, the only two variants seemingly tested in the study.
Beyond that important finding, Moderna also tested a strain-matched booster shot and compared its effectiveness against the original booster. The strain-matched shot was designed specifically to match the B.1.351 variant — that boost raised even higher neutralizing antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than the original. This too is excellent and welcome news.
Despite the positive notes that run throughout all these findings, it’s important to note that none of these studies give us any indication of how well our vaccines and potential boosters will perform against other variants, both the ones we know of today and the ones — perhaps even deadlier or more transmissible — that may emerge tomorrow.
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, if people don’t agree to vaccination the vaccines won’t do any of us any good, no matter how effective they may be. In many countries around the world, including here in the United States, widespread vaccine acceptance is not a given. Because of this, any discussion of reopening or resuming pre-pandemic activities must take other public health precautions like mask-wearing and social distancing into careful consideration. We haven’t won the game just yet, but as these studies show, the opposing team can definitely be beaten
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on May 16, 2021 14:25:03 GMT -5
On the contrary side, the New York Yankees are saying that 8 fully vaccinated members of the team tested positive. I don't think any are symptomatic so I guess the vaccine is doing its thing. Eight does seem like a big number from a small group Early in the pandemic, we had the story of the two hair stylists who exposed 100 customers to the virus. They were wearing masks and the customers were as well. They had contact information for everyone because all of the appointments were made on line. They contact traced close to 90% of the customers and none had gotten sick. I thought that was a powerful ancedote to show people that masks work and to tell me it was safe to get a haircut. This Yankees story ought to play the same role. This limited surveillance testing shows that the virus is still prevalent but that the vaccine prevents any serious disease. There are people who are disinclined to believe anything that scientists or the government tell them. Maybe they can be convinced by this story about the Evil Empire. One of the Yankees players had COVID last year and was vaccinated against it while still testing positive. Just interesting. nypost.com/2021/05/13/gleyber-torres-tests-positive-for-covid-19-amid-yankees-outbreak/
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 17, 2021 10:53:54 GMT -5
Pfizer and Moderna jabs may help guard against next coronavirus pandemic
The research suggests we have the vaccines not only for this pandemic but for "its relatives coming around the curve", experts said
ByJennifer Rigby, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY CORRESPONDENT
15 May 2021 • 8:00pm
The mRNA jabs were found to induce 'broadly neutralising' antibodies that could protect against other coronaviruses as well as Sars-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19
The mRNA jabs were found to induce 'broadly neutralising' antibodies that could protect against other coronaviruses as well as Sars-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19 CREDIT: Mike Blake/Reuters
Pfizer and Moderna's Covid-19 vaccines point the way to conquering the next coronavirus pandemic and may already offer some basic protection against killers such as MERS or other as yet undiscovered threats, according to new US research.
In experiments described by leading scientists as "exciting", researchers at Duke University tested mRNA vaccines that were very similar to the approved jabs on monkeys. They found that the vaccines induced antibodies that not only protected against Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, but could also guard against other viruses from the same family.
"These results demonstrate current mRNA vaccines may provide some protection from future zoonotic betacoronavirus [coronaviruses crossing from animal to human] outbreaks, and provide a platform for further development of pan-betacoronavirus vaccines," the paper, published this week in Nature, concludes.
Sars-Cov-2 is already the third threatening coronavirus to arise this century, after the viruses causing MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) and SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome), and experts agree that another could easily take hold.
The team at Duke Human Vaccine Institute, led by Professor Kevin Saunders, also tested a new vaccine they have developed. It is a protein nanoparticle vaccine, which works slightly differently to the existing mRNA vaccines.
It showed even more potent cross-protection against other coronaviruses, including all known variants of Sars-CoV-2, bat coronaviruses and Sars-CoV-1, which causes Sars. This new vaccine also stopped viral replication in the nose, suggesting it could have a major impact on transmission.
Dr Anthony Fauci, America's top infectious disease expert, told a White House press briefing this week that there were "caveats" because the experiments were done with monkeys, not humans. But he added: "This is an extremely important proof of concept that we will be aggressively pursuing as we get into the development of human trials."
The new vaccine works by targeting a particular part of the virus, the receptor binding domain (RBD), which is a critical part of the spike protein that allows the virus to enter human cells.
It is also a part of the virus which is very stable - so it does not change - between the different variants or even between entirely different coronaviruses, which is why it appears to generate these "broadly neutralising antibodies" that could stop emerging pandemics in their tracks.
The reason that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs might work similarly, in terms of the antibody response at least, is that they target the entire spike protein of Sars-Cov-2, which includes the RBD.
Professor Saunders told The Telegraph: "We found that the nanoparticle vaccine generated a really potent antibody response against these different viruses. And we found that even if you get an mRNA vaccine, similar to what Pfizer and Moderna have made, your body will generate a similar type of response, but it is weaker."
The question now is how strong that response needs to be in order to provide protection, and whether the results in monkeys can be replicated in humans.
Prof Saunders said the nanoparticle vaccine, if it proves safe and effective in humans, could be a booster for the Pfizer and Moderna jabs if a new coronavirus threat emerges, or a vaccine in its own right.
It is unclear how long protection lasts from the existing crop of vaccines, so another option would be inoculating high-risk individuals with the existing mRNA Covid-19 vaccines again if a new virus emerges, in the hope that they provide some protection while tweaked vaccines can be developed.
Professor Danny Altmann, a British immunologist at Imperial College, London, who was not involved in the study, said: "It's an optimistic message from a very strong vaccines group that we’ve pretty much got the vaccines to get around not just this coronavirus, but also other relatives coming around the curve."
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 17, 2021 13:25:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on May 17, 2021 13:38:33 GMT -5
PSA FWIW. May,14 2021. Dr William Haseltine stated on TV that he is wearing a mask. His rationale: 33,000 people infected daily at this time. The level of protection varies for each individual. Covid vaccines are not 100% effective for every person for every variant. He will wear a mask not to protect others from him but to protect him from others. He stated: Under these circumstances why should he take any chances by not wearing a mask. He is an older gentleman. Kindly forward any corrective to the MD.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on May 17, 2021 13:57:01 GMT -5
Will you cut the crap about following the science. It takes many studies to draw a conclusion. When it comes to science, patience is required.
To illustrate ... you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 8 times. Do you conclude that the coin is unbalanced or do you flip it another 10 times? How many times do you do you continue to flip it that before you can draw a definitive conclusion? Is 20 times enough? How about 100? More?
The fact that the first studies were supported by subsequent studies does not mean people were not "following the science" prior to now. In fact those who were waiting (who also happen to be the people who do this kind of thing for a living) were the ones actually following the scientific process - i.e., we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion so we won't jump to one. Everything after that was a risk tolerance decision.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 17, 2021 14:58:44 GMT -5
NY Times, starting today, is breaking out vaccinations by state by age cohort, as a percentage of total population for that cohort.
This is for residents receiving at least one dose, and data is of May 16?
0-17 / 18-64 / 65 and older HI 7% / 73% / 96% MA 8% / 71% / 93% CT 8% / 67% / 92% NJ 5% / 66% / 88% CA 6% / 62% / 89% NY 5% / 59% / 82% PA 5% / 59% / 96% IL 6% / 58% / 86% UT 4% / 53% / 85% SD 3% / 53% / 90% MI 4% / 50% / 82% TX 3% / 49% / 80% KY 3% / 48% / 82% OH 3% / 47% / 81% FL 3% / 46% / 86% GA 3% / 42% / 78% AL 1% / 36% / 75% MS <1% / 34% / 74% US 4% / 53% / 84%
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on May 17, 2021 15:34:38 GMT -5
NY Times, starting today, is breaking out vaccinations by state by age cohort, as a percentage of total population for that cohort. This is for residents receiving at least one dose, and data is of May 16? 0-17 / 18-64 / 65 and olderHI 7% / 73% / 96% MA 8% / 71% / 93% CT 8% / 67% / 92% NJ 5% / 66% / 88% CA 6% / 62% / 89% NY 5% / 59% / 82% PA 5% / 59% / 96% IL 6% / 58% / 86% UT 4% / 53% / 85% SD 3% / 53% / 90% MI 4% / 50% / 82% TX 3% / 49% / 80% KY 3% / 48% / 82% OH 3% / 47% / 81% FL 3% / 46% / 86% GA 3% / 42% / 78% AL 1% / 36% / 75% MS <1% / 34% / 74%US 4% / 53% / 84% 8 percent of 0-17 years old is pretty high for a quick timeline.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 17, 2021 17:19:19 GMT -5
Will you cut the crap about following the science. It takes many studies to draw a conclusion. When it comes to science, patience is required. To illustrate ... you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 8 times. Do you conclude that the coin is unbalanced or do you flip it another 10 times? How many times do you do you continue to flip it that before you can draw a definitive conclusion? Is 20 times enough? How about 100? More? The fact that the first studies were supported by subsequent studies does not mean people were not "following the science" prior to now. In fact those who were waiting (who also happen to be the people who do this kind of thing for a living) were the ones actually following the scientific process - i.e., we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion so we won't jump to one. Everything after that was a risk tolerance decision. I forwarded your firm objections to certain phraseology to The New York Post ( Grandstanding Cuomo Should Follow the Science and End NY’s Mask Mandate). Apparently the irony of the phrase is lost upon you.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on May 17, 2021 17:29:34 GMT -5
NY Times, starting today, is breaking out vaccinations by state by age cohort, as a percentage of total population for that cohort. This is for residents receiving at least one dose, and data is of May 16? 0-17 / 18-64 / 65 and olderHI 7% / 73% / 96% MA 8% / 71% / 93% CT 8% / 67% / 92% NJ 5% / 66% / 88% CA 6% / 62% / 89% NY 5% / 59% / 82% PA 5% / 59% / 96% IL 6% / 58% / 86% UT 4% / 53% / 85% SD 3% / 53% / 90% MI 4% / 50% / 82% TX 3% / 49% / 80% KY 3% / 48% / 82% OH 3% / 47% / 81% FL 3% / 46% / 86% GA 3% / 42% / 78% AL 1% / 36% / 75% MS <1% / 34% / 74%US 4% / 53% / 84% 8 percent of 0-17 years old is pretty high for a quick timeline. ^^^ Parents in wealthy, White towns frog-marching their youngsters down to vaccination centers. Swampscott, home of Gov. Baker Swampscott, vaccination by age , at least one dose, as of May 13
0-19 14% 20-29 77% 30-49 87% 50-64 87% 65-74 93% 75+ 85% Town total 70% About 15% of the Mass population is under 18, and probably about 10 percent is currently ineligible, so Swampscott vaccination totals as of May 13th was probably pretty close to 78 percent (70/90=) of the eligible population. And no youngster ages12-15 was eligible for a shot before May 13. Next town-by-town update will be May 20th, so we'll how many kids were frog-marched this week. Massachusetts also breaks out vaccination rates by race. A city or town with a sizeable Hispanic population is likely to lag the state-wide averages.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on May 18, 2021 8:28:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 18, 2021 9:47:57 GMT -5
/\ The whole early and media narrative of ‘no normalcy without a universally administered vaccine’ was peculiar. And was quite an influencer on many of the most oddball (parks, schools, beaches, etc. ) closings. Wouldn’t shock me if that wasn’t an issue regarding other aspects of this experience.
Bill Maher, not a doctor, was just wondering out loud yesterday why there wasn’t a vigorous big push towards healthy living/healthy weight by the ‘experts’ since he noticed so many of those killed with Covid who were not elderly were overweight.
I know of one quite prominent university that opened this past semester with a restriction of 1 hour of outdoor activity a day for the kids. Claimed they were ‘following the science’ in response to parental inquiries. Had quotes in support from their scientific ‘experts’. Not sure getting ‘em fat and keeping ‘em indoors was the right approach.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on May 18, 2021 10:19:56 GMT -5
In the spirit of the Jesuit inspired pursuit of truth, I welcome sharing and recommending this interview with Dr. Peter McCullough. It runs 45-minutes and packs a wealth of valuable information and insights throughout. Dr. McCullough focuses on the question as to why the medical community worldwide almost uniformly disregards preemptive treatment for those impacted by Covid-19 while focusing on vaccination. Serious questions deserving attention and answers. Why aren't these questions being posed and addressed by the medical community at large? I can take a good guess and would think this might be a hint: $$$ McCullough addresses the question as to vaccinating pregnant women, mandatory vaccinations of college and university students and a whole lot more. "Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID Worldwide Conspiracy to stop early treatment for COVID in favor of experimental "vaccines." rumble.com/embed/vedpax/?pub=4Dr. Peter McCullough Bio: Professor of Medicine Vice Chief of Internal Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Dallas, TX After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington in Seattle, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a consultant cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He is a Principal Faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center. Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with > 1000 publications and > 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research. Dr. McCullough is a founder and current president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, an organization dedicated to bringing cardiologists and nephrologists together to work on the emerging problem of cardiorenal syndromes. His works have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet and other top-tier journals worldwide. He is the co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and Cardiorenal Medicine. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. Dr. McCullough has made presentations on the advancement of medicine across the world and has been an invited lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency, and the U.S. Congressional Oversight Panel.
Major Contributions
Senior leadership and oversight of clinical, education, and research operations at major academic medical centers in Detroit, Kansas City, and Dallas Led observational studies and randomized trials of therapies for acute kidney injury, hypertension, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, and cardiorenal syndromes Chaired and participated on 15 data safety monitoring committees for large randomized trials Advised sponsors and the FDA resulting in approval of 15 new drugs and 3 novel in vitro diagnostic tests used today around the worldIn the Jesuit spirit of loving our fellow man I will point out that by contrast Tucker Carlson is a hateful racist. Where does one start? Perhaps his membership while at Trinity in the "Dan White Society", or maybe his embrace of the white supremacist "replacement theory". For a good deconstruction of Dr, McCullough's nutty and/or dishonest ideas I refer you to Dr. David Gorski's article in a recent Science Based Medicine. Some of the wild claims out there about the vaccine are full-on tin foil hat bat guano lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 18, 2021 10:38:16 GMT -5
In the spirit of the Jesuit inspired pursuit of truth, I welcome sharing and recommending this interview with Dr. Peter McCullough. It runs 45-minutes and packs a wealth of valuable information and insights throughout. Dr. McCullough focuses on the question as to why the medical community worldwide almost uniformly disregards preemptive treatment for those impacted by Covid-19 while focusing on vaccination. Serious questions deserving attention and answers. Why aren't these questions being posed and addressed by the medical community at large? I can take a good guess and would think this might be a hint: $$$ McCullough addresses the question as to vaccinating pregnant women, mandatory vaccinations of college and university students and a whole lot more. "Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID Worldwide Conspiracy to stop early treatment for COVID in favor of experimental "vaccines." rumble.com/embed/vedpax/?pub=4Dr. Peter McCullough Bio: Professor of Medicine Vice Chief of Internal Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Dallas, TX After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington in Seattle, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a consultant cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He is a Principal Faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center. Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with > 1000 publications and > 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research. Dr. McCullough is a founder and current president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, an organization dedicated to bringing cardiologists and nephrologists together to work on the emerging problem of cardiorenal syndromes. His works have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet and other top-tier journals worldwide. He is the co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and Cardiorenal Medicine. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. Dr. McCullough has made presentations on the advancement of medicine across the world and has been an invited lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency, and the U.S. Congressional Oversight Panel.
Major Contributions
Senior leadership and oversight of clinical, education, and research operations at major academic medical centers in Detroit, Kansas City, and Dallas Led observational studies and randomized trials of therapies for acute kidney injury, hypertension, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, and cardiorenal syndromes Chaired and participated on 15 data safety monitoring committees for large randomized trials Advised sponsors and the FDA resulting in approval of 15 new drugs and 3 novel in vitro diagnostic tests used today around the worldI’ll keep an open mind and check it out.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 18, 2021 20:53:44 GMT -5
Vaccine vs treatment. The vaccines I have received in my life have been far less eventful than the treatments I have received. If I can have the former to avoid the latter it seems like a good deal. Money unfortunately can't be removed from anything. The tiny nation of San Marino is selling tourist vaccine packages. Three hotel night minimum for the first shot and two night minimum for the second plus fifty Euros per jab for the Russian Sputnik vaccine.
San Marino is not a member of the EU so they can offer the Sputnik, which isn't approved by the EU. They have reservations from all over the world.
|
|