Obviously the schools and NCAA have many x times more blame than the students. They should still refuse to participate
1 Like
#LETUSPLAY
I missed this response to JJās stupid tweet yesterday.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1343992167891689473
This is probably an unpopular opinion around here, but I think itās asking way too much of 19/20 years olds to refuse to play and risk losing their scholarships or spot on a college team when most of the authorities in their lives are going forward with their seasons.
5 Likes
WTF is going on here? NYC needs to have a rate in the neighborhood of 100,000 doses per day if we want to get people vaccinated in a reasonable timeframe.
I get it and Iām with you. I am very much abolish the NCAA. I think its criminal the money they make off these kids and their desires to be rich sports stars (which they wont be)
1 Like
Itās based on a tally of people who got sick after getting the shot compared to the tally of those who got sick without getting the shot, so itās approximately equal to one minus your chances of getting a detectable infection after getting the shot.
Thatās a bad headline. Itās 30% of student athletes who recovered from covid, not 30% of all student athletes. Donāt get me wrong, a 30% chance of long term heart damage after covid is really scary, but that headline as written vastly overstates the problem.
1 Like
I honestly donāt know where all the bottlenecks are, but given that they arenāt even giving out all of the doses that have been delivered, it seems like there may be:
- shortages of people to actually administer the shots,
-some logistical problems letting people who are eligible know that they can get it (and how to do so), and
- last mile distribution problems (doses may be sitting in some giant big deep freeze, but not actually getting to the nursing home that is currently being given the responsibility for vaccinating its residents)
Plus, just looking at doses/day numbers it seems like the efforts have slowed down or even stopped over weekends and holidaysā¦
Yes, but once again, the 90% is based on a small number (too small to get approval) and all of the people in that group were under 55, so it is not clear if that is a true and reproducible result in the general population.
Sheds some light on itā¦
Itās not about safety. Experts all agree this is a safe vaccine. But the MHRA, together with the expert government advisers on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, have delivered a big surprise in backing two shots up to 12 weeks apart for not only the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine but also the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine already in use.
This schedule was not what was trialled, as Pfizer/BioNTech immediately pointed out. Their phase 3 final trial showed people began to be protected from 12 days after one vaccination ā but nearly all were given two shots within three weeks. āThere are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,ā the company said.
The MHRA and JCVI appear to be extrapolating from data in a small subset of people taking part in the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial in the UK. Famously, in this group of fewer than 3,000 people (and for scale, Pfizer/BioNTech did one international trial involving 43,000 people) efficacy was 90%.
This was down to an unintentional error. The first dose they were given was a half-dose. That appeared to work better than two full doses ā which gave 62% efficacy in a trial of more than 11,000 people.
But now the MHRA has thrown out that explanation and come up with a different one. In that small group, many people had their second shot later than usual ā up to 26 weeks later in some cases. But in those who had it by 12 weeks, [efficacy reached 70%](Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine has 70% efficacy, full trial data shows | Coronavirus | The Guardian).
Prof Andrew Pollard, in an interview with the Guardian, said it was not surprising. āIf you have a longer gap between that first and second dose, then the strength of the booster tends to be stronger. So thatās not a surprise or unusual. Thatās what we see with almost every other vaccine thatās ever been tested.ā
Basically an odds-on gamble by scientists in a desperate bid to get as many with some form of immunity ASAP, even if short-lived.
1 Like
The most interesting thing about that to me is that it makes it even less likely that half/full is truly better than full/full. Not only was half/full done on a small number of people and younger people, but it was also given on a different schedule (and that would explain the difference in immune response based on how other vaccines work).
2 Likes
Iāve completely misunderstood the school thing ā¦ thanks for clearing it up for me Boris.
3 Likes
Also itās not clear that the all of the 30% is significant or long-term (i.e. lifelong) . Apparently a variety of viral diseases will have some sort of detectable myocarditis that is asymptomatic and resolves itself with time. Itās definitely there, and in some people it progresses to something that is bad enough that it is a real problem, but most of the people with this ādamageā will probably be fine.
1 Like
The issue with this study is that no one really knows if cardiac MRI is really a valid way of diagnosing myocarditis like they do here.
3 Likes
Yeah, I realized that once I read the article, I should have probably provided that but of info in my post. Iād still like to know the numbers on how many have been pozzed.
1 Like
Ah, thatās an important insight, thanks.
Iām going to guess the tailgating will be wild for this.
1 Like
lotsa wings