Since even with a high deductible plan you only pay the insurance company’s allowable rate, I’m surprised that you would have to pay more than $200 for a telehealth appointment.
The telehealth line item was around $200, so it’s the tests that were really expensive.
Huh. Is the Atlantic reviewing its writers and op-Ed’s that were wholly based on this shoddy science and data analysis?
2 Likes
Also, the scientific response to COVID has been unparalleled in history for how fast and effective its been. We had a vaccine in testing a few months after the initial outbreak with a proven effective vaccine about 12 months after the initial outbreak, plus several effective therapeutics to a novel virus. But ok Atlantic.
2 Likes
Where did the image you posted come from? Doesn’t appear to come from the document you linked to.
paper literally makes the case it’s not vaccine waning in the abstract churchill. You should read the things you cite.
Patterns of breakthrough infection over time were consistent by age, despite rolling vaccine eligibility, implicating the Delta variant as the primary determinant of infection.
This was a big red flag for me, as we know the vaccine is effective against delta at least in the beginning, and we should expect to see a dose/time relationship. That means this paper is a big outlier.
And behold:
https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1452324100140044295
That’s a big mistake. Come on buddy.
2 Likes
Posting the results of a VA study is antivax?
5 Likes
Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination and an immediate, national return to additional layers of protection against infection
I know we’ve all gotta dunk on Churchill, and I know you specifically hate reading anything, but from page 7, first paragraph of “discussion”:
Our analysis of infection by vaccine type, including the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines, suggests waning vaccine protection against infection over time, particularly for the Janssen vaccine. These results demonstrate an urgent need to reinstate multiple layers of protection against infection, such as masking and physical distancing, while also bolstering current efforts to increase vaccination.
7 Likes
What’s up Jman?
3 Likes
I thought the image was easier reading than this from the report
Specifically, in March, protection against infection was: 88% (95% CI, 87% to 89%) for Janssen; 92% (95% CI, 92% to 93%) for Moderna; and 91% (95% CI, 91% to 92%) for Pfizer-BioNTech.
By August, protection against infection had declined to: 3% (95% CI, -7% to 12%) for Janssen; 64% (95% CI, 62%-66%) for Moderna; and 50% (95% CI, 47% to 52%) for Pfizer-BioNTech.
Seems the image creator erred on the positive side for March stats and was bang on for the August stats (if it were an anti-vaxx site we’d see J&J at -7%)
1 Like
It’s whatever you want it to be when you don’t like somebody!
Yes, I’m asking you who created the image. Where did you pull it from?
Cause it’s Youtoobz and everyone likes to dunk on Churchill
1 Like
Church, “where did you find this image you posted” seems like a question you would be able to answer if you were here in good faith. Maybe it’s a website with solid information that we could all benefit from?
The idea that either
A) increased community spread means increase breakthrough
And/or
B) breakthrough is more likely after some period of time after vaccination
It really doesn’t matter. Take a damn booster. Use the best available info to determine what booster to get.
It would be interesting to understand if former Covid positives (less careful in 2020 on average?) correlates with a selection of a single shot or non mRNA regime.
1 Like
You’re a big boy now, I’m sure you can assess the information on its own merits given you know the source, can’t you?