Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

He is openly cranky. I think that context is needed. I share his disdain for a lot of the mainstream reporting, because I can see how much they get wrong or overstate just from the little I know. I imagine the people who have expertise and are trying to communicate more carefully about the science in their area of expertise are frustrated when people who are the “expert” in some other domain say all sorts of things that aren’t quite correct. Public health people complain about this, immunologists do, and doctors, etc., when people in the media spout off about things they do not really understand, or when reporters don’t understand and get things wrong.

I mean, in my experience, journalists don't know much science or math, and the reporting I've seen on math is a work of art in terms of how much it gets wrong. But he just dissed all of Twitter, and lots of perfectly respectable epidemiologists are on Twitter. Michael Osterholm is certainly a respected person, as far as I can tell, and not some random crank who works in a totally different area. 

 

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

And when an epidemiologist who is not a virologist talks about the transmissibility of a variant, they are working outside of their wheelhouse. 

Are they? Why? There is lots of biology I don't understand and I don't try to pretend to be an authority on, but transmissibility seems much more like something that public health people would think about than virologists would. I'd expect virologists to work at the level of the cell and not at the level of the population. Why would they be better at figuring out statistics? 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m getting the Pfizer vaccine on Monday! I’m prepping myself for some side effects, so am glad I’ll have a few days to recover before Christmas.

My health care provider called me today and said my turn has come to get the vaccine and I'd be able to get my first shot of Moderna on Monday. I literally broke into tears of joy.  Bill

My dd works at a grocery store and people have actually shared their positive test results as she's bagging their groceries, as in, "I tested positive 3 days ago." More than once.

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I think it is a leap to think they weren’t transparent about this possible side effect. It is so rare, if it is caused by it, that it was probably only apparent once millions of vaccines were given.

Yes, it’s only been the last two weeks that it’s been clear something was possibly wrong and only the last week they’ve been saying it’s definitely linked.   Which also makes me wonder something else?  How sure are they about the 20 day window?  Or is it just that so far it’s only been seen inside that window because the vaccine hasn’t been used for long.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

That is my impression — basically he feels like as long as the vaccines result in t-cell response, they will still prevent most deaths. 

However "qualified" he may be, I'm seriously suspicious of any scientist claiming that everyone else is wrong, the research in scientific journals is "garbage," and people should ignore all those scientific papers and believe what he tells them in a reddit thread.

I will relink here four major studies, in Science, Nature, and the British Medical Journal, showing that B117 is both more contagious and more deadly. I don't understand how someone can dismiss these peer-reviewed studies, by scientists who are just as qualified as he is, as garbage and insist that it's totally coincidental that India and much of Europe are seeing big spikes as B117 takes hold. 

 

Large, matched cohort study published last month in BMJ found 64% higher death rate in those infected with B117:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n579.short

Separate study published in Nature showing 61% higher risk of death with B117:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03426-1

Study published in Science last month showing B117 is 43-90% more transmissible:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/03/science.abg3055

Study published in Nature showing B117 is 50-100% more transmissible:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03470-x

Everyone who says our hope is in T cells might be wrong, but apparently that would fly against basic immunology, so I’m gonna go with the immunologists and virologists on this one. 

It’s not that no one cares about variants, but the answer is to get vaccinated. Not get vaccinated and stay away from people forever because you might still get infected with Covid. We don’t know about vaccination and long Covid. We don’t even know what long Covid is, because it is very vague and anything published on it so far pretty much stinks. Yeah, I sure hope that my vaccine will protect me from infection, too, or at least a bad or lingering one, but there are no guarantees for that, even with the wild-type variant. 

So what good does it do to worry about them and follow every up and down in the news, as though as consumers we can really get what’s going on? 

These news reports about B117 causing more terrible disease mainly in younger people, and P1, too, are unsubstantiated and serve to scare people. The virus is bad, but the news has been nothing but constantly scare everyone to keep them paying attention. We should pay attention, but a lot of the scary predictions just don’t come to pass. We forget about those, though. 

The four papers don’t add up to established fact; in fact, no one who knows what they are talking about has said that increased lethality is established fact. Of course, the opinion of a few virologists are not fact, either. But it’s not so clear-cut.

edit: I don’t read it as all of the literature is garbage, though it certainly was expressed in a curmudgeonly way. I understood it to mean there is a lot of poorly done research out there, and sometimes published very quickly which is unusual. I don’t like implications that people shouldn’t read things for themselves- clearly I like to do that, too. However, I get his point. I mean, anti vaxxers post real research, too. 
 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this claim true?  This guy is local to me and was working on a vaccine himself so presumably he knows what he’s talking about but I also don’t think he’s scared of saying controversial stuff, rightly or wrongly. Is J&J only 60 pc effective?  

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Penelope said:

It’s not that no one cares about variants, but the answer is to get vaccinated. Not get vaccinated and stay away from people forever because you might still get infected with Covid. We don’t know about vaccination and long Covid. We don’t even know what long Covid is, because it is very vague and anything published on it so far pretty much stinks. 

Was someone suggesting getting vaccinated and staying away from people forever here?? 

The problem with long COVID seems to be that it's very widely varied and it doesn't show up on lots of tests. This is where I'm pretty happy to go with anecdotal data, frankly. There are boardies who report having issues since having COVID. More than one, in fact. I also know people who are still struggling in real life. 

I guess I could ignore that because the data isn't perfect, but what's the point? I gotta evaluate the evidence I've gathered as best as I can. 

 

4 minutes ago, Penelope said:

The four papers don’t add up to established fact; in fact, no one who knows what they are talking about has said that increased lethality is established fact.

I don't think there are "established facts" in this kind of situation. However, people who are claiming increased lethality at least have some data on their side. What do the people who say that there isn't increased lethality have? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://covariants.org/per-country
 

This site is good if people are interested in what’s happening with variants.  It doesn’t format perfectly in the phone and some of the data isn’t super accurate because it’s based on reports in the countries where it’s happening - some countries are doing very focused genomic testing where they suspect certain variants.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of variants - pre print only so possibly flawed but possible evidence from Israel that Pfizer is a little less effective against the South African variant. 
 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21254882v1

Here, we performed a case-control study that examined whether BNT162b2 vaccinees with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinees infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351 (odds ratio of 8:1). Those infected between two weeks after the first dose and one week after the second dose, were disproportionally infected by B.1.1.7 (odds ratio of 26:10), suggesting reduced vaccine effectiveness against both VOCs under different dosage/timing conditions. Nevertheless, the B.1.351 incidence in Israel to-date remains low and vaccine effectiveness remains high against B.1.1.7, among those fully vaccinated. These results overall suggest that vaccine breakthrough infection is more frequent with both VOCs, yet a combination of mass-vaccination with two doses coupled with non-pharmaceutical interventions control and contain their spread.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Was someone suggesting getting vaccinated and staying away from people forever here?? 

The problem with long COVID seems to be that it's very widely varied and it doesn't show up on lots of tests. This is where I'm pretty happy to go with anecdotal data, frankly. There are boardies who report having issues since having COVID. More than one, in fact. I also know people who are still struggling in real life. 

I guess I could ignore that because the data isn't perfect, but what's the point? I gotta evaluate the evidence I've gathered as best as I can. 

 

I don't think there are "established facts" in this kind of situation. However, people who are claiming increased lethality at least have some data on their side. What do the people who say that there isn't increased lethality have? 

Literally forever? Likely not. 😄 
 

I wasn’t saying there’s no long Covid, just that we don’t understand it.  I’m just not sure that we know that most of us still won’t encounter the virus eventually, even with vaccination, though it is hopeful to think so. And I know some people are worried about a very mild asymptomatic infection developing into long Covid, which I think is a premature concern, and probably not something one can ultimately control. 
 

You’re right about lethality. I have no idea. If I had to guess I think they’d say, hard to separate lethality from how overwhelmed hospitals get in rising surge. I believe all but one of the mortality studies I saw were done in the U.K. Then they might say other things about methodology. I don’t know if there is contradictory data from other countries. 
So, it looks pretty convincing to me that the chance of death with this variant in the UK higher was higher during their surge. Hey, the director of the NIH says so, not going to sit here with the grumpy virologist and argue with him. 🙂 (though I think his gripe was more to do with the transmissible word)

But, you might be on shakier ground to say it’s some characteristic of the virus itself that makes it more lethal. Or that the outcome is likely to be worse if you get it, whoever and wherever you are. But thank God the vaccine is effective for that one. 

 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Speaking of variants - pre print only so possibly flawed but possible evidence from Israel that Pfizer is a little less effective against the South African variant. 
 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21254882v1

 

 

Well that’s not great.

It was of samples from both asymptomatic and symptomatic, and nothing about how the people with the breakthrough infections fared. 
 

I wonder if there is a lot of testing of asymptomatic people in Israel. It won’t be too long before most of us in the US won’t ever know if we have an asymptomatic infection, because once vaccinated we don’t have to test when exposed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question about scheduling.  How does the 2nd dose get scheduled if a person was a "walk in" for the first dose, i.e., came unscheduled to use up excess doses on a mass vax day?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Is this claim true?  This guy is local to me and was working on a vaccine himself so presumably he knows what he’s talking about but I also don’t think he’s scared of saying controversial stuff, rightly or wrongly. Is J&J only 60 pc effective?  

66% with regional variation for symptomatic PCR+.
Much better than that for hospitalization, death, and even all-cause mortality.

Quote

Efficacy varied geographically and was highest in the United States (74.4%; 95% CI = 65.0%–81.6%), followed by Latin America (64.7%; 95% CI = 54.1%–73.0%) and South Africa (52.0%; 95% CI = 30.3%–67.4%). Regional differences in SARS-CoV-2 variants were noted; in South Africa, 94.5% of virus sequences from trial participants were from the B.1.351 lineage, whereas in Brazil, the P.2 lineage accounted for 69.4% of virus sequences.

Quote

overall, 31 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were documented ≥14 days after vaccination, including 29 in the placebo group and two in the vaccine group (estimated efficacy = 93.1%; 95% CI = 71.1%–98.4%). No COVID-19–associated hospitalizations occurred ≥28 days after vaccination in the vaccine group, and 16 occurred in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy = 100%; 95% CI = 74.3%–100.0%). Vaccine efficacy against all-cause death was 75.0% (95% CI = 33.4%–90.6%). Seven COVID-19–associated deaths occurred, all in placebo recipients.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Penelope said:

 

I wasn’t saying there’s no long Covid, just that we don’t understand it.  I’m just not sure that we know that most of us still won’t encounter the virus eventually, even with vaccination, though it is hopeful to think so. And I know some people are worried about a very mild asymptomatic infection developing into long Covid, which I think is a premature concern, and probably not something one can ultimately control. 

I do tend to believe that T-cells post-vaccine ought to help there. Plus it might mutate into something that doesn’t cause long COVID... I really don’t know. At this point, I just want my family vaccinated and take things as they come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penelope said:

Well that’s not great.

It was of samples from both asymptomatic and symptomatic, and nothing about how the people with the breakthrough infections fared. 
 

I wonder if there is a lot of testing of asymptomatic people in Israel. It won’t be too long before most of us in the US won’t ever know if we have an asymptomatic infection, because once vaccinated we don’t have to test when exposed. 

Yes it would be interesting to know if the people became as ill or if the vaccine reduce severity.  It seems like a pretty unformed paper - like they’re observing that there is a massive drop off of b1 but more of the South African variant and they are just putting it out there to draw attention to the fact that it needs monitoring.  
 

I guess it could mean one of three things

- random anomaly that happened

- vaccine protects fully against b1 but only against disease for the SA variant so the variant is transmitting to vaccinated people but not causing severe illness (not great but not the end of the world because vaccinated people are still somewhat protected)

-vaccine doesn’t protect as well against transmission or illness with SA variant - worst case scenario.  
 

It also seems like it was a little bit rushed given they didn’t wait the full two weeks after the second vaccine to check if things changed 

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penelope said:

Literally forever? Likely not. 😄 
 

I wasn’t saying there’s no long Covid, just that we don’t understand it.  I’m just not sure that we know that most of us still won’t encounter the virus eventually, even with vaccination, though it is hopeful to think so. And I know some people are worried about a very mild asymptomatic infection developing into long Covid, which I think is a premature concern, and probably not something one can ultimately control. 
 

You’re right about lethality. I have no idea. If I had to guess I think they’d say, hard to separate lethality from how overwhelmed hospitals get in rising surge. I believe all but one of the mortality studies I saw were done in the U.K. Then they might say other things about methodology. I don’t know if there is contradictory data from other countries. 
So, it looks pretty convincing to me that the chance of death with this variant in the UK higher was higher during their surge. Hey, the director of the NIH says so, not going to sit here with the grumpy virologist and argue with him. 🙂 (though I think his gripe was more to do with the transmissible word)

But, you might be on shakier ground to say it’s some characteristic of the virus itself that makes it more lethal. Or that the outcome is likely to be worse if you get it, whoever and wherever you are. But thank God the vaccine is effective for that one. 

 

I think but it’s a while since I read it that there was a theory as to why the variant was more contagious - something to do with a modification to the spike protein.  If I find it I’ll post it.  It is convenient for the government in general to be able to blame a new variant instead of incompetence/inadequate control measures of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kand said:

. If a place gives you your first dose, you go back there for your second, even if you first was a walk up “extra”. 

I think this varies by area. Certainly not been true in my state. It has been a scramble for first shots & a fend-for-yourself for 2nd shots as well. I was given a card to remind me to go online & schedule my 2nd shot. I'm still unable to schedule get past the first page of the signup they directed me to & judging from the many comments on Facebook, I am not alone. Those who are using Walmart/CVS, etc. can, in some cases, schedule 2nd shots at the tine of firsts, but you don't have to return to the same location.

With my state's issues, I am likely going to try a retail pharmacy for my 2nd shot unless things improve.

I agree that many places schedule you for #2 before you leave from #1. Just not all.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

 I was given a card to remind me to go online & schedule my 2nd shot. I'm still unable to schedule get past the first page of the signup they directed me to & judging from the many comments on Facebook, I am not alone.

That's terrible!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Penelope said:

These news reports about B117 causing more terrible disease mainly in younger people, and P1, too, are unsubstantiated and serve to scare people. The virus is bad, but the news has been nothing but constantly scare everyone to keep them paying attention. We should pay attention, but a lot of the scary predictions just don’t come to pass. We forget about those, though. 

You hit a sore spot, I really don't need reports.  Our local school moved most students virtual three weeks ago, with an attempt to keep the elementary open, they are now all closed until May, and will open only if our positivity comes way down.  Our hospitals are full locally, and filling again statewide, with much younger people (I've posted the statistics in the last two weeks so I won't repeat that), to the point that U of M and other hospitals have been forced to stop elective surgical procedures. 

This is my county, which remains the highest cases per capita, with a positivity of over 30%. We have predominantly B.1.1.7. community spread.

 

29BAD72C-4F96-4237-921D-656AABD60842_4_5005_c.jpeg.cbae3eea657dd4fee6ba74e80c6c2f52.jpeg

This was my state as B.1.1.7 has took hold last month.

A8E08A4E-B804-4A94-99A7-38B21F5D4636_4_5005_c.jpeg.db09d83ae36488b252a51cdfc393fe8e.jpeg

This is now.

EB6ADE97-4742-429C-91CB-C5205166A3F6.png.4096a021ff19ffec19f5fc8a8d22e498.png  
hospitalizations:

3D4EEBB1-0274-4981-A007-BF58E291C6A7_1_201_a.jpeg.fdf4246ed0be949a6abeb9769f4effa4.jpeg 

This was released yesterday: 

The following statement is made on behalf of chief medical officers of Michigan’s community hospitals.

The safe and highly effective COVID-19 vaccines continue to bring us hope. However, the current surge of cases in Michigan is troubling. While our healthcare workers are now safer because of vaccines and more personal protective equipment – and our facilities are safe for all who need care – we are concerned for our communities, including children, who are being infected with COVID-19 at all-time high rates. The variants are more contagious and deadly, infecting more adults and children, and bringing more young people into hospitals than ever. Daily pediatric COVID-19 admissions have increased by 237% since Feb. 19...

Edited by melmichigan
To clarify graph of hospitalizations
  • Sad 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick link to a survey on menstruation and the vaccines: https://redcap.healthinstitute.illinois.edu/surveys/index.php?s=LL8TKKC8DP

I know that this is a typically understudied area of medicine, so hopefully most of us will share data. You do not need to currently menstruate to answer the survey, you just need to have had at least one menstrual period in your life.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, SKL said:

Question about scheduling.  How does the 2nd dose get scheduled if a person was a "walk in" for the first dose, i.e., came unscheduled to use up excess doses on a mass vax day?

My son and I got left over vax at a mass vax site. We received an email around a week prior to the event for the 2nd dose. At the mass sites here they have an event then 3 wks later (for Pfizer) they come back and it is just for boosters then (or first shots if they have no shows).

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kand said:

@melmichiganhow is vaccination going in your county?

We have 17% of the county fully vaccinated.  We have 30% with the first of a two shot series.  We have 59% of the 65+ and up vaccinated (have a large number of retirement and nursing homes).  Sadly, they can't give shots away now.  They had opened large venues to try and quickly vaccinate, as they opened shots to anyone, and they can't fill the spots, so they will be switching to local providers soon in an attempt to vaccinate more people.  They are even going door to door for shut-ins.  We have a big problem with vaccine hesitancy in this area, even before covid, so I doubt we'll ever see enough vaccinations to protect us as a community.

Edited by melmichigan
  • Sad 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Are they? Why? There is lots of biology I don't understand and I don't try to pretend to be an authority on, but transmissibility seems much more like something that public health people would think about than virologists would. I'd expect virologists to work at the level of the cell and not at the level of the population. Why would they be better at figuring out statistics? 

His entire point has been that transmissibility is not something you confirm with statistics. It has a particular biological meaning and is not something one can determine definitely from epidemiological data, because there are other reasons why a particular variant could preferentially spread: population characteristics, fitness, stochasticity.

So he is not arguing that it hasn’t rapidly increased over the UK (though when it got to a certain level in UK, it has decreased in proportion and doesn’t reach 100%). But that it hasn’t spread this way in every place where it has come into a population. 

It’s also been pointed out that what we call the wild type is not the same variant that was in Wuhan, it’s the D-something variant (D614 I think?) A lot of people kept saying last year it must be more transmissible, but that turned out not to be the case. 
 

12 hours ago, Penelope said:


You’re right about lethality. I have no idea. If I had to guess I think they’d say, hard to separate lethality from how overwhelmed hospitals get in rising surge. I believe all but one of the mortality studies I saw were done in the U.K. Then they might say other things about methodology. I don’t know if there is contradictory data from other countries. 


 

Correction, all those that showed increased mortality were from the UK. A Public Health England report from December had initially showed no increased mortality. So what happened in between that and those other reports, just a lag, or something else.

One preprint study from Texas showed it did not. 

11 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think but it’s a while since I read it that there was a theory as to why the variant was more contagious - something to do with a modification to the spike protein.  If I find it I’ll post it.  It is convenient for the government in general to be able to blame a new variant instead of incompetence/inadequate control measures of course.

Yes, there is biological plausibility, thanks for the reminder. 👍 I suppose it’s just that they don’t know until they do the experiments. 

30 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Penelope said:

His entire point has been that transmissibility is not something you confirm with statistics. It has a particular biological meaning and is not something one can determine definitely from epidemiological data, because there are other reasons why a particular variant could preferentially spread: population characteristics, fitness, stochasticity.

What's the biological meaning of "transmissibility," then? As a total layman, to me, it sounds like something that has to do with how many people one infects on average. But I'll be happy to be wrong if someone tells me what it is and also why this different definition is more important than the one I've been using. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, kand said:

eta: I went looking for information on exactly what the hospital situation in Michigan is right now, and it’s heartbreaking.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/2021/04/10/covid-19-capacity-michigan-hospitals/7160162002/
 

For people who don’t see the importance to reducing spread as much as possible and not allowing surges like this and don’t support vaccination, I challenge you to read that entire article.

Easier to quote this then melmichigan’s post to talk about Michigan.

If you read a percentage that sounds horrible, like 237% (from the other post) or 600%, you have to ask, up from what number? And what were the previous numbers, and what is the trend.

I am sorry that Michigan is having a harder time. I don’t want anyone to be sick with this nasty disease. 
 

But you can look at hospitalization numbers for yourself, here. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html
Overall, they are at the levels they we’re back in  the summer. It  doesn’t look to me that they greatly increasing week over week, so the situation does not look (to me) as dire as the fall surge was. (And I sure hope I am not horribly wrong, for their sakes 😐). You can also see that just eyeballing it, it looks like there are proportionally more cases in the under 65s, which is what we would expect (yay, vaccines!). 
 

But that doesn’t include the under 18’s. It doesn’t look proportionally like they make up a whole lot more cases or more higher percentages than they have at other times. 
As cases go up, more kids in hospital, yes, and it’s terrible. Every single one is terrible. I am just not sure the news should say that things are so much worse for children than they had been. We just need to get people vaccinated. 

 

 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, melmichigan said:

We have 17% of the county fully vaccinated.  We have 30% with the first of a two shot series.  We have 59% of the 65+ and up vaccinated (have a large number of retirement and nursing homes).  Sadly, they can't give shots away now.  They had opened large venues to try and quickly vaccinate, as they opened shots to anyone, and they can't fill the spots, so they will be switching to local providers soon in an attempt to vaccinate more people.  They are even going door to door for shut-ins.  We have a big problem with vaccine hesitancy in this area, even before covid, so I doubt we'll ever see enough vaccinations to protect us as a community.

That’s a shame.

Do you get the sense vaccine hesitancy is a problem throughout the state, or do they have a supply or distribution problem in other areas, or is the trouble that they are having trouble getting them to those who need and want them in the harder hit areas?

I was thinking about the back and forth where the governor says they need more, faster, and some say more vaccine should be diverted to Michigan, but the feds say they aren’t going to, some say it might not be fast enough to make a difference anyway. It seems like common sense to send more there, but maybe logistics don’t make sense do that. 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Easier to quote this then melmichigan’s post to talk about Michigan.

If you read a percentage that sounds horrible, like 237% (from the other post) or 600%, you have to ask, up from what number? And what were the previous numbers, and what is the trend.

I am sorry that Michigan is having a harder time. I don’t want anyone to be sick with this nasty disease. 
 

But you can look at hospitalization numbers for yourself, here. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html
Overall, they are at the levels they we’re back in  the summer. It  doesn’t look to me that they greatly increasing week over week, so the situation does not look (to me) as dire as the fall surge was. (And I sure hope I am not horribly wrong, for their sakes 😐). You can also see that just eyeballing it, it looks like there are proportionally more cases in the under 65s, which is what we would expect (yay, vaccines!). 
 

You can't take a national chart (the one you linked) and say that is in any way representative of the situation in Michigan, which was the subject at hand. Did you eyeball the chart Mel sent along with the other stuff you quoted.  You say things are at the same level as last summer,  but a quick glance at this chart shows that they were running around .5 K cases and now they're at over 3.5, which is about the same as the peak surge last winter, and we don't know yet if this is a new peak or if it could keep going up.

3D4EEBB1-0274-4981-A007-BF58E291C6A7_1_201_a.jpeg.fdf4246ed0be949a6abeb9769f4effa4.jpeg

 

Okay, that's just cases, you say, what about hospitalizations?  Here ya go: 

A chart from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services illustrating the state's hospitalization trends for confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients between Oct. 1, 2020 and early April, 2021.

Nope, not at all like last summer.  Like last WINTER, getting close to that surge's peak.  

Edited by Matryoshka
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That’s a shame.

Do you get the sense vaccine hesitancy is a problem throughout the state, or do they have a supply or distribution problem in other areas, or is the trouble that they are having trouble getting them to those who need and want them in the harder hit areas?

I was thinking about the back and forth where the governor says they need more, faster, and some say more vaccine should be diverted to Michigan, but the feds say they aren’t going to, some say it might not be fast enough to make a difference anyway. It seems like common sense to send more there, but maybe logistics don’t make sense do that. 

It sounds like the problem is no longer supply but demand, unless I misread something. Diverting more supply to people who won't take it doesn't help. 

 

Edited to say, that is just what I have read here and in the links and articles.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

You can't take a national chart (the one you linked) and say that is in any way representative of the situation in Michigan, which was the subject at hand. Did you eyeball the chart Mel sent along with the other stuff you quoted.  You say things are at the same level as last summer,  but a quick glance at this chart shows that they were running around .5 K cases and now they're at over 3.5, which is about the same as the peak surge last winter, and we don't know yet if this is a new peak or if it could keep going up.

3D4EEBB1-0274-4981-A007-BF58E291C6A7_1_201_a.jpeg.fdf4246ed0be949a6abeb9769f4effa4.jpeg

 

Okay, that's just cases, you say, what about hospitalizations?  Here ya go: 

A chart from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services illustrating the state's hospitalization trends for confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients between Oct. 1, 2020 and early April, 2021.

Nope, not at all like last summer.  Like last WINTER, getting close to that surge's peak.  

 

Thanks. I didn't have the energy to post links, but the national chart has literally nothing to do with what's being talked about. As you say, the Michigan situation doesn't look good. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frogger said:

It sounds like the problem is no longer supply but demand, unless I misread something. Diverting more supply to people who won't take it doesn't help. 

And I assume demand is split up along political lines, which of course are currently also the rural/urban lines. Which sucks, since it means there will be geographically contiguous pockets where the virus can proliferate 😞 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I included the state hospitalization graph above, which looks very different.  My local hospitals were never at 43% covid cases before.  

This was the state demographics over 1,000 hospitalization ago (less than a week ago in time), it has since worsened for the younger age groups because they tend to wait longer to seek medical care and arrive much sicker than the older population, and isn't representative to my county, which is even more disproportionately younger.

 

 

 

5A92A4CC-733F-4095-B748-EAB6EDE3CB14_1_201_a.jpeg.dec7b71a2e5881f774c336b4d27a49cd.jpeg

I don't want to seem like I'm singling you out @Penelopebut the constant disregard for the differences in the B.1.1.7 is playing out in my community in very tragic ways.

 

Edited by melmichigan
  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frogger said:

It sounds like the problem is no longer supply but demand, unless I misread something. Diverting more supply to people who won't take it doesn't help. 

Yes, and....then what? I see a certain contingent on Twitter (Nate Silver, et. al.) who think the vaccines are being seriously undersold, and we need to tell people get vaccinated, and you can do whatever you want. And along with that there's an attitude that your personal responsibility is to get yourself vaccinated, and then, once everyone who wants a vaccine has had a chance to get one, they're on their own if they choose not to. But there are some big problems with that--kids can't get vaccinated yet, for one thing. And maybe the bigger issue is that the more covid keeps circulating, the bigger chance for mutations that evade our current vaccines. So, yeah, I personally will behave differently because I'm vaccinated, and I'm super grateful that the vaccines are as good as they are, but even if I want to write off the vaccine hesitant as not my problem (which I don't, especially)....I don't think it's that simple. And I don't think we've done much yet to deal with the problem of vaccine resistance (which makes sense; the focus has been on getting the vaccine to everyone who DOES want it...but we're going to have to do it soon)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frogger said:

It sounds like the problem is no longer supply but demand, unless I misread something. Diverting more supply to people who won't take it doesn't help. 

 

Edited to say, that is just what I have read here and in the links and articles.

The state as a whole is still very much in need of more vaccines.  My area of the state is an exception when it comes to vaccines.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yes, and....then what? I see a certain contingent on Twitter (Nate Silver, et. al.) who think the vaccines are being seriously undersold, and we need to tell people get vaccinated, and you can do whatever you want.

Yeah, I dunno about that. It's possible we're underselling, but the people who are hesitant are also largely the people who've decided COVID is a hoax, anyway... 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Yes, and....then what? I see a certain contingent on Twitter (Nate Silver, et. al.) who think the vaccines are being seriously undersold, and we need to tell people get vaccinated, and you can do whatever you want. And along with that there's an attitude that your personal responsibility is to get yourself vaccinated, and then, once everyone who wants a vaccine has had a chance to get one, they're on their own if they choose not to. But there are some big problems with that--kids can't get vaccinated yet, for one thing. And maybe the bigger issue is that the more covid keeps circulating, the bigger chance for mutations that evade our current vaccines. So, yeah, I personally will behave differently because I'm vaccinated, and I'm super grateful that the vaccines are as good as they are, but even if I want to write off the vaccine hesitant as not my problem (which I don't, especially)....I don't think it's that simple. And I don't think we've done much yet to deal with the problem of vaccine resistance (which makes sense; the focus has been on getting the vaccine to everyone who DOES want it...but we're going to have to do it soon)

I'm not sure if this is rhetorical or not. I don't know. I think I managed to get one other person to vaccinate but you don't do it by arguing but rather influencing. Arguing just makes people dig in. 

Michigan was a little slow to just open it up to everyone 16+ but I see they have no so that should help them vaccinate to overall herd faster leaving the skeptics time to wait and see or be influenced. Even if they never change their mind overall spread should be reduced if more people get vaccinated. 

Controlling people is impossible whether it's illegal drugs or vaccines or whatever. The question is how do we encourage a society that actually cares about community, evaluates arguments, and over all just wants to be helpful. This applies to so many problems we have in our society.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frogger said:

I'm not sure if this is rhetorical or not. I don't know. I think I managed to get one other person to vaccinate but you don't do it by arguing but rather influencing. Arguing just makes people dig in. 

 

It wasn't rhetorical, but it wasn't something I expected you in particular to answer 🙂 More like, "yes, I agree that this thing you've identified is a problem. Now what do we collectively as a society do about it?" And....I don't know either.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, melmichigan said:

You hit a sore spot, I really don't need reports.  Our local school moved most students virtual three weeks ago, with an attempt to keep the elementary open, they are now all closed until May, and will open only if our positivity comes way down.  Our hospitals are full locally, and filling again statewide, with much younger people (I've posted the statistics in the last two weeks so I won't repeat that), to the point that U of M and other hospitals have been forced to stop elective surgical procedures. 

This is my county, which remains the highest cases per capita, with a positivity of over 30%. We have predominantly B.1.1.7. community spread.

 

29BAD72C-4F96-4237-921D-656AABD60842_4_5005_c.jpeg.cbae3eea657dd4fee6ba74e80c6c2f52.jpeg

This was my state as B.1.1.7 has took hold last month.

A8E08A4E-B804-4A94-99A7-38B21F5D4636_4_5005_c.jpeg.db09d83ae36488b252a51cdfc393fe8e.jpeg

This is now.

EB6ADE97-4742-429C-91CB-C5205166A3F6.png.4096a021ff19ffec19f5fc8a8d22e498.png

3D4EEBB1-0274-4981-A007-BF58E291C6A7_1_201_a.jpeg.fdf4246ed0be949a6abeb9769f4effa4.jpeg

This was released yesterday: 

The following statement is made on behalf of chief medical officers of Michigan’s community hospitals.

The safe and highly effective COVID-19 vaccines continue to bring us hope. However, the current surge of cases in Michigan is troubling. While our healthcare workers are now safer because of vaccines and more personal protective equipment – and our facilities are safe for all who need care – we are concerned for our communities, including children, who are being infected with COVID-19 at all-time high rates. The variants are more contagious and deadly, infecting more adults and children, and bringing more young people into hospitals than ever. Daily pediatric COVID-19 admissions have increased by 237% since Feb. 19...

Here too.

Covid ICU numbers are already hundreds higher than they were at the height of the last peak (572 today, vs 410 at peak of last wave), case numbers are higher, and the slope of our curve us ugly-steep.  We are in a stay-at-home order that just started 3 days a go.  Hospitals were all ordered to cancel elective procedures as of yesterday to make capacity, and the province just issued orders allowing for hospital transfers without consent, and allowing community HCW to be deployed to hospitals.

The Toronto pediatric tertiary care centre (Hospital for Sick Children) has opened its ICU to adults.  ICU patients are being transfered further and further away as each region in the province goes over-capacity. My local  hospital  is expanding its ICU by taking over CCU and cath lab beds.  Our parking lot field hospital is in use.

This is all due to variants, primarily B117 in my area (greater than two thirds of cases).

And our premier has this to say:  "Look around the world, Ontario is doing pretty well right now," Ford said, despite both case counts and ICU admissions surging in the province."Let's stay positive," he said. "We're going to get through it. I understand everyone gets frustrated throughout this pandemic, but we are well ahead of a lot of places around the world, because of the people here in Ontario."  

He is clearly not my favourite person this week.

Nationally, its the same story, "The rapid spread of more contagious coronavirus variants across Canada is driving a devastating third wave in much of the country and increasing the level of risk in situations previously thought to be relatively safe from COVID-19.".

358233241_ScreenShot2021-04-10at2_21_07PM.thumb.png.27a0bdacecdb6df749f651ad4e7fc57f.png

 

  • Sad 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, I dunno about that. It's possible we're underselling, but the people who are hesitant are also largely the people who've decided COVID is a hoax, anyway... 

I'm generally a Nate Silver apologist, but I haven't been a fan of some of his covid takes. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wathe said:

Here too.

Covid ICU numbers are already hundreds higher than they were at the height of the last peak (572 today, vs 410 at peak of last wave), case numbers are higher, and the slope of our curve us ugly-steep.  We are in a stay-at-home order that just started 3 days a go.  Hospitals were all ordered to cancel elective procedures as of yesterday to make capacity, and the province just issued orders allowing for hospital transfers without consent, and allowing community HCW to be deployed to hospitals.

The Toronto pediatric tertiary care centre (Hospital for Sick Children) has opened its ICU to adults.  ICU patients are being transfered further and further away as each region in the province goes over-capacity. My local  hospital  is expanding its ICU by taking over CCU and cath lab beds.  Our parking lot field hospital is in use.

This is all due to variants, primarily B117 in my area (greater than two thirds of cases).

And our premier has this to say:  "Look around the world, Ontario is doing pretty well right now," Ford said, despite both case counts and ICU admissions surging in the province."Let's stay positive," he said. "We're going to get through it. I understand everyone gets frustrated throughout this pandemic, but we are well ahead of a lot of places around the world, because of the people here in Ontario."  

He is clearly not my favourite person this week.

Nationally, its the same story, "The rapid spread of more contagious coronavirus variants across Canada is driving a devastating third wave in much of the country and increasing the level of risk in situations previously thought to be relatively safe from COVID-19.".

358233241_ScreenShot2021-04-10at2_21_07PM.thumb.png.27a0bdacecdb6df749f651ad4e7fc57f.png

 

Your graphs look very similar to ours. It’s hard to ignore the trend we are seeing with B.1.1.7.  I’m glad you have stay at home orders. The local health department was able to convince school boards to close our schools, and the governor has asked for voluntary action.

 

Edited by melmichigan
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

You can't take a national chart (the one you linked) and say that is in any way representative of the situation in Michigan, which was the subject at hand. Did you eyeball the chart Mel sent along with the other stuff you quoted.  You say things are at the same level as last summer,  but a quick glance at this chart shows that they were running around .5 K cases and now they're at over 3.5, which is about the same as the peak surge last winter, and we don't know yet if this is a new peak or if it could keep going up.

3D4EEBB1-0274-4981-A007-BF58E291C6A7_1_201_a.jpeg.fdf4246ed0be949a6abeb9769f4effa4.jpeg

 

Okay, that's just cases, you say, what about hospitalizations?  Here ya go: 

A chart from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services illustrating the state's hospitalization trends for confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients between Oct. 1, 2020 and early April, 2021.

Nope, not at all like last summer.  Like last WINTER, getting close to that surge's peak.  


I tried to link Michigan but no matter what I link, the link goes right back to US as a whole. 
You’re right that I then also looked at the US chart when I said about last summer. My bad.

(I really don’t need a pile-on though. 🙄)

What I said about pediatric hospitalization still seems right, from what I am looking at.

The hospitalization graph I am looking at from the link I gave, yes only from Michigan, doesn’t at all look like your screenshots, though, where the peak is almost as high as the last surge, and it’s up to date through one week. 🤔 Either something is very different with the two scales, or the state data is just more complete (and I’m assuming what you posted from the state is more up to dare than the CDC/HHS). Take a look if you like. I don’t know how to post screenshots and I can’t see the scale on yours. 

—Edit- sorry, @melmichigan, I posted looking at CDC but I now see the data from Michigan has caveats “The rates provided are likely to be underestimated as COVID-19 hospitalizations might be missed” and is from surveillance sites so maybe that’s why it doesn’t look right. I should just stick to the NYTimes graphs, they seem the clearest since Covid Tracking Project is no more.———

And yes, I was only looking at hospitalizations because I don’t know how well cases will be linked to hospitalizations anymore, with vaccination+prior infection. Hospitalizations per case have decreased, is my understanding.

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

What's the biological meaning of "transmissibility," then? As a total layman, to me, it sounds like something that has to do with how many people one infects on average. But I'll be happy to be wrong if someone tells me what it is and also why this different definition is more important than the one I've been using. 

https://www.virology.ws/2021/01/28/sars-cov-2-variants-of-concern/
 

I doubt the current popular use will change, but I think it’s pretty interesting nonetheless.

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites

So in my county, there have been free mass vax sites in the middle of the low-income, minority communities for weeks now.  The stats so far indicate that despite the high awareness and ease of physical access, the % of minority users is very small.

I asked about the biggest one, whether it required pre-registration or you could walk in, and I was told you had to register online.  I suspect that may be a barrier for some.  They should probably allow walk-ins; maybe they will start doing that.  (They do allow walk-ins in some of the locations.)

What other thoughts do you all have about why minorities, who are statistically at more risk from Covid, would not be flocking for these free, easy to access vax locations?

(In case you think it is political, I doubt that, as these are very blue zip codes.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Penelope said:

https://www.virology.ws/2021/01/28/sars-cov-2-variants-of-concern/
 

I doubt the current popular use will change, but I think it’s pretty interesting nonetheless.

I don't see a definition. Could you please just tell me what definition you're using, if any? I'm not seeing anything here that's different than common usage, but maybe I'm missing it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

SKL, the online registration probably is a problem.

Is there a wait or a risk of one?

Based on what I've been told, these are very efficient and quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SKL said:

So in my county, there have been free mass vax sites in the middle of the low-income, minority communities for weeks now.  The stats so far indicate that despite the high awareness and ease of physical access, the % of minority users is very small.

I asked about the biggest one, whether it required pre-registration or you could walk in, and I was told you had to register online.  I suspect that may be a barrier for some.  They should probably allow walk-ins; maybe they will start doing that.  (They do allow walk-ins in some of the locations.)

What other thoughts do you all have about why minorities, who are statistically at more risk from Covid, would not be flocking for these free, easy to access vax locations?

(In case you think it is political, I doubt that, as these are very blue zip codes.)

Me, too. All of this. Blue as well. 
 

I hope someone with some power and know-how is asking people and getting a sense of why this is, to figure out how to address it.

One thing I wonder about is with 30% or so infected overall, and many more than that in some minority communities, that they figure they already had it or were exposed and did not catch it, and don’t need a vaccine. But someone surely has delved into it. Could be so many reasons, some having to do with racism and distrust. 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't see a definition. Could you please just tell me what definition you're using, if any? I'm not seeing anything here that's different than common usage, but maybe I'm missing it. 

Paragraph 3? It’s not my argument. I’m not a virologist. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...