mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Science & Technology (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=52)
-   -   COVID vaccination wavefront (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26332)

Viliam Furik 2021-02-04 07:39

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;570818]This may be a silly question, but why don't the percentages add up to anything even close to 100 percent? They add up to 54% in the first chart, and to 60% in the second. Are over 40% simply refusing to participate in the poll?[/QUOTE]

That's the thing, they don't, and anybody sane will suspect it's intentional.

@LaurV: Exactly.

retina 2021-02-04 08:45

Obviously the small print in the dot of the [b]j[/b] has the following text:[quote]Intended for entertainment purposes only, and in no way is it meant to be representative of any situation either real or fictional.[/quote]

Dr Sardonicus 2021-02-04 13:47

[QUOTE=LaurV;570820]<snip>
Your people have a problem not only with the vaccine, but also with counting percents in correspondence to area fractions :rofl:
<snip>[/QUOTE]Funny thing about that. My mind goes for numbers first. And when those numbers on those charts didn't add up, the areas simply became meaningless. I was [i]seeing[/i] that the 21% area was bigger than the 29% area, but the thought wasn't registering. I was experiencing the [i]darndest[/i] sensation. My mind had [i]already[/i] concluded that the whole thing was totally meaningless, so was refusing to analyze it any further. And as soon as I saw your comment, my immediate thought was, [i]That's it![/i]

Based on my own experience over the last several years, I would speculate that the Slovakian government has been treating its people like mushrooms[sup]†[/sup] since long before the COVID-19 pandemic began, and they simply don't [i]care[/i] that they're spewing utter nonsense.

[sup]†[/sup]Keeping them in the dark, piling s:censored:t on them, and expecting them to grow

xilman 2021-02-04 16:13

Just returned home with SWMBO aftershe had her first CV19 jab.

Uncwilly 2021-02-04 16:41

[QUOTE=xilman;570857]Just returned home with SWMBO aftershe had her first CV19 jab.[/QUOTE]You should offer her a warm/hot beverage (aka a cuppa). Tomorrow her arm will be sore as if someone punched her.

xilman 2021-02-04 20:10

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;570859]You should offer her a warm/hot beverage (aka a cuppa). Tomorrow her arm will be sore as if someone punched her.[/QUOTE]She beat me to it, with a mug of tomato soup.

No adverse reactions yet. This was the O-AZ version.

Dr Sardonicus 2021-02-04 21:35

[QUOTE=xilman;570857]Just returned home with SWMBO aftershe had her first CV19 jab.[/QUOTE]If there's no soreness to alleviate, so much the better! If there's some (but not a lot of) stiffness and soreness around the injection site, light to moderate use of the arm might help. I had long since been so advised when receiving flu shots. Using my arms has indeed helped alleviate the stiffness and soreness, both with flu shots and with my first COVID shot. If using the arm makes the soreness worse, stop using the arm.

I've been told the reaction to the second shot might be worse than to the first.

My aunt and uncle got vaccinated after my uncle had COVID. His reaction to the shot was mild at first, but after a day or two it became almost like having COVID all over again. My aunt, who lives with him, repeatedly tested negative, and her reaction to the shot wasn't severe AFAIK.

Batalov 2021-02-04 22:37

We have weekly Town Halls with infectious disease heads. Every once in a while you hear excellent, valuable things that make you go 'Hmmmmm...'

Today I heard this: [B]Q:[/B] there are contradicting advices in the news; should I take Tylenol after vac jab or [I]can I take it in advance[/I]?
[B]A:[/B] Best to wait for reaction and [B]then [/B]take Tylenol (and Ibuprofen, too, if needed *). Why? Because these NSAIDs will bump you antiinflammation response and the vac will be less effective. You do want to get a bit (or even quite a bit) sore -- this means immune system started its work. Advice is not to take Tylenol in advance.
_____
* it is also a separate and universal advice: it is ok to take both - because they act on different pathways. they are in different subclasses; this will not be an overdose of either of them. Also [I]drugs.com[/I] is an excellent site to identify pills that you are unsure what they are and/or to check out drug interactions.

Dr Sardonicus 2021-02-05 01:03

[QUOTE=Batalov;570885]Today I heard this: [B]Q:[/B] there are contradicting advices in the news; should I take Tylenol after vac jab or [I]can I take it in advance[/I]?
[B]A:[/B] Best to wait for reaction and [B]then [/B]take Tylenol (and Ibuprofen, too, if needed *). Why? Because these NSAIDs will bump you antiinflammation response and the vac will be less effective. You do want to get a bit (or even quite a bit) sore -- this means immune system started its work. Advice is not to take Tylenol in advance.[/QUOTE]
Similar advice here - take nothing before, wait on anything after. Acetaminophen preferable to salicylates (like aspirin) or ibuprofen for pain after. Basic idea seems to be let inflammatory response do its thing. Acetaminophen blocks pain signals.

The Carnivore 2021-02-06 19:36

[QUOTE=The Carnivore;570599]So let's say that you're offered the less effective vaccine now, but not the more effective one.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/Covid-vaccine-explainer.html[/url]

[quote]
Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus vaccine might have seemed disappointing. Its overall efficacy ... was reported at [b]72 percent[/b] in the United States...

Those figures appear far below the high bar set by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna ... which reported overall efficacy from [b]94 to 95 percent[/b]...

[b]If you woke up and you say, ‘Well, go to the door on the left and you get 94 or 95 percent, go to the door on the right and you get 72 percent,’ which door do you want to go to?” he asked[/b]...

the more crucial measure was the ability to prevent severe disease, which translates to keeping people out of the hospital and preventing deaths. And that result, for Johnson & Johnson, was [b]85 percent[/b]...

The Moderna vaccine also showed high efficacy, [b]100 percent[/b], against severe disease. The Pfizer-BioNTech one appeared to as well...[/quote]

Now here's the debate:
[quote]Dr. Schaffner said he had just attended a meeting with other public health experts, and they had asked one another what they would tell their spouses or partners to do if they could get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine tomorrow, or had to wait three weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech’s or Moderna’s.

“All of us said, ‘Get the one tomorrow,’” Dr. Schaffner said.[/quote]
If you do the math, there were a little under a million new cases over the past week in the U.S, compared with a population of ~330 million. Therefore, an unvaccinated person's odds of getting infected next week are ~0.3%.

Someone getting 72% protection would have a ~0.084% chance of getting infected and a ~99.916% chance of staying healthy on a specific week, while someone getting 95% protection would have a ~0.015% chance of getting infected and a ~99.985% chance of staying healthy.

If person A receives the J&J vaccine today and person B receives the Pfizer vaccine three weeks later, their odds of remaining uninfected are:
[code]
Week Person A Person B Comments
0 100% 100% Person A receives vaccine
1 99.7% 99.7%
2 99.62% 99.40% Person A is 72% protected
3 99.53% 99.10% Person B receives first dose
4 99.45% 98.81%
5 99.37% 98.66% Person B is 50% protected
6 99.28% 98.51% Person B receives second dose
7 99.20% 98.36%
8 99.12% 98.35% Person B is 95% protected
9 99.03% 98.33%
10 98.95% 98.32%
11 98.87% 98.30%
12 98.78% 98.29%
13 98.70% 98.27%
14 98.62% 98.26%
15 98.53% 98.24%
16 98.45% 98.23%
17 98.37% 98.21%
18 98.29% 98.20%
19 98.20% 98.18%
20 98.12% 98.17% Person A's risk is now greater than Person B's
[/code]
Of course, this assumes that the infection rates remain roughly the same. If cases continue declining, it'll take more than 20 weeks for Person A to have a greater cumulative risk than Person B. But if cases surge, it'll take less than 20 weeks for Person A to have a greater cumulative risk than Person B.

henryzz 2021-02-06 20:56

[QUOTE=The Carnivore;571019]Of course, this assumes that the infection rates remain roughly the same. If cases continue declining, it'll take more than 20 weeks for Person A to have a greater cumulative risk than Person B. But if cases surge, it'll take less than 20 weeks for Person A to have a greater cumulative risk than Person B.[/QUOTE]

That is a very strong assumption. New cases dropped by 25% in a week in the UK(data delayed by a week). If that continues the risk will be lots lower by the time Person B is protected. We may get another spike again but with the vaccine involved it would require stupidity from the government to allow it to get so high again(or a new mutation).


All times are UTC. The time now is 07:03.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.