The Vaccine Thread

[jimcav]

The modelling equation you are using, Vc= 1 / (1 - R0), is valid if vaccine effectiveness is 100%. At lower effectiveness numbers it becomes Vc = ( 1 / (1 - R0)) / E where E is the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection.

It should be obvious that if E < 1 / (1 - R0) there is no vaccination rate that assures herd immunity.

At the moment that is the case with the delta variant as far as we know: R0 is higher (maybe 4 - 6) and E is lower ( maybe 65% ) on the available evidence.

I wasn't trying to estimate herd immunity needed for Delta with current vaccines. I was only trying to point out that the prior post about effectiveness in terms of uptake of vaccination rate of the population wasn't grasping the actual principle, because the % needed for herd immunity is more dependent on the R0, and I was trying to explain it simply. I'm no longer scouring medrxiv daily, but a recent (yesterday) glance showed they just don't have the data yet to accurately assess the R0 of Delta.

I will not be surprised if a booster for Delta or even an emerging variant will be needed. HOWEVER, I am not sure that using the Vc equation Vc=(1− 1/R0)/E for preventing INFECTION is the goal. For the rest possibly reading this, there is a big difference between exposure, infection, and illness. The data I have seen so far show great success against significant/severe ILLNESS. Since folks seem to be balking about the measures needed to reduce EXPOSURE, I think the focus should still be on vaccination, as it so far is working with respect to illness.

I'm doing what I can. I got my two, and my family all have; we still socially distance, get take vs dine-in, I WFH, etc. If I didn't WFH, I would wear a mask just because there is now some data showing I could still potentially spread Delta even though vaccinated. I hope everyone does what they can, versus what they feel like doing. A public health issue was tragically compromised by culture and political posturing, and remains so.

[beeatnik]

I'm doing what I can. I got my two, and my family all have; we still socially distance, get take vs dine-in, I WFH, etc. If I didn't WFH, I would wear a mask just because there is now some data showing I could still potentially spread Delta even though vaccinated. I hope everyone does what they can, versus what they feel like doing. A public health issue was tragically compromised by culture and political posturing, and remains so.

1. A large percentage of the American public (world, actually) is not in a position socioeconomically or culturally to follow your example.

2. Winter will reveal how effective these vaccines really are against severe disease and death in the most vulnerable. Waning protection against infection does not fuel confidence. Let the virologist, immunologists and epidemiologists prove otherwise.

3. Governments at some point will take the path of least resistance. Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and China will not pave the path to "normalcy."

[Mabouya]

Just in case you didn't already know that there are some seriously f'd up places on this country...

And MO, the state where I happen to live, is apparently one of them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/u...smid=url-share

"Some in Missouri Seek Covid-19 Shots in Secret, Doctor Says

As cases surge, a doctor says that some people are pleading for discretion when they receive the vaccine, worried about what their friends and families will think."

[ides1056]

On my trip to California in May I visited my Aunt, who is a medical anomaly for having survived throat cancer. Her faith is very strong. I figured she would not get vaccinated, so made a point to tell her to get her ducks in a row. When I found out that her will hadn't been properly written in one particular, I made the point again at the risk of angering her.

She listened, and made the correction. Her son also refuses to get vaccinated. I don't expect a good outcome, but at least there won't be a legal mess after.

[Bobonli]

On a slightly related note, the latest insanity from the antivaxxers: that the vaccine contains (or worse, is 99% composed of) graphene oxide. This is apparently based on a report from some clown who looked at what he thinks was a vial of Covid vaccine under a microscope and saw what he thought looked like graphene oxide.

Seriously.

Have they ever seen graphene oxide? It's pitch black. Even a 0.2% suspension is black.

I hate ruin your Saturday, but there are other quality issues that most people don't think about: human error!

Non-malicious, I'm in a rush or don't understand human error.

I'm vaccinated, work at times as a vaccinator and train people to vaccinate. You'd lose your mind if you knew how easy it is to muck up any one step of the process from preparing to administering it. A moment of inattention can cause a tiny error that should make you wonder if the recipient is getting the correct amount of vaccine. I've seen people withdraw too much or too little vaccine, contaminate the vial, mix incorrectly in training. As a vaccinator, I been given partially empty syringes twice in a two hour rotation. Heck, the information on my own kids' vaccine appointment and aftercare instructions does not match the vaccine they actually received.

We all know there are medical errors in hospitals. Now magnify that times all the people who were recruited to do this work who aren't really trained (or were "battlefield trained") and you don't need graphene, microchips or any other possible adulterating item to cause concern.

I haven't seen any black floaties. Yet. But what I describe above certainly makes me scratch my head and wonder what the error rate of the mass Vaccine campaign is.

[thollandpe]

I hate ruin your Saturday, but there are other quality issues that most people don't think about: human error!

This doesn’t look like an error, it looks like the guy with the microscope was played. He examined a sample of what was supposed to be the vaccine but was “of unknown origin and traceability.” Further, it was done at the request of a blogger who has previously spread misinformation about the virus, including anti-mask bullshit.

That’s from Reuters:
Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines do not contain graphene oxide

[Bobonli]

This doesn’t look like an error, it looks like the guy with the microscope was played. He examined a sample of what was supposed to be the vaccine but was “of unknown origin and traceability.” Further, it was done at the request of a blogger who has previously spread misinformation about the virus, including anti-mask bullshit.

That’s from Reuters:
Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines do not contain graphene oxide

My bad: I didn’t mean to suggest that the graphene thing was an error; rather to point out that there are many other things that call into question whether we’re doing this properly to get the results we think we need.

[jimcav]

1. A large percentage of the American public (world, actually) is not in a position socioeconomically or culturally to follow your example.

That is why I said I hope each will 'do what they can'. That might only be a mask. I'm fully aware my WFH is a luxury, and that vaccines are not widespread yet. Time will obviously tell on illness vs infection, and I will continue to be thankful I am in a country where the scientific/medical infrastructure can respond as needed with new vaccines. The biggest point I'd like to make is it might help anxiety or concern to pay attention to the degree of illness vs spread of infection. There is a difference between an immunity level that prevents all infection and one that prevents significant illness.

[Sino]

Of course there are concrete answers and concrete facts:

Properly wearing appropriate particulate masks reduces transmission rates meaningfully.

The greater the percentage of folks who wear them, the greater the reduction in transmission.

We are safer if all of us wear them.

By politicizing it, stoking defiance, being defiant and failing to uniformly do what needed to be done early in the pandemic, and even much later, we have created the situation about which we were warned; that the infected population would grow so large that multiple mutations would occur, thrive and make an already serious problem far worse.

In the not quite as concrete world, but seemingly consistent with first principles wrt proliferation of variants is that current vaccines alone will not reduce the reproduction number to less than 1.

It's perfectly understandable to be annoyed at the people and political party who refuse to take simple, inexpensive and available steps to reduce transmission.

I’m sorry John, but if you can’t provide the data, you’re only supporting what I wrote. There are zero studies that show any efficacy of masks. Common sense says that quarantine must work, but other than that, we’re still at square zero, and baseless claims like yours don’t help anyone or anything.

[Sino]

[QUOTE=thollandpe;1055121]And this virus is still transmitted mainly by aerosols, and masks are absolutely effective in limiting the potential for transmission.[/QUOTE

Proof? Data? Something?

[Greg Costello]

I’m sorry John, but if you can’t provide the data, you’re only supporting what I wrote. There are zero studies that show any efficacy of masks. Common sense says that quarantine must work, but other than that, we’re still at square zero, and baseless claims like yours don’t help anyone or anything.

Ironic that this is the response of conservative scientists in many arenas - i.e. we can't conclude anything absent multiple statistically significant and appropriate studies, and those of the anitvaxxers alike. The disassociation of common sense, of observation, of intuition, of drawing on past experience is, IMHO, crazy. This type of reasoning has diluted the potential postivie effects of efforts to protect human health from harmful pollutants, including tabacco and pahs and emissions like methane to conservation efforts to protect species and landscapes. It makes a mockery of the precautionary principle. Previously employed by white tower academics will little interest in the real world then to corporations looking to continue to maximize profit at the expense of individuals and now as a tool of the political and social folks who look upon education and science as elitist concepts that either "put them down" or designed to take advantage of them, this rationale is just an excuse for continued pursuit of individual self interest in a society that has lost it's ability to care for the common good.

[thollandpe]

[QU0TE=thollandpe;1055121] And this virus is still transmitted mainly by aerosols, and masks are absolutely effective in limiting the potential for transmission.[/QU0TE

Proof? Data? Something?

It’s elementary, my dear. The disease is carried by aerosols. Those aerosols are emitted from three of the holes on your head. Cover them with a filter (MERV-13 not required) to minimize the risk of transmission.

The earth is round, gravity is a force to be reckoned with, and aerosol transmission reflects a modern understanding of aerosol science and allows physically appropriate explanation and intervention selection for infectious diseases.

[vertical_doug]

As a business, no one seems to have a problem with 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' sign but ask for a mask, and people spit on you, curse you etc. It's really crazy.

Everyone seems a bit myopic about which rules apply to them. I see a guy who walks dogs near me who seems to be an anti-masker at my favorite bakery. He leaves the dogs outside and goes in maskless.
I see an old lady wearing a mask, but she brings her dog inside. Both are bad, but which one is worse? or does it even matter?


I feel like the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

[Mark Kelly]

The earth is round, gravity is a force to be reckoned with, and aerosol transmission reflects a modern understanding of aerosol science and allows physically appropriate explanation and intervention selection for infectious diseases.

Two out of three: gravity really isn't a force.

[jimcav]

the truth about gravity is likely a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this thread.

[jimcav]

[QUOTE=Sino;1055193]

And this virus is still transmitted mainly by aerosols, and masks are absolutely effective in limiting the potential for transmission.[/QUOTE

Proof? Data? Something?

anyone can easily look at current data on the subject. The data aren't being hidden, and it isn't some new concept. Masks are part of universal precautions in every US hospital for a reason, and it isn't because of some industrial mask lobby has somehow bamboozled penny-pinching executive committees to buy them for no good reason.

The old adage about hospitals being where the sick are, where the potential for infection is, was and is true. Now the non-healthcare population gets to experience an analogous risk scenario due to a pandemic. The same precautions that work WITHIN hospitals to prevent or reduce infections, shockingly work outside it.

Take 5 minutes on pubmed or the latest medrxiv and read some of the data/research that exists.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20051649v3
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....09.21256922v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.21258817v1

[jclay]

I’m sorry John, but if you can’t provide the data, you’re only supporting what I wrote. There are zero studies that show any efficacy of masks. Common sense says that quarantine must work, but other than that, we’re still at square zero, and baseless claims like yours don’t help anyone or anything.

Nonsense, all of it, but I won't argue with you.

[Mark Kelly]

the truth about gravity is likely a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this thread.

Well yes, except in this context it is being used as an example of something that is obviously true. Gravity-as-a-force is obvious until you ask yourself how come gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical.

[vertical_doug]

Well yes, except in this context it is being used as an example of something that is obviously true. Gravity-as-a-force is obvious until you ask yourself how come gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical.

You mean 'magic'?

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

I know it's not a technology, but its all magic to me.

[Bobonli]

[QUOTE=jimcav;1055208]

anyone can easily look at current data on the subject. The data aren't being hidden, and it isn't some new concept. Masks are part of universal precautions in every US hospital for a reason, and it isn't because of some industrial mask lobby has somehow bamboozled penny-pinching executive committees to buy them for no good reason.

The old adage about hospitals being where the sick are, where the potential for infection is, was and is true. Now the non-healthcare population gets to experience an analogous risk scenario due to a pandemic. The same precautions that work WITHIN hospitals to prevent or reduce infections, shockingly work outside it.

Take 5 minutes on pubmed or the latest medrxiv and read some of the data/research that exists.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20051649v3
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....09.21256922v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....16.21258817v1

Two out of three non-peer reviewed articles. One thing we've learned from this pandemic is that anyone can rush to publish just about anything while relying on correlations to "prove' causation. I wear a mask 10 hours a day at work; I work in healthcare. And I can look around a room and see several/many people who contracted Covid despite wearing 2 masks and a face shield and maintaining those precautions "off duty." And I'm talking about recently, not the first weeks of the pandemic before we knew what was happening. The conclusions represented in literature do not match people's lived experiences. I'm not saying masks don't work. I am saying that they're only part of the puzzle. Staying the eff away from people appears to be the most effective method, followed by stay away from people.

Quarantining, BTW, only works if you are not doing it with others who are sick or can get sick from you. We learned that the hard way in NY.