Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Second vaccine with high immunity" video.

  1.  @chelseamaniac6015  It actually was not from the market. That was simply one of the early outbreaks. . We should first stop using the term "wet market" because that's both over broad and under respectful. Wild meat markets would be one term to employ, if that is actually what is meant. . People should probably not eat bats, however. They are linked to two different coronavirus outbreaks, and also fruit bats to another disease. Also they are too important for mosquito control etc. .
    6
  2. That's why they have a control group and double blind protocols. There is no reason to think that careful behavior would be more common in the vaccine vs control group, since they don't know which group they are in.
    3
  3. yes, it will come as a result of recovered people, resistant people (for other reasons), and the vaccine, all the % add up
    3
  4. no, because if that were true, almost no beach bum or surfer would ever get it, but they apparently do get it
    2
  5.  @morlidor  Sweden should do what it wants. I'm not the boss. I like their approach, and also Japan's. . However, I don't like the "most people" argument. Every person in the world will die, but that doesn't mean it's ok if they all die tomorrow. . Death is fine and natural but so is fighting for life.
    2
  6. Japan has one of the most dense populations, and one of the lowest infection rates. . So I totally agree we should go forward to a new normality, not backwards. We can learn from every nation.
    2
  7. give me a break! ten bucks for a life saving shot is not extortion
    2
  8. 100%, but a large margin of error surely, since the expected number of severe cases among 5 people with an infection would be less than one.
    2
  9. mRNA? . mRNA is not the same as RNA, so we should be specific.
    2
  10. i would think not
    2
  11. Excellent ideas. . Also the virus infection numbers should be properly monitored with random sample surveys. The UK is dong this, but I know of no other countries that are tracking the true numbers. . Also, we need to get information on where people are becoming infected. This is almost completely lacking in my state. . They should send an N95 to each person once a month. Masks work? Send them. . A temporary UBI should be given if people are told to stop working. . Nations that experience a zoonotic event should report it before it is out of control. . The WHO should not be silent when a nation refuses to provide essential information. . Scientific publishing houses should make all pandemic articles available without a paywall.
    2
  12.  @OceanFrontVilla3  Thousands of at risk people were in the trials
    2
  13. that would be within the margin of error, probably. . the pfizer and moderna are about the same also
    1
  14. Not everyone is lying. The people who say everyone is lying are lying.
    1
  15. yes
    1
  16.  @dietherbusch4604  I am a HUGE fan of sunshine and D! I don't think it is 100% armor though. . Nothing is quite 100%, so we should pile up the protections, if they have little cost like a vaccine or a walk in the sun.
    1
  17. we need to have a monitoring program so 1) we know the true numbers, and 2) we can be pro-active like you say and keep it low
    1
  18. until a year has elapsed, it's hard to tell
    1
  19. Are there strains that aren't affected? .
    1
  20.  @StephanosBlack  Yes, I guess the key question is if there are resistant strains or not.
    1
  21.  @StephanosBlack  Yes, could be, but it depends on if the virus survival is due to genetic variation in the virus, or due to other factors such as the host immune system or viral load. . In theory, natural selection only operates when 1) there is variation in survival, and 2) the variation is correlated with genetics. . It seems that in life in general, 1) is almost always happening, but 2) is often not, although it is not uncommon.
    1
  22. we only need to get to herd impunity, which means getting R below 1 by various means
    1
  23. It is not stated that the vaccine "protects 94.5% of people." . The claim is that it reduces risk by 94.5% (plus or minus the confidence interval whatever that is). . If the risk was 10%, the vaccine would reduce it to about 1%.
    1
  24.  @robklein583  Ok, Neilk Bor. You will now be called Neilk "Coco the Gorilla" Bor. . (nothing against you or gorillas, that's from a Seinfeld episode).
    1
  25.  @morlidor  Yes, Sweden is doing fairly well, but their numbers are rising and it seems logical to do something more, as they apparently are.
    1
  26. the law of large numbers says that the randomization is probably very very very... ... ... very very good.
    1
  27. Data points such as...?
    1
  28.  @data4790  Precious little life forms, precious little life forms...
    1
  29. i suspect that didn't happen
    1
  30.  @angelafrith2667  I also doubt that any of the vaccines, even if they are very good, will be as protective as getting the virus and surviving. . The protection rate for survivors appears to be far far above 99%.
    1
  31. source?
    1
  32. we can add the number who survive to the number vaccinated x 90%, to get the herd immunity status. so if 20% recover, and 70% get a 90% effective vaccine, that totals to 76% which should reduce R below 1 if we still practice some hygiene and avoid the riskiest behaviors when possible.
    1
  33.  @neutronstorm  Good point there, Australia will need a higher % vaccinated to get the same effect as a country where 20% of people are recovered. And/or, better hygiene or any other factor that lowers R.
    1
  34.  @ronaldgiles4009  Everyone is wearing one here in NM, when we are in shops.
    1
  35. They would do what other people do, no special commands, I expect. But it would be interesting to hear from participants.
    1
  36. yes, we still call it "free"
    1
  37. yes, but it was less than 2 months
    1
  38. It means that it reduces the risk of getting it by 94% (plus or minus the confidence interval, which I have not heard stated). . So if the risk is 1% to get it during a given month and city, without the vaccine, it would be 0.04% with the vaccine.
    1
  39. Yes, or to write it another way, 0.6%. That would presumably be similar to the population rate over that time interval.
    1
  40. it means that it reduces per person risk by 94%. . So, if 100 people would get it without a vaccine, only 4 would get it with the vaccine.
    1
  41. i think they had no special instructions
    1
  42. the two vaccines are about the same
    1
  43. no, that would not be ethical, and it would also not be representative of the behavior of the population at large.
    1
  44. i think the T-cell test is 1000 times harder than an antibody or PCR test, and requires detailed lab work such as growing cells and identifying types by eye. . I agree people who had it don't need the vaccine. Natural immunity seems to be higher than the vaccine immunity.
    1
  45.  @j2simpso  immunity clearly lasts many months, at least
    1
  46.  @DaveDalesSmallTownTimes  They probably do some checking of such things, spot-checking and subsampling. Due to the sample size the odds of a significant difference in behavior of the two groups is probably equal to the odds of winning the lottery while getting hit by an asteroid that also won the lottery. . This assumes that it is truly blind and people can't tell which shot they got. However, the vaccine effect is opposite to that predicted if they did somehow know. .
    1
  47. unethical. . they do that with non-human animals. . also it is more realistic to do it "in the wild"
    1
  48. I'm sure you are right, and the confidence intervals overlap for the two vaccines. .
    1
  49. I don't want the Russian vaccine, I'm afraid it would amend my constitution.
    1
  50. it is rare, very rare
    1
  51. A good quality study in Indiana found a 0.26% mortality rate (not counting nursing homes).
    1
  52.  @rogerstarkey5390  To be clear the 0.26% was the death rate per infection, not per total population. . That would equate to 2600 deaths per million people that get the virus. How did you calculate almost forty thousand per million? That would be 4% not 0.26%. . The estimate was derived from a random sampling study conducted in April.
    1
  53.  @robertsneddon731  The antibodies disappear after a few months, so there could be a many people in the trials who had the disease, but very few who had it recently. .
    1
  54. nope, seems like not. (at least in the first year or so)
    1