• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

DeacHead said:
Have the "beware the cashless society" people not been participating in the first world over the last 2 and a half decades?
Click to expand...

And do the "Bill Gates is going to microchip us" people not have a smart phone and/or use a gps based device to find their way around town and/or search for stuff via Google?
 
The “cashless” stuff is problematic because it leaves out the unbanked.
 
birdman said:
oh, wait, look:
Click to expand...

How did they know who had existing heart conditions so that they could exclude them? The average age of people in the study was 62, and it was 70% male. Putting aside Covid, you don't think that roughly half of that subset has some sort of heart issue going on, whether they know it or not? Come on man, aren't you some sort of scientist? How are you duped so easily? Plus, only 2/3 of those studied had actually been diagnosed with Covid. But again, follow the #science and #experts.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How did they know who had existing heart conditions so that they could exclude them? The average age of people in the study was 62, and it was 70% male. Putting aside Covid, you don't think that roughly half of that subset has some sort of heart issue going on, whether they know it or not? Come on man, aren't you some sort of scientist? How are you duped so easily? But again, follow the #science and #experts.
Click to expand...

Go a head and read the journal article and report back to us.
 
Is 2&2 arguing that there’s no way to find out if someone has or has had a heart condition?
 
The restaurants around us that have gone cashless are the $16-lunch-salad type places. I don't think they had too many unbanked customers to start with.
 
PhDeac said:
Is 2&2 arguing that there’s no way to find out if someone has or has had a heart condition?
Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing that many, if not most, people have no idea whether or not they have a heart condition. So assuming that everyone who doesn't know they have a heart condition just suddenly got it as a result of Covid is idiotic.
 
PhDeac said:
The “cashless” stuff is problematic because it leaves out the unbanked.
Click to expand...

DistrictDeacon said:
The restaurants around us that have gone cashless are the $16-lunch-salad type places. I don't think they had too many unbanked customers to start with.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the torching of the local Family Dollar by the unbanked may not have been the smartest move, in hindsight. Oops.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I made the mistake of clicking on the Tunnels Coronavirus thread, in which every other post seems to be about Trump. All politics aside, is this thing as big of a deal as the media is making it out to be? It seems like a more contagious, slightly more powerful, but shorter, version of pneumonia. I'm not sure where that ranks on things to be worried about unless you are over 75 or so or have preexisting respiratory problems. That said, if it is more serious than that then we should definitely take it seriously - but it is difficult to know how much of what the media reports is actually concerning. This gives the smell of their typical pending milkwich snowstorm school closings that ends up being 45 degrees and sunny.
Click to expand...

The OP of this thread is simultaneously hilarious and extremely sad
 
Buttermaker said:
So is this promising new vaccine news for real?
Click to expand...

For Moderna? I don't think results are bad but I'm also not sure why they're super exciting at this point (still a lot TBD), just that they've cleared the hurdles for deeming phase 1 a success. We won't know more about efficacy until phase 2/3.

There are other front runners (afaik) already in phase 3 like the oxford one but from what I can tell that vaccine has some serious drawbacks like a potentially shorter immunity cycle, so it could slow the spread but not outright stop it, and then after you've been exposed to it you're not able to receive it again with any benefit (because it is delivered via another virus which your body develops antibodies against?). Would be curious to hear the science guys on here chime in about that.

I really like this page for tracking across all the different candidates: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, I'm arguing that many, if not most, people have no idea whether or not they have a heart condition. So assuming that everyone who doesn't know they have a heart condition just suddenly got it as a result of Covid is idiotic.
Click to expand...

The source data were sought from medical professionals and hospitals not individual patients, and the researchers asked the medical professionals to determine if the patient had prior heart disease (see question 7 in the link below). So this would not be the case that 50% of the dudes in this study failed to self evaluate their prior heart conditions. You are definitely identifying a potential observational uncertainty in the study, however the authors took steps to minimize the problem and there results show a strong association that it is hard to attribute the entire affect to misclassified prior status.

Here is a link to the source article in the scientific journal (I have no idea if this is a quality journal, what the impact factor or publication costs are):
https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa178/5859292?searchresult=1
Feel free to put your skepticism to test and review the paper.

Here is a link to the data used in the study:

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup...t~nO0QP3ug__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Feel free to analyze the data in anyway that you think is more appropriate.
 
birdman said:
The source data were sought from medical professionals and hospitals not individual patients, and the researchers asked the medical professionals to determine if the patient had prior heart disease (see question 7 in the link below). So this would not be the case that 50% of the dudes in this study failed to self evaluate their prior heart conditions. You are definitely identifying a potential observational uncertainty in the study, however the authors took steps to minimize the problem and there results show a strong association that it is hard to attribute the entire affect to misclassified prior status.

Here is a link to the source article in the scientific journal (I have no idea if this is a quality journal, what the impact factor or publication costs are):
https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa178/5859292?searchresult=1
Feel free to put your skepticism to test and review the paper.

Here is a link to the data used in the study:

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup...t~nO0QP3ug__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Feel free to analyze the data in anyway that you think is more appropriate.
Click to expand...

How's about we just take your word for it and move on?
 
The oxford vaccine is one of those good and bad need to see what happens and phase 3 testing will be crucial because the early numbers aren't big enough. Its backbone is based on the long used adenovirus vector. When this idea was first developed people thought this would be the end all be all for vaccines. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses making them fairly straight forward to manipulate. The idea was to introduce a transgene of a different virus of interest, in this case the covid-19 spike protein, express it at high levels in the viral vector and simply let the adenovirus do its thing no need to mess with the addition of an adjuvant to boost the immune system.

Turns out not as simple as that and certain adenoviruses already have immunity in 40-90% of people depending on the vector backbone strain. This means you put the vaccine virus in and it immediately is eliminated. Further if you put a replication competent strain of a vaccine in then you get antibodies to a whole bunch of things you don't want antibodies too. I am pretty sure the Oxford vaccine tries to get around this by first using a Chimpanzee strain of adeno so that chance of prior immunity is lower. Second its replication incompetent so you put the vaccine in at a high titer and the virus produces the covid-19 protein but not so many other adenoviral proteins. The drawbacks are you will get some immunity to the vector so you can never use that vector again, you potentially could still get a booster but the efficacy might be less really hard to tell until the trial is done.
 
birdman said:
The source data were sought from medical professionals and hospitals not individual patients, and the researchers asked the medical professionals to determine if the patient had prior heart disease (see question 7 in the link below). So this would not be the case that 50% of the dudes in this study failed to self evaluate their prior heart conditions. You are definitely identifying a potential observational uncertainty in the study, however the authors took steps to minimize the problem and there results show a strong association that it is hard to attribute the entire affect to misclassified prior status.

Here is a link to the source article in the scientific journal (I have no idea if this is a quality journal, what the impact factor or publication costs are):
https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa178/5859292?searchresult=1
Feel free to put your skepticism to test and review the paper.

Here is a link to the data used in the study:

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup...t~nO0QP3ug__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Feel free to analyze the data in anyway that you think is more appropriate.
Click to expand...

The medical professional is the person checking the boxes on the always-scientific SurveyMonkey, but where do you think they are getting the underlying health history info from if not the patient? You think the doctor in the Covid-ICU has been the patient's primary care physician for his life? Of course not, he is getting the info off the intake form that the patient or his family has filled out.

7. Pre-existing cardiovascular co-morbidities (select all that apply)

Known heart failure

Known ischemic heart disease

Known valve disease

Hypertension

Diabetes Mellitus

Other (please specify)
Click to expand...

"Known" to who? How does the person checking those boxes know how to answer them without asking the patient?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The medical professional is the person checking the boxes on the always-scientific SurveyMonkey, but where do you think they are getting the underlying health history info from if not the patient? You think the doctor in the Covid-ICU has been the patient's primary care physician for his life? Of course not, he is getting the info off the intake form that the patient or his family has filled out.
Click to expand...

Ok fine, the study is totally flawed. Thanks for reading the paper and providing your useful insights on its methods and conclusions. Probably best to just continue treating COVID like it's a nothing burger.
 
I demand perfect data from a patchwork of systems and organizations never designed or funded to produce it. Until you provide that you need to reopen NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top