Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
European ones have full force of law, not subject to suing the government.
Suing the government should be an option. In Czechia it also mostly actually works—many of our corona measures were actually struck down as either discriminatory or insufficiently reasoned. Government mostly ignored the court rulings and reissuing the measures, and there is a fiction of validity until the court strikes it down again, but attempt at strict enforcement would probably get struck down again.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin
I'm pretty sure I read suicides doubling, but can't find the source now. The 2019 rate was 746, for a population of 5.5M. It's possible that they only doubled for a few months, in which case what I said may turn out to have been hyperbole.Turns out that total suicides for 2020 didn't rise that much after all. There was a 15 percent increase in early spring, but the rest of the year saw normal levels. Final numbers are still not out (or I can't find them), so this is based on news. Since corona officially took 534 souls, the increase wasn't really comparable after all. I apologize for my error.
The more interesting thing I take from this is that your number of corona deaths is really low. Per capita, that's like 7% of what we have.
Fake edit: Wait, I've compared 2020 counts to total counts. Quick look at google suggests 1k vs. 95k... So that's still only 15% of our rate per capita!
(Maybe your people freeze to death before they can get old enough to be affected.
)
-
@topspin source for that number is https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/ajk/koronavirus/koronavirus-ajankohtaista-tilastotietoa/miten-vaikutukset-nakyvat-tilastoissa/koronavirus_kuolemansyyna
Another tidbit from this report that might be interesting to you is that apparently 20% of the <70yo corona dead were foreigners. Even though foreigners count for only 4% of all cause mortality.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
up there where the sun shines two hours a day
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/028/312/will_poulter.PNG
You guys are getting two whole hours of sunshine every day?!
-
Heart Inflammation Risk After COVID-19 Vaccine Is Real, But Very Rare
A new study of over 2.3 million people found only 15 cases of myocarditis occurred after getting a COVID-19 shot, suggesting that while it can occur, it’s extremely rare.
Researchers examined the electronic health records of over 2.3 million Kaiser Permanente Southern California members ages 18 and older who received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna-NIAID vaccine between December 2020 and July 2021.
They identified 13 cases of myocarditis after the second dose — a rate of 5.8 cases per million second doses given.
Two cases occurred after the first dose, making for a much lower rate of 0.8 cases per million first doses.
...
All 15 cases of myocarditis identified by researchers occurred in men between 20 and 32 years old, with an average age of 25. None of the men had a history of heart problems.
...
In an Israeli study published last month, researchers examined the electronic health records of over 2 million people.They found an additional 2.7 cases of myocarditis for every 100,000 people vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
But the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 was higher, resulting in an extra 11 cases for every 100,000 people who had the infection.
This study didn’t take into account younger males specifically.
I do wonder how that changes the numbers once you break it down by age.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I do wonder how that changes the numbers once you break it down by age.
Probably significantly. The blood clots seem to get much more likely the older you get. And if you get micro-clotting, then myocarditis following that is not totally unexpected.
-
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The blood clots seem to get much more likely the older you get.
Actually my impression was that they are more likely in younger people and that it was the reason the AZ vaccine was restricted to 60+ in some countries.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The blood clots seem to get much more likely the older you get.
Actually my impression was that they are more likely in younger people and that it was the reason the AZ vaccine was restricted to 60+ in some countries.
I believe that the rate goes up as people get older, but nothing like as fast as the risk from covid.
-
That was how I understood it as well.
-
@Bulb said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@acrow said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The blood clots seem to get much more likely the older you get.
Actually my impression was that they are more likely in younger people and that it was the reason the AZ vaccine was restricted to 60+ in some countries.
I was talking about the clotting from a bad case of Covid. @boomzilla 's question was regarding the recorded numbers of myocarditis after Covid infections vs from the vaccine. I'd forgotten entirely that AZ vaccine also does that.
-
The untold story of how a robot army waged war on COVID-19.
The untold story of how disruptors and biohackers behind this $1.8 billion robot company helped battle the pandemic and revolutionize America's diagnostics.
This is very interesting...and completely new information to me.
-
'Worrying' shortage of one billion syringes could hit global Covid vaccine rollout next year
There is likely to be a drastic shortfall of the specialised syringes needed for the Pfizer jab as the global roll-out accelerates next year
-
@Zerosquare looks like we need to lower our vaccination expectations, too.
-
Hey look:
People who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 can expect to become reinfected within one or two years, unless they take precautions such as getting vaccinated and wearing masks.
COVID reinfections likely within one or two years, models propose
Nature - Estimates based on viral evolution forecast a 50% risk 17 months after a first infection without measures such as masking and vaccination.
Well, we've the 'rona around in the world since almost 2 years now. I do not know of any non-tiny country where more than 20% of the population got infected during that time - Czechia, US, Sweden are still below that level.
But once you caught it, your chance of infection will then more than double.
We have really great scientists in this world!
-
This was posted in Garage (not directly - through a blog post):
Altogether, our study recommends additional caution when vaccinating people with pre-existing clinical conditions, including diabetes, electrolyte imbalances, renal dysfunction, and coagulation disorders.
I have several garage-worthy reasons to dismiss this study without reading. I also know that even if I didn't dismiss it, I'm still unable to comprehend it. But maybe someone with better knowledge of biology and medicine can say if it's something to worry about or not?
-
@Gąska well, there are definitely signs that several of the vaccines can interfere with the menstrual process but because of the ingrained misogyny in society, not nearly enough research has taken place.
It does seem anecdotally that people with such conditions (think endometriosis and other disorders related to clotting during the menstrual cycle) can have a much worse time in the aftermath of the vaccine - and there is a correlation demonstrated so far between clotting and the vaccine effects, which is why it’s affecting the menstrual cycle.
That said the issue is very much in the “more research required” category at this stage.
The othe conditions - diabetes, electrolyte imbalances etc - are in the “not enough data to infer correlation at this stage” category I believe.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, the paper seems superficially incomprehensible to me but my wife works in the medical field and has discussed it with her colleagues at some length. The conclusion seems to be “we are pretty sure something is up with clotting in some circumstances, but more research needed, other types of imbalance might be problems too but we’re not sure there is a problem yet so more research needed.”
That said, the advice continues to be “whatever risks there are from complications from the vaccine, they are statistically, demonstrably low enough thus far that it’s worth doing anyway.”
We have collectively issued hundreds of millions of doses of COVID vaccine at this time and the number of cases of complications is still in the hundreds, I believe. Even if it’s in the thousands world wide at this point, that’s still better odds of not being a problem than many other risks we all take every day. But I also appreciate that personal risk is intrinsically viewed differently to scientifically.
I have health issues, I took AstraZeneca as soon as it was offered, will take booster if offered. I felt sick as a dog for days after the first dose but would do it again without hesitation.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I have health issues, I took AstraZeneca as soon as it was offered, will take booster if offered. I felt sick as a dog for days after the first dose but would do it again without hesitation.
Now that availability is no longer an issue you should probably switch to an mRNA based one should you take a booster shot, as the frequency of side effects seem to be lower there, especially clotting w.r.t. AZ / J&J. But then, surely you can get better professional advice from your doctor.
-
@topspin the advice is to mix it up between original doses and boosters anyway (my original two were AZ, so any booster will be one of the others). But I also know that my wife has had quite the reaction to whichever of Pfizer or Moderna she had and her system still isn’t quite back to normal yet despite her second dose being in July - to the point she’s debating not having a booster because she felt so ill from it. (That said, her work nonsense isn’t helping.)
I don’t think J&J is an option here though.
-
@Arantor unless either of you is over 60 or 70 (which I take it you’re not), I’m not sure if a booster shot is advisable anyway. Especially not if you had side effects.
-
@topspin we’re both under 40, both with existing health conditions; I’m considered slightly higher risk - I got my first jab in March and my second in May, my wife was May/July.
We haven’t been offered a booster yet, but we’ll see.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin we’re both under 40, both with existing health conditions; I’m considered slightly higher risk - I got my first jab in March and my second in May, my wife was May/July.
We haven’t been offered a booster yet, but we’ll see.
UK covid vaccination policy is to offer a booster at about 6 months + 1 week. I have no idea why that bonus week is there.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I have no idea why that bonus week is there.
It's actually 6 months ; it's just that it takes them an extra week to print out the details, put the sheet on a wooden table, take a picture, paste it in a Word document, OCR it, save it as a PDF, etc.
-
Can anybody please explain to me this bizarre intersection between “it’s just a flu” and “I need to ingest all of the antiparasitics” ? Please.
-
@kazitor It's all about doing anything except admitting that the bulk of the medical profession is correct about these vaccinations. The founding principle is essentially that vaccinations cannot possibly be the solution, so all evidence that might point to any other conclusion is rejected out of hand.
If you start out with a crazy axiom, you end up with crazy conclusions.
-
@dkf As I understand it, what happened is that India was seeing some positive effects (possibly, because lowering the parasite load of the populations in question lowered the demands on the immune system, which helped with fighting the coronavirus infection). The mechanism was (and - to the best of my knowledge - remains) unclear, but there was some evidence of some positive effects, and the drugs were well-tested, known to be safe, readily available, and looked like they were worth a shot.
Frankly, it's a lot more than you can say for the mainstream solutions, which is best illustrated by the fact that covid is still a top issue pretty much everywhere.
The vaccinations, for example, have proven so effective at their stated purpose, that booster recommendations/requirements are currently being imposed in various locales; leaving aside any concerns about safety (not that outlandish, given how many corners were cut, compared to the normal development/testing/approval process).
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The vaccinations, for example, have proven so effective at their stated purpose, that booster recommendations/requirements are currently being imposed in various locales; leaving aside any concerns about safety (not that outlandish, given how many corners were cut, compared to the normal development/testing/approval process).
We've got truly excellent safety and efficacy data on the vaccines. A normal stage 3 trial might (if it is especially large) look at around 10k people, but the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions; absolutely anything that the trial would have picked up will definitely have also been picked up just from basic clinical followups. Even better, we don't just have data for healthy US white male college students, but also everyone else.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If you start out with a crazy axiom, you end up with crazy conclusions.
It’s obviously not enshrined in firm rationalism. But one could just think “it’s unimportant” or just think “you need antiparasitics now” and each would be consistent.
This non-zero merger between the two is what’s had me perplexed. “They’re not thinking too carefully” is obvious but a bit of a cop-out. Like, why these two things specifically?
-
@kazitor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
This non-zero merger between the two is what’s had me perplexed. “They’re not thinking too carefully” is obvious but a bit of a cop-out. Like, why these two things specifically?
I think it's first and foremost a trust issue: people affected by this are starting out on the premise that the "main stream" of the medical profession is lying. So for vaccines, the main stream says "this is safe and works" so that can't possibly be true due to Axiom 1: Main Stream Is Lying.
Then comes some trial or study of a drug which happened to show some anecdotal evidence for a possible effect. There's various reasons to not give too much credibility to that result (test group was too small / results aren't statistically significant / study setup was less-than-perfect / contradictory results elsewhere / etc) so main stream medics say "that probably doesn't work and we have vaccines which do". So, since the Main Stream Is Lying, it follows that the cure must obviously work.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
As I understand it, what happened is that India was seeing some positive effects (possibly, because lowering the parasite load of the populations in question lowered the demands on the immune system, which helped with fighting the coronavirus infection). The mechanism was (and - to the best of my knowledge - remains) unclear, but there was some evidence of some positive effects
I'm not sure what antiparasitics we're talking about here, but it seems that you have already explained a very reasonable and likely mechanism in one sentence. If you have a person which is infected with several things, giving them treatment for one will increase their overall health. Of course the same treatment won't work on people who don't have such a parasite infection in the first place.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
absolutely anything that the trial would have picked up will definitely have also been picked up just from basic clinical followups
While that's true, there is a disturbing lack of follow-up. More than one of the vaccines has some correlation - not yet confirmed to be causation as I understand - between it and affecting clotting, especially in women.
WHO has outlined that there are some factors affecting menstruation but insufficient research has been done beyond 'we think there is some link here'... to the point that my wife who is ordinarily a very sensible and intelligent adult is preparing to ignore getting a covid booster because the two jabs of Pfizer/Moderna (I can't remember which she had) screwed with her body that much that she'd rather risk getting covid than the last ~6 months of screwed up situation she's had.
Then again, it's not like she went to the doctors or anything... she has a condition that isn't particularly treatable and she's been told that it's all in her head (when it clearly isn't) so there is also a distinct distrust of the medical industry there too.
-
@kazitor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Can anybody please explain to me this bizarre intersection between “it’s just a flu” and “I need to ingest all of the antiparasitics” ? Please.
Part of it is that there's a giant population of people out there and "demographic trends" get magnified by media that thrive on sensational headlines.
Couple that with public health authorities that have admitted to lying in some cases and continue to lie in others and politicians who have used various things for their own purposes (and often ignore their own dictates) and goal posts that are forever shifting and you get all kinds of crazy behaviors by all kinds of people.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
As I understand it, what happened is that India was seeing some positive effects (possibly, because lowering the parasite load of the populations in question lowered the demands on the immune system, which helped with fighting the coronavirus infection). The mechanism was (and - to the best of my knowledge - remains) unclear, but there was some evidence of some positive effects
I'm not sure what antiparasitics we're talking about here, but it seems that you have already explained a very reasonable and likely mechanism in one sentence. If you have a person which is infected with several things, giving them treatment for one will increase their overall health. Of course the same treatment won't work on people who don't have such a parasite infection in the first place.
Laboratory studies from early 2020 showed Ivermectin to have significant anti-viral capability. Plus already known anti-inflammatory effect, which would be important in later stages of covid.
"Kill parasites, make everything easier" is a weird theory, I never heard it discussed or even proposed by anyone.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf As I understand it, what happened is that India was seeing some positive effects (possibly, because lowering the parasite load of the populations in question lowered the demands on the immune system, which helped with fighting the coronavirus infection). The mechanism was (and - to the best of my knowledge - remains) unclear, but there was some evidence of some positive effects, and the drugs were well-tested, known to be safe, readily available, and looked like they were worth a shot.
There's at least one other drug that's similar to Ivermectin (both are protease inhibitors) getting approvals for COVID treatment.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The vaccinations, for example, have proven so effective at their stated purpose, that booster recommendations/requirements are currently being imposed in various locales; leaving aside any concerns about safety (not that outlandish, given how many corners were cut, compared to the normal development/testing/approval process).
We've got truly excellent safety and efficacy data on the vaccines. A normal stage 3 trial might (if it is especially large) look at around 10k people, but the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions; absolutely anything that the trial would have picked up will definitely have also been picked up just from basic clinical followups. Even better, we don't just have data for healthy US white male college students, but also everyone else.
Yeah, the point is that you're supposed to do that before you give the vaccines out to hundreds of millions of people.
But you are right. We've done it, so we have some pretty solid data.
Effectiveness is... meh. The original vaccination programme doesn't seem to have moved the needle much on spread (deaths and hospitalisations look somewhat better here), so we're doing booster shots - because those are sure to work better than last time.
Straight outta the Garage, here's where Denmark is, having passed the 75% fully-vaccinated mark in September:
Denmark revisits its 'corona pass' as third wave of epidemic looms
Denmark's government on Monday proposed reinstating the use of a digital "corona pass" to be presented when Danes visit indoor bars and restaurants, as the country is entering a third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If getting three-quarters of your population vaccinated is insufficient to get you back to normality, the remaining quarter (most likely: kids) won't either.
Safety appears to be decent, although I'm distrustful of the official narratives on the ol' "policy-based evidence" principle. There is undeniable effort to bury "vaccine misinformation" on the part of media, tech, and politicians, which makes it less likely for evidence of vaccine risks to be reported.
Nevertheless, people around me don't seem to be dropping dead, and neither have I (yet!), so it can't be all bad.
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf As I understand it, what happened is that India was seeing some positive effects (possibly, because lowering the parasite load of the populations in question lowered the demands on the immune system, which helped with fighting the coronavirus infection). The mechanism was (and - to the best of my knowledge - remains) unclear, but there was some evidence of some positive effects, and the drugs were well-tested, known to be safe, readily available, and looked like they were worth a shot.
There's at least one other drug that's similar to Ivermectin (both are protease inhibitors) getting approvals for COVID treatment.
"Pfizer's novel treatment". 'Nuff said.
-
@kazitor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Can anybody please explain to me this bizarre intersection between “it’s just a flu” and “I need to ingest all of the antiparasitics” ? Please.
Well for one thing, the argument against Ivermectin isn't "it doesn't work." It's that it's not FDA approved for use in humans and it's only supposed to be used in horses.
That is, simply put, not true.
The argument against hydroxycloroquine isn't that it doesn't work. It's that President Trump told some lady to lace her husband's coffee with fish tank cleaner and then he died.
That is, simply put, not true.
The argument against monoclonal antibodies isn't that "they don't work". It used to be that the company that makes them is owned by a guy who's a big time donor to the Governor of Florida. Now it's that Florida and the rest of the south are using too much monoclonal antibodies compared to the rest of the states, so the federal government is going to step in and ration them.
That might be reasonable if there was a shortage. But because there's not actually a shortage, it is, simply put, not true.
The arguments for the universal mask mandates that are in effect are, simply put, not true.
The arguments for extended lockdowns and keeping schools shut down are, simply put, not true.
The arguments that COVID did not originate at the Wuhan Institute of Virology are simply put, not true. The arguments that COVID wasn't created using Gain of Function research are, simply put, not true.
And finally, it's pretty common knowledge now that the vaccines wear off within a year, which is why the point of the boosters, right? That's not how they were billed initially.
The reason people do not trust the public health authorities is because they've shown themselves to be making decisions based on politics, at a minimum, as often as they make decisions based on public health.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yeah, the point is that you're supposed to do that before you give the vaccines out to hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, we don't have an
Earth-testingenvironment, so we have to do everything inEarth-production.
-
@Zerosquare The lack of a global testing environment is why we (normally) do extensive tests in controlled local environments.
That said, Poland is currently undergoing a natural experiment, where we compare how our current autumn wave will compare to last year's, with a much lower level of government restrictions and 50% of the population vaccinated.
I predict we'll hit peak in two weeks' time, the magnitude of the wave (measured in average new daily infections) will be roughly the same as last year (~25k at peak), and that we will see a sharp drop-off post-peak.
If my prediction turns out to be correct, this will be evidence that neither restrictions, nor vaccination, had much of an effect on spread.
We may see fewer deaths (there's reason to expect vaccines improve outcomes, if infected), but the fact that we aren't screwing up our healthcare so much this year (as far as I know) may be a confounder.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That said, Poland is currently undergoing a natural experiment, where we compare how our current autumn wave will compare to last year's, with a much lower level of government restrictions and 50% of the population vaccinated.
By changing two variables at once, the result of this experiment will be useless.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The lack of a global testing environment is why we (normally) do extensive tests in controlled local environments.
I'm not sure what you mean. They vaccines did get tested before being given to the general population. You may argue that you think the testing period was not long enough, but there's a tricky balance to be found between releasing too early and releasing too late.
-
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
she's been told that it's all in her head (when it clearly isn't)
The one does not preclude the other; mind and body are categorically not separate. In particular, the mind is known to couple strongly to stress levels — these are very measurable through stuff like blood cortisol levels — and chronically high amounts of stress can have all sorts of nasty health outcomes in all sorts of parts of the body. There are likely other coupling mechanisms too. A problem can absolutely be mind-first yet still have a significant physiological component.
Which is not to say that that's the case with your wife. The medical profession has a… less-than-stellar track record of ignoring complaints that they don't understand or don't want to deal with because of some prejudice.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Arantor said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
she's been told that it's all in her head (when it clearly isn't)
The one does not preclude the other
This specific wording - "all in her head" - does in fact preclude the other.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
By changing two variables at once, the result of this experiment will be useless.
It's more than that. There's also a different variant of virus on the loose, and that's changed a whole load of parameters from the initial stages of the pandemic. Isn't that just lovely?
The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccines is in the differences in rates of serious complications (hospitalization, admission to ICU, intubation, death) relative to rates of infection. In particular, unlike in the initial phases of the pandemic, and despite a variant known to be even more infectious, we're not seeing highly elevated rates of serious problems among the elderly and other vulnerable categories. The simplest explanation for that is that the vaccinations work, because the people concerned have much higher vaccination rates; other explanations involve a lot more magical thinking or assumptions pulled out of asses. (There's sufficient unvaccinated people about for those assumptions to still be checkable.)
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
By changing two variables at once, the result of this experiment will be useless.
It's more than that. There's also a different variant of virus on the loose, and that's changed a whole load of parameters from the initial stages of the pandemic. Isn't that just lovely?
One thing's for sure - whatever happens, they're going to claim it proves them right.
The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccines is in the differences in rates of serious complications (hospitalization, admission to ICU, intubation, death) relative to rates of infection.
And even that isn't that strong of evidence either. Early on the cases were severely undercounted due to first lack of tests and later severe shortage of tests. And most of the people who were predisposed to easily die of COVID have already died of COVID during the first wave, so there's simply less people who could have got those complications. The null hypothesis (nothing we've done had any effect whatsoever) is still strong.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The medical profession has a… less-than-stellar track record of ignoring complaints that they don't understand or don't want to deal with because of some prejudice.
That's pretty screwed up. I mean, that would be like software developers ignoring bug reports, or putting the blame on the users...
...wait a minute
-
@Zerosquare What I said is that the vaccine testing and approval was performed more rapidly and less rigorously than what would be considered "normal" before the pandemic (it was called Operation Warp Speed for a reason).
The question thus becomes: were the pre-pandemic approval requirements too stringent?, or did we blow through decades of established practice because of political necessity?
Even in the latter case, we might still get lucky. However, if you keep cutting corners for political reasons, you'll hit a birch sooner or later.
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That said, Poland is currently undergoing a natural experiment, where we compare how our current autumn wave will compare to last year's, with a much lower level of government restrictions and 50% of the population vaccinated.
By changing two variables at once, the result of this experiment will be useless.
The fact that the two variables point in different directions is somewhat troublesome, true. It would be very odd, however, if it turned out that the two just happened to cancel each other out. It's not like the level of restrictions is somehow predicated on the effectiveness (on a population level) of the vaccine, or vice versa.
On the contrary, the reason we're not seeing increasing restrictions is because the government said it wouldn't introduce them, in spite of how the case numbers were changing.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question thus becomes: were the pre-pandemic approval requirements too stringent?, or did we blow through decades of established practice because of political necessity?
It's like reducing the testing period before deploying a patch.
In normal cases, that's a bad idea.
If you're dealing with a high-risk security bug that's already being actively exploited, it may be the best compromise.
-
@Zerosquare Not disputing that. However, we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen, and we should definitely be looking very carefully at whether we didn't introduce a completely different vulnerability in the process (not to mention checking whether our patch actually solves the problem to a meaningful extent).
I'm not convinced that the current climate of "the vaccines are 100% safe and effective and anyone who questions it is a dirty, science-denying anti-vaxxer" helps us with the latter bit.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare Not disputing that. However, we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen, and we should definitely be looking very carefully at whether we didn't introduce a completely different vulnerability in the process (not to mention checking whether our patch actually solves the problem to a meaningful extent).
That's sensible argument, and it's glaringly missing from the actual dilemma.
I'm not convinced that the current climate of "the vaccines are 100% safe and effective and anyone who questions it is a dirty, science-denying anti-vaxxer" helps us with the latter bit.
As several people already pointed, we've effectively done the most extensive testing possible and the results are fine. At least when it comes to safety; the effectiveness is kinda meh. Of course, it was quite a risk and it should not become common practice, but that is (as I've said) a different topic.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question thus becomes: were the pre-pandemic approval requirements too stringent?, or did we blow through decades of established practice because of political necessity?
It's difficult to compare, in part due to differences in the diseases. Something that isn't super infectious doesn't have the urgency and you don't get the same rate of data coming in to do the evaluations. Which also gives you longer to observe subjects, but the trade off is that you often have fewer subjects, as well. One thing the COVID vaccines didn't seem to suffer from was recruiting people to participate in the trials.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It would be very odd, however, if it turned out that the two just happened to cancel each other out.
How weird compared to everything else that happened over the past two years?
