OT: Coronavirus XXXV: Y'all Got Any More of Them Vaccines?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueCheeseWithWings

Registered User
Aug 1, 2018
1,318
1,502
WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information

Shifting the goalposts once again. Interesting timing, to say the least.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,514
2,546
Edmonton
I'll explain as I did the math yesterday.

The peak 7-day average for new cases was on December 7 at 1795. 15 days later the 7-day average was 1314, and 21 days later 994. A drop of 481 out of 1795 is 27%. A drop of 801 cases out of 1795 is 45% (Doing it quickly yesterday I must plugged a number in wrong to get 40% instead of 44.6%, I apologize for the error).

The average 7-day active number peaked on 20,503 on December 14th. 15 days later it was 16,459 and 21 days later 14,429. A drop of 4044 out of 20,503 is 19.7% and a drop of 6074 out of 20,503 is 29.6% (yesterday I mistakenly used December 13th which was 20502 which accounts for the descrepancy as yesterday calculations essentially had an extra day due to how close the numbers were at the two day peak).

The peak 7-day ICU average was 149 cases on December 29 (21 days prior to the numbers announced yesterday average is now 125) and the peak 7-day average non-ICU hospitalization was 789 on January 4th (15 days prior to the numbers announced yesterday and the average is now 653).

I refuse to use single day peaks due to the nature of the reporting being that some days less testing is completed or somedays were catchup days, which is why I use the 7-day averages instead of single day peaks.

I think the more relevant number here is the rate of drop for active cases as that kind of captures the average life of the illness and the rate of drop for hospitalization in general is decreasing at similar level albeit a bit higher which is intuitive because hospitalization are naturally more severe instances of the disease.

So my point was only that the rate of decrease for hospitalizations since peaking seems logical, but I'm in your boat completely about why it took so long to peak after the new cases or even active cases peaked. I always like going back to Italy because of the volume they had in the first wave and I have that available on my hard drive, and though it took a long time for new cases to diminish after restrictions, deaths peaked within about a week and ICU peaked about 10 days later, but active cases took closer to four weeks to peak. I suspect the lag for active cases at the time was that it took longer back then to comfortably say someone had beat it, but I don't understand why the peak severe outcomes took so much longer unless it is solely due to the large number of deaths that occured more quickly in Italy.
Yes the second derivative will tell you where you are headed.
 

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,835
21,587
HF boards
That is unlikely.
I agree, I think it points to the people who most need hospitals care due to having Covid and severe complications from Covid being able to have the best level of care being made available to them instead of sending them home to fend for themselves and potentially spread it in the community.
 

bucks_oil

Registered User
Aug 25, 2005
8,464
4,729
Would this even apply to an MRNA vaccine?

@Drivesaitl thanks for the paper. It presents a good review of the impact of anti-inflammatory pain relievers on vaccine response... but I think it is important to keep a few things in mind before criticizing Dr. Chu:
  • When it comes to vaccines, a little inflammation is a good thing. It proves your vaccine is working, the body is responding to the antigen and sampling it to make an immune response. A lot of inflammation is a bad thing... it causes pain, bystander cell destruction, poor patient adherence to booster immunization schedule, and at worst auto-immune or allergic reactions in some.
  • For this reason, the regulatory agencies have always been wary of novel vaccine techs, and specifically adjuvants (immune boosters) to ensure that the inflammation they cause is specific to the vaccine antigen (ie the target), rather than non-specific to the adjuvant or vehicle. You want a focused response to the vaccine antigen itself.
  • The side effects after the 2nd shot with the mRNA vaccines is well known, well documented and it happens quite quickly. Given the rapid onset, many (scientists) have suggested it may be immunity directed to the lipids used to carry the mRNA, rather than to the spike protein coded by the mRNA (which is the target antigen), since the translation of the mRNA into protein comes later.
  • In the paper itself... which yes, didn't look at mRNA vaccines, but rather traditional vaccine classes (where the antigen is there immediately on injection... they said: "This effect has only been noted following primary vaccination with novel antigens and disappears following booster immunization."
  • To me, that makes sense... your first shot, you want inflammation so that antigen presentation cells will come and sample the vaccine... and mount a specific immune response. Once that priming response has happened, you'll have enough specific immunity to the vaccine that a booster will be effective irrespective of whether some non-specific, blunting anti-inflammatory pain killers are used.
But....
  • Back to your question Little Fury... of course the jury is out,... on the one hand there is a strong rationale to limit the non-specific inflammation which may be causing the side effects.
  • On the other hand, those lipids are carrying a precious cargo... and the immune response to the lipids may actually be assisting in the delivery of the mRNA into cells that then produce the spike protein.
  • In short: we need more data...
 

SupremeTeam16

5-14-6-1
May 31, 2013
8,205
7,435
Baker’s Bay
And now comes the whining when they have to come back to Canada under the new tougher regulations.

What new, tougher regulations?

My fiancée just flew back to Canada last week and she was worried because we sold our house just before we left so all her identification still has our old address on it but she is living at her sisters place until our new place is completed. She had all her info and plans sorted out for them because she thought they’d grill her. Lol nope all she had to do was present a negative test before boarding and she said going through re entry customs was basically the same as usual. I got a good laugh at her expense.
 

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,613
22,322
What new, tougher regulations?

My fiancée just flew back to Canada last week and she was worried because we sold our house just before we left so all her identification still has our old address on it but she is living at her sisters place until our new place is completed. She had all her info and plans sorted out for them because she thought they’d grill her. Lol nope all she had to do was present a negative test before boarding and she said going through re entry customs was basically the same as usual. I got a good laugh at her expense.
I'm referring to Trudeau sending out a warning shot the other day, that there could be newer, even tougher restrictions for out of country travellers. Spoke to someone who's friends just came back from Mexico, and they had to get the negative test twice, as it wasn't accepted at the airport. Cost them a total of $1100.

BTW, wasn't taking a shot at you or your girlfriend, and sounds like a legit reason.
 

bucks_oil

Registered User
Aug 25, 2005
8,464
4,729
What new, tougher regulations?

My fiancée just flew back to Canada last week and she was worried because we sold our house just before we left so all her identification still has our old address on it but she is living at her sisters place until our new place is completed. She had all her info and plans sorted out for them because she thought they’d grill her. Lol nope all she had to do was present a negative test before boarding and she said going through re entry customs was basically the same as usual. I got a good laugh at her expense.

I really wish some common sense would prevail.

7 days self-quarantine prior to travel + negative PCR test should be sufficient if driving directly within a day's drive.... OR... 7 days quarantine at destination + negative PRC test should be sufficient if flying.

There are a lot of Canadian citizens (studying, working for gov or Canadian companies abroad) who'd like to come home but cannot afford to take 15 days off work for a 1-day visit.
 

Drivesaitl

Finding Hyman
Oct 8, 2017
47,192
59,477
Canuck hunting
Last edited:

oobga

Tier 2 Fan
Aug 1, 2003
23,891
19,488

We've really done a great job with schools in AB. The school my kids go to had 5 cases total through this, but zero in school transmission. The masking and cleaning has pretty much stopped that all over the province. Lots of people have gone to a school with covid without spreading.

Really wish the same could happen in other areas. I know we have never experienced the kind of community spread that many places in the world have that felt they had to close schools, but not many places in Canada have seen the kind of ramp up of spread that we had to start this winter in Edmonton. Schools are a unique case in all this. You have so many people working together, so many people that feel like they have a stake in not letting their school turn into a disaster. No parent wants their kid to be the one that starts a mess, which may actually have the benefit of encouraging more people being careful in their every day lives. I'm sure every principle is around cracking the whip every day to make sure things won't happen on their watch. It's a tough call for the gov't to decide they no longer trust all these people to do what they've been doing pretty successfully so far.

Hope we keep this up and never have to go there again. And there is no doubt about the benefits of kids being able to attend school. I cannot say with confidence my kids would still be of this world if I had them around the house every day :P
 
Last edited:

bellagiobob

Registered User
Jul 27, 2006
23,014
54,918
A thread by Dr. Deena Hinshaw

Here is a summary of today’s #COVID19AB update:
Over the last 24 hrs, we ID’d 678 new cases & completed about 14K tests. The positivity rate was about 4.8%. (1/10)

There are alerts in 178 schools & outbreaks in 4, w/ 282 cases total. In-school transmission has occurred in 23 schools, w/ 20 of these having only 1 case occur as a result. We are now averaging 80 new cases/day in school-ages. The average was 140 before school started. (2/10)

Hospitalizations remain high, w/ 726 people in hosp, incl. 119 in ICU. 16 new deaths were reported in the last 24 hrs. Every death leaves a hole in the lives of their loved ones. I encourage all to reach out to ppl who are grieving & let them know they are not alone. (3/10)

Our positivity rate, active cases & hospitalizations continue to decline. This is good news & shows restrictions are helping to prevent more ppl from being exposed/getting sick w/ this virus & that the overwhelming majority of Albertans are doing their part. (4/10)

And w/ 96.5K doses of vaccine delivered, thousands of the most vulnerable seniors & health care workers now have an extra layer of protection. I am proud of the sacrifices & community spirit that Albertans have shown to produce these encouraging numbers. (5/10)

We are not in the clear just yet. Our cases are falling, but we still have the second highest active case rates per capita in Canada. While our hospitalizations have decreased significantly from the peak, they remain extremely high. (6/10)

Despite our progress, we have the same # of COVID patients in hospital today as we did on Dec. 8 – when our current restrictions were 1st announced. Our health system continues to experience significant strains & we must ease this burden as quickly as possible. (7/10)

We need to continue to drive community transmission down. It is essential we keep the current measures in place for a little while longer. We all need to make good choices and to rigorously follow all legal orders & limit in-person interactions as much as possible. (8/10)

As we go into the weekend, I let’s all be intentional & thoughtful w/ our outings & outdoor gatherings, especially as temps drop & it’s difficult to stay outside for long periods. The choices we all make will help determine how the coming months look in our province. (9/10)

My next live update will take place on Monday, January 25. We will share updated #COVID19AB case numbers online at tomorrow afternoon. (10/10) (alberta.ca/covid19)

Thought the bolded was interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nabob

harpoon

Registered User
Dec 23, 2005
14,300
11,594
Rumblings that the Tokyo Olympics will be cancelled (or delayed another year).
Public sentiment is very much against holding the Olympics this year. I haven’t spoken to a single person who wants them to go ahead. There are some in government however who have a vested interest in seeing the Games go on and to the surprise of no one they are acting like it’s still a possibility. Fortunately they don’t make the call and I fully expect that the IOC will issue a further postponement.

While ICU and death numbers remain very low, Japan is experiencing a significant rise in the number of positive tests. Nobody in their right mind would attend something so frivolous as the Olympics under these circumstances.
 

SupremeTeam16

5-14-6-1
May 31, 2013
8,205
7,435
Baker’s Bay
I'm referring to Trudeau sending out a warning shot the other day, that there could be newer, even tougher restrictions for out of country travellers. Spoke to someone who's friends just came back from Mexico, and they had to get the negative test twice, as it wasn't accepted at the airport. Cost them a total of $1100.

BTW, wasn't taking a shot at you or your girlfriend, and sounds like a legit reason.

No offence taken, I was just curious because I hadn’t heard about any new restrictions and I’ve had to hear about it for the last two weeks lol
 

ThePhoenixx

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
9,351
5,906
Alberta government maintains COVID-19 restrictions on businesses | Edmonton Sun

You can isolate single people and others from their families for only so long. It's as if mental health and other physical benefits are being ignored by health professionals who are trained in virus transmission. Covid numbers are more important than anything else. A hundred people in ICU from a province of millions and they decide this is a reason to inflict long-lasting mental and physical problems on millions of individuals by socially isolating them. It reminds me of the song, "Cruel to be kind." So misguided.
 

ThePhoenixx

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
9,351
5,906
Quebec's curfew might be extended past Feb. 8, Legault and Dubé suggest | Montreal Gazette

The curfew is paying off,” Legault said at a news conference at the legislature. “There are fewer gatherings after 8 p.m. and less contagion. We’ve been going in the right direction in the last 10 days, but there’s still a long way to go...

We must be patient and continue our efforts, especially for people over 65
.” End Quote

They do nothing to very little to protect those in Long Term Care (no effort) and then turn around and tell people to restrict their lives because all the work said politicians really wanted to do was write down a few rules that take maybe five minutes to dictate.

Efforts? It is both hypocritical and bemusing. When will people tire of being misled?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad