Find me a woman who can talk to the spirits of the dead. I’ll go to her and find out what’s going to happen.
South African cases have plateaued too, well above pre delta and pre omicron levels. Not ideal, will have to see if this is the Ba.2 wave kicking in, sort of normal course Omicron levels with reinfection vulnerability, or something else. I feel less good about hot vax Spring than I did a week ago.
Deaths never hit prior peaks there at least.
1 Like
BBC just released their report on the deliberate infections study
Doesn’t seem to add much but TIL about ‘challenge’ studies and now wonder how much the average dude ‘propels’ out of his / her nose
Each of the volunteers, aged 18-30, had an identical dose of Covid - equivalent to the amount in a single droplet propelled out of somebody’s nose during the peak of their Covid infection - squirted up their nose.
But only half of them became infected.
The three paragraphs you chose to share are a misrepresentation of a ~50 paragraph article that spends only those three paragraphs questioning the approval process and whether these vaccines should be approved for this age group. These three paragraphs represent a view that is scientifically dubious, because it ignores certain facts.
We know the vaccines are safe for kids this age, because there have been phased trials. We know the side effects of the vaccine are way less significant than the effects of covid itself, yes, even on kids.
That is why they are poorly chosen to excerpt and present as the most important or interesting part of the article. Here are three better ones:
Children under five, the last group of Americans still ineligible for vaccines against Covid-19, may soon receive emergency authorization for the shots, but getting all children vaccinated remains a serious challenge in the US.
Pfizer and its German pharmaceutical partner BioNTech announced on Tuesday that they were requesting emergency-use authorization of their vaccine for children aged six months to four years.
The application was submitted at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration, the companies said in a statement – an unusual move by the regulator.
Why did you choose the three you chose?
2 Likes
Symptoms were mild but some volunteers had a prolonged loss of their sense of smell.
The main finding - that it was safe to perform challenge trials - opens up new avenues of research.
Seriously, what are we doing here.
I mean, there are plenty of people trying to catch it on purpose and having COVID parties. We might as well learn something from their stupidity, and help them accomplish their goal of getting sick. Win-win, right?
I don’t know if you heard, but the original Wuhan strain killed a shitload of people, too.
1 Like
Yes, I heard this. I seem to remember posting the odd graph or two. What is the point you are trying to make? Were there many 18-25yr old killed?
Open Orphan (ORPH.L) is running the project, launched last February, with Imperial College London, Britain’s vaccines task force and Orphan’s clinical company hVIVO. read more
Scientists have used human challenge trials for decades to learn more about diseases such as malaria, flu, typhoid and cholera, and to develop treatments and vaccines against them.
Was Wuhan around in Feb 2021?
Next week should be pretty telling for what’s going on. It does appear that cases are rising in areas with the most BA.2 though, including Guateng which was hard hit by BA.1. So that’s not a great sign.
1 Like
You answered a guy pointing out the enormous ethical issues of the study with “Maybe it wasn’t a variant of concern,” as if that would make the study less problematic. That only makes sense as a response if the early strain wasn’t itself a deadly and highly contagious virus.
2 Likes
Seems like maybe we shouldn’t be deliberately infecting people with strange new diseases.
3 Likes
The clinical trial was carried out in Feb '21. Clinical trials have been carried out for decades, apparently.
May be there are ethical implications - it is not my trial. Trial was supported by the UK gov, so I’m good with that.
Again, stop this shit.
Defending that study with the information provided so far is abhorrent. Maybe there’s something else that churchill missed, but it adds no actionable knowledge and deliberately infects people. That’s awful.
2 Likes
It’s a valid question. There were 48 paragraphs, he chose three. Either he believes they are important for some reason, he believes they are accurate for some reason, or he doesn’t believe them and shared them for another reason.
You told me not to make an assumption about his motives in my post, and I did not. You told me I had to make substantive comments on his post, and I did. If I cannot ask someone what their point is with the excerpt they chose to share, then what are we doing on this discussion forum?
Or are churchill’s posts not up for discussion? Or am I excluded from discussing them?
5 Likes
Perhaps take it up with the infectious disease epidemiologist who actually provided the quote?
Take it up with Prof Sir Van-Tam, Ikes
Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, said: “Scientifically, these studies offer real advantage because the timing of exposure to the virus is always known exactly, therefore things like the interval between exposure and the profile of virus shedding can be accurately described.
“This important study has provided further key data on Covid-19 and how it spreads, which is invaluable in learning more about this novel virus, so we can fine-tune our response.”
Shitty gimmick accounts should warrant an instaban.
Seriously, did fucking Rod Dreher create this or something?
1 Like
Actually, I learned this:
Asymptomatic people had similar viral loads to symptomatic people. Imagine that.
I agree that the study seems ethically dubious though, even if it does provide some useful information.
Which is utter nonsense.
1 Like