Cruises are like all inclusive resorts, for people that don’t have enough money for hotels in major cities and have no interest in dealing with locals they offer turnkey solutions for travel outside the US. Like, can you imagine if your average Ohio Karen had to fly into an airport where they don’t speak English, find taxis, get a ride to downtown Ethnic City, book into a hotel, and go out to get dinner? She’d be terrified ever step if the way. Cruises are designed to provide English speaking staff for her to totally depend on and yell at constantly.
18 Likes
Anyone who knows how this stuff works want to chime in on the Moderna vaccine Phase 1 results? Cliffs are they went 45/45 developing antibodies shortly after the vaccine. 3/45 developed “grade 3 systemic symptoms” but the article doesn’t really explain what that means.
I can’t tell if I’m wrong or not?
A lot of people, including John Oliver last night, seem to be using the fact that people are getting covid still as proof nobody should open up. New cases are assumed with any relaxation of restrictions, no? The standard of success isn’t no new cases. It’s the ability to remain within the limits of hospital, and particular ICU bed capacity. If the standard is no new cases we will literally never open, right?
1 Like
Seems like good news that the 3 developing “grade 3 symptoms” were all on the highest dose, while it appears that the lowest dose is enough to produce similar levels of antibodies to recovered CV-19 patients.
I can tell you that anyone who almost bought the stock Friday at $64, but decided to try to get it for $60 this week is now feeling like a fucking buffoon. I have expert insight on that.
As for the results, my understanding is that the antibody levels meet what is generated in recovered patients. It’s an open question how much immunity that provides and how long they’ll last, but it’s obviously good news.
No clue what the grade 3 systemic symptoms are. Sounds bad but a newspaper article made it sound minor.
When did he say that? He just stated that having thousands of people in an arena is a bad idea during a pandemic.
A lot of these sports can’t generate a profit (or take an enormous profit loss) if they are required to play games without a crowd. Crowdless sporting events simply aren’t an option for smaller leagues and less popular sports.
Seems that there’s a sort of snowball effect when it comes to controlling a pandemic. Maybe we can handle some increase in the number of cases but eventually you lose control and you’re back to where you were before: slapping restrictions back on and filling up the hospitals with new cases. And that’s if you have an obedient populace.
A kindergarten had a second case here and the school has shut down for the next 2 weeks with all students recommend to remain in quarantine. Didn’t even last a week without a case.
I was just using it as a random example because I was watching it as I typed. I agree with everything he said in the show but he did cite the fact that a couple soccer players tested positive as evidence Germany allowed them to play too early. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t play. I’m not a sports guy so don’t mind if they stay closed for a long time, other than the economic impact. I’m just curious why two positive tests is proof of failure. It seems to me positive tests are guaranteed.
Tl;dr
Dow futures are up up up!
1 Like
You can’t have all other teams that are covid-free play while teams that are quarantined get to recover from their injuries and rest up. It’s an unfair competitive advantage for them. It also throws the playoffs even more out of whack than they were before.
The UFC appears to have handled things pretty well. Seems that they’re relying on being the only sport running as a way to gain more exposure and viewership. Gonna be insane when Fight Island is operating.
Yes, all evidence so far says this will help and it cannot hurt. Also anyone who can spend time outdoors should til the results are back. Everything else you mentioned seems correct and good, but I don’t know anything about the filters and all that.
Definitely would roll the windows down in the car. Even if it’s cold I’d just crank the heat and roll them down. In fact, it’s not a bad idea to try to create an airflow from the front to the back and out the back windows, as this would suck some (hopefully most) viral particles back and out.
1 Like
Perhaps I’m not being clear. I’m not making an argument about sport. I’m curious about metrics of success for opening up in general.
Some friends were saying last night they thought Alberta was opening too soon because we are getting about 50 positive tests a day out of 1500 tests. That seems like success, not failure to me but I’m not sure if I’m misreading the situation.
It seems 25 mcg is enough to develop sufficient antibodies while the subjects with grade 3 symptoms were all taking 250 mcg. So it could very well be minor if the problem is only at dose levels which exceeds what I assume will likely become the recommended dose, i.e. - either 25 or 100 mcg.
The obvious issues a layman can spot with this vaccine trial result are:
-Super small sample size.
-Results are so recent there is no idea how long immunity lasts or what possible longer term side effects are.
-Even if it works Moderna is unlikely to be able to produce billions of doses anytime soon.
Do I have that about right? Obviously I think it is good news overall.
1 Like
Lol, such a dishonest liar as always. At no point did I ever whine about “not being able to go on a cruise.” In fact, all of my posts were attacking the cruise industry for how fucking horribly they’ve handled this,how they have blood on their hands, and how they all deserve to fail. But keep trying to rewrite history to make your own failings seem better. While you were whatabouting the flu and malaria back in January and February I was trying to warn everyone that this was going to be a big fucking deal.
1 Like
I think it’s probably going to be 100mcg, as that sounds like it produced more antibodies. Keep in mind that:
-
We don’t know for sure that recovered patients are fully/partially immune.
-
We don’t know how long that lasts.
So if there’s a threshold of antibody levels that provide immunity, and the levels diminish over time, then we want the vaccine to be strong enough to keep us above that threshold for as long as possible - ideally a minimum of a year.
I’m not an epidemiologist. It’s really hard for anybody not educated in that area to know what’s a failure and what’s a success. I suppose some increase can be tolerated so long as the R0 remains below 1.In the CR, the R0 has gone from 0.8 on 14 May to 1 on 17 May.
Small sample but 45/45. Seems very unlikely it’d be less than 90% effective at producing antibodies at that level and somehow luckbox 100%.
Duration and effectiveness of the antibodies are the big question. My understanding is that they can produce hundreds of millions of doses by the end of the year, so that implies being able to produce 1B+ a year if there are no bottlenecks to scaling.
I think I am more concerned about the sample size from the perspective of safety. In a hypothetical world where this vaccine kills 1% of people this study wouldn’t even show that half the time.
Also at least the article I posted has the company saying 2021 availability if successful but I have no idea if that is right or not.
I would say about right, but phase 1 is always about obtaining safety data and establishing the therapeutic dose. Later stage trials have to establish efficacy (and much more safety date) and these will involve larger populations.
1 Like
Yeah that I absolutely agree with. One of my big concerns with these studies is just that we all have to gamble on the duration. If there’s some bad side effect that doesn’t manifest itself for a year, it’s just GJGE.
The good thing is I think this specific vaccine type/method has been tested pretty extensively and proven safe - they just then plug the RNA or DNA or whatever code into it to trigger the needed response.