Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 11:12:18 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.
|
|
|
Post by jcas on Nov 27, 2020 6:20:20 GMT -5
Very disturbing news. For Jackie. For the whole family which most here have been vicariously close to for many years. I surmise that the problem is more that Jackie's income and therefore the family's has been negatively and very seriously impacted by cancellation of all her concerts this past year. That's what performers these days depend on to make a living to pay the mortgage. Album/Cd/download sales? No longer. Also surmise the mortgage payments on that 1.2 million dollar house are substantial. Last Thanksgiving there, was yesterday. Christmas? Somewhere else this year.
Lyrics from her last song come into focus:
It's coming on Christmas
They're cutting down trees
They're putting up reindeer
And singing songs of joy and peace
I wish I had a river I could skate away on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 12:26:14 GMT -5
Good points. The good news is that vaccines start going out in the next two weeks and full herd immunity via the vaccines should occur by May 2021. Jackie will be doing concerts again by Spring or Summer.
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Nov 27, 2020 14:14:48 GMT -5
Good points. The good news is that vaccines start going out in the next two weeks and full herd immunity via the vaccines should occur by May 2021. Jackie will be doing concerts again by Spring or Summer. Heard immunity assumes that the great majority of people receive the shots. If not, the opposite could occur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 14:36:47 GMT -5
that's silly that it could be opposite. We need 60-70 percent or so to get vaccinated for herd immunity. They are saying even if we just gave it to front line health workers and people in nursing homes, that would make things far better. Even if only half got it...that would be huge in controlling it. One thing for sure, anyone getting it gets close to 95 percent protection ,and then can go about life as normal. That's awesome! Also, you don't HAVE to get vaccinated, but if you don't be prepared to not be allowed entrance to a lot of places for a while as proof of vaccination will be required until we get close to heard immunity, i.e. schools, many jobs, concerts, airline flights, cruise ships, etc.
|
|
|
Post by geb on Nov 27, 2020 18:30:27 GMT -5
that's silly that it could be opposite. We need 60-70 percent or so to get vaccinated for herd immunity. They are saying even if we just gave it to front line health workers and people in nursing homes, that would make things far better. Even if only half got it...that would be huge in controlling it. One thing for sure, anyone getting it gets close to 95 percent protection ,and then can go about life as normal. That's awesome! Also, you don't HAVE to get vaccinated, but if you don't be prepared to not be allowed entrance to a lot of places for a while as proof of vaccination will be required until we get close to heard immunity, i.e. schools, many jobs, concerts, airline flights, cruise ships, etc. The Pfizer vaccine is about 90% effective. It also has the issue of requiring it to be kept at -70 degrees Celsius. In other words, one requires ultra-cold freezers to store it. And the effectiveness drops as the vaccine gets warmer. And it will get warm pretty fast once taken out of the freezer. I personally would not want to take this vaccine due to the extreme cold required to keep it effective. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine low temperature requirement poses challengesNow the Moderna vaccine is about 94.5% effective. They use a roughly similar RNA technology to Pfizer but have figured out how to lower the temperature storage issue. The vaccine will stay stable for 30 days at temperatures of 2 to 8 degrees Celsius (36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit) which is a standard refrigerator. It only requires -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) for shipment and up to 6 months of storage which is a standard freezer. Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Meets its Primary Efficacy Endpoint in the First Interim Analysis of the Phase 3 COVE StudyModerna Announces Longer Shelf Life for its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate at Refrigerated Temperatures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right now there are 5 serious COVID-19 vaccine candidates which are approved for Phase 3 (large scale) trials in the US: Different COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase 3 Trials in US- AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine - Janssen’s COVID-19 vaccine - Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine - Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine - Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine Note that the AstraZeneca drug was only 70% effective and they had methodology issues with their trial. They claim that effectiveness can go to 90% depending upon dosing. I am not excited about this vaccine and personally would avoid it. Do Oxford/AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine results stand up to scrutiny?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bottom line is that things are moving along rapidly. Usually takes years for doing Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials and here we have them occurring in 10 or so months. For rare diseases (and COVID-19 is unique and thus rare), the FDA can approve a drug for use on an emergency basis. That is what will happen here to one or more of the vaccine candidates. FYI, there is also a Phase 4 trial for drugs. Most people know nothing about it. The Phase 3 trials allow the drug to be made and used. The Phase 4 trials are used for added information as widespread use of a drug can cause issues that are not seen in earlier trials. Usually, the Phase 4 trials result in more warnings or restrictions or nothing else or sometimes the drug being pulled from the marketplace. This is pretty rare but it can happen. It really is dependent as to what is being seen with the widespread use of a drug. What is a Phase 4 Clinical Trial?
|
|
|
Post by geb on Nov 27, 2020 18:45:21 GMT -5
As a side note, per John Hopkins (definitive source of COVID-19 data), as of today, there have been 13,062,364 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the US. John Hopkins Reported Confirmed COVID-19 CasesNow, we also need to factor in unconfirmed COVID-19 cases to get a better look at what is happening. This is trickier to do and is "educated" guesses. CDC: U.S. coronavirus case count is roughly 10x higher than the 2.3 million confirmed so farThe above is an older article published in Fortune Magazine on June 25, 2020, but it give an idea of what scientists believe is the actual number of people who have been infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus. There are all kinds of proposed models based upon various statistics but in simplistic terms, the number of total cases of COVID-19 (confirmed and unconfirmed) is thought to be in the range of 4 to 9 times the number of confirmed cases. So, the range goes from 52,249,456 to 117,561,276. 3 ways that the U.S. population will change over the next decadeThe above article indicates that as the beginning of 2020, it is estimated that there were a little over 331 million people in the US. So, for the low-end of COVID-19 cases, we have had 15.78% of the US population infected. For the high-end of COVID-19 cases, we have had 35.52% of the US population infected. The midpoint of the range is 25.65%. At the present rate of new confirmed COVID-19 cases (per CDC, a 7-day moving average of 167,467), we can estimate when we will be at 70% infected. CDC COVID Data Tracker70% x 331,000,000 = 231,700,000 For 4 times confirmed cases:231,700,000 - 52,249,456 = 179,450,544 more cases required 4 * 167,467 = 669,868 new cases per day Thus, requires 268 days at present infection rate. For 9 times confirmed cases:231,700,000 - 117,561,276 = 114,138,724 more cases required 9 * 167,467 = 1,507,203 new cases per day Thus, requires 76 days at present infection rate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ergo it would take 268 days in the worse case and 76 days in the best case to reach 70% infection rate. Thus, it could be as soon as mid-February 2021 to late August 2021 to reach 70% infection rate. Let us hope it is the former rather than the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -5
One correction...pfizer is saying they are 95 percent effective, not just Moderna.
|
|
|
Post by geb on Nov 27, 2020 22:00:48 GMT -5
One correction...pfizer is saying they are 95 percent effective, not just Moderna. Here is the press release by Pfilzer. PFIZER AND BIONTECH CONCLUDE PHASE 3 STUDY OF COVID-19 VACCINE CANDIDATE, MEETING ALL PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINTSThe initial information provided the public before this press release stated 90+%. As I said earlier, I do not like the ultra-cold requirement for the Pfizer vaccine. And the warmer the vaccine gets, the less effective it is. If that was not true, then why would it require an ultra-cold transport and storage environment? I would much prefer taking a vaccine that can be stored in a standard refrigerator when both vaccines essentially have the same efficacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2020 1:00:07 GMT -5
They said 90 percent when they first announced, then a couple days later when they finished collecting their data they upped it to 95 percent.
November 18, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. CST - Washington Post
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer said Wednesday it will seek emergency authorization for its coronavirus vaccine within days, after reporting that its latest analysis showed the vaccine is 95 percent effective at preventing illness and causes no major safety problems.
|
|
|
Post by geb on Nov 29, 2020 22:28:28 GMT -5
Here is some interesting data on COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu. It is based upon actual death certificate data. COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu statisticsWe have 240,213 deaths that involve COVID-19 and 378,800 deaths involving COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu. Thus, we have 138,587 deaths for pneumonia and the flu alone. Per demographics, ages 24 and under had 515 out of 240,213 COVID-19 deaths or 0.2144%. Now, looking at deaths from pneumonia and the flu for that demographic we have 911 out of 138,587 deaths or 0.6573%. Hmmm. So it is over 3 times more likely to die from pneumonia and the flu than COVID-19 for people 24 and under. And that is even though there is a flu vaccine and established therapeutics for both! Yep, makes perfect sense to cancel in-person schools because of COVID-19 but never do it for pneumonia and the flu. Or are the politicians all of a sudden going to spring the necessity to continue lockdowns of schools through Colleges by pointing out the fact that pneumonia and the flu are over 3 times more deadly than COVID-19 for those 24-years old and under? Of course the politicians will want to continue no matter what the numbers indicate. Yes, it is tragic that people will die of COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu, but notice that there were 2,579,548 deaths in the period of time studied. So we had over 2.1 million deaths from other causes. Per the CDC, on average there are over 655,000 people who die of heart disease each year. That is roughly 25% of all deaths. No panic there? Heart disease statisticsPer the National Cancer Institute, it is estimated that in 2020 there will be 606,520 people who will die of cancer and that about 1.8 million new cases of cancer will occur. No panic there? Cancer statisticsThe bottom line is that life is full of risks that cause many deaths. And all we can do is try to minimize the effects of the risks until we develop (or discover) vaccines and therapeutics to minimize the deaths. And to think we can eliminate 100% of the deaths is just a further power grab for something that can never happen.
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Nov 30, 2020 1:36:16 GMT -5
Here is some interesting data on COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu. It is based upon actual death certificate data. COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu statisticsWe have 240,213 deaths that involve COVID-19 and 378,800 deaths involving COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu. Thus, we have 138,587 deaths for pneumonia and the flu alone. Per demographics, ages 24 and under had 515 out of 240,213 COVID-19 deaths or 0.2144%. Now, looking at deaths from pneumonia and the flu for that demographic we have 911 out of 138,587 deaths or 0.6573%. Hmmm. So it is over 3 times more likely to die from pneumonia and the flu than COVID-19 for people 24 and under. And that is even though there is a flu vaccine and established therapeutics for both! Yep, makes perfect sense to cancel in-person schools because of COVID-19 but never do it for pneumonia and the flu. Or are the politicians all of a sudden going to spring the necessity to continue lockdowns of schools through Colleges by pointing out the fact that pneumonia and the flu are over 3 times more deadly than COVID-19 for those 24-years old and under? Of course the politicians will want to continue no matter what the numbers indicate. Yes, it is tragic that people will die of COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu, but notice that there were 2,579,548 deaths in the period of time studied. So we had over 2.1 million deaths from other causes. Per the CDC, on average there are over 655,000 people who die of heart disease each year. That is roughly 25% of all deaths. No panic there? Heart disease statisticsPer the National Cancer Institute, it is estimated that in 2020 there will be 606,520 people who will die of cancer and that about 1.8 million new cases of cancer will occur. No panic there? Cancer statisticsThe bottom line is that life is full of risks that cause many deaths. And all we can do is try to minimize the effects of the risks until we develop (or discover) vaccines and therapeutics to minimize the deaths. And to think we can eliminate 100% of the deaths is just a further power grab for something that can never happen. Although school-aged people are very unlikely to die from Covid-19, they can be a conduit for transmitting to their parents.
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Nov 30, 2020 10:40:55 GMT -5
Although school-aged people are very unlikely to die from Covid-19, they can be a conduit for transmitting to their parents. So if your kids prefer to go to school in person or seem to be better off that way, and/or your logistics require that, make 'em wear masks at home, too, maybe even have the adults have their meals at some distance from the kids, too (since one can't really mask and eat at the same time); and make an extra effort with hygiene, even at home. And make sure the kids understand that they need to be careful about distancing and hygiene themselves, even when not supervised. Not perfect, but better than nothing, if in the parent's (and kid's?) view, the risks of avoiding in-person school outweigh the risks of COVID-19. (edit: under those circumstances, perhaps the adults should mask at home, too, as much to set an example as for self-protection - since a mask tends to protect others more than the wearer) Except for those with significant existing breathing difficulties and/or severe psychological issues (or very young children that might choke on them), masks are a minimal hazard, even if a nuisance (and even if one believes that mandates are authoritarian overreach, one could still mask as a voluntary common-sense measure). But shutdowns, at-home work or learning, and even distancing, all have risks of their own, not of COVID-19, but of economic, learning, or psychological harm...which can sometimes have severe, even fatal consequences.
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Nov 30, 2020 11:08:56 GMT -5
Although school-aged people are very unlikely to die from Covid-19, they can be a conduit for transmitting to their parents. So if your kids prefer to go to school in person or seem to be better off that way, and/or your logistics require that, make 'em wear masks at home, too, maybe even have the adults have their meals at some distance from the kids, too (since one can't really mask and eat at the same time); and make an extra effort with hygiene, even at home. And make sure the kids understand that they need to be careful about distancing and hygiene themselves, even when not supervised. Not perfect, but better than nothing, if in the parent's (and kid's?) view, the risks of avoiding in-person school outweigh the risks of COVID-19. (edit: under those circumstances, perhaps the adults should mask at home, too, as much to set an example as for self-protection - since a mask tends to protect others more than the wearer) Except for those with significant existing breathing difficulties and/or severe psychological issues (or very young children that might choke on them), masks are a minimal hazard, even if a nuisance (and even if one believes that mandates are authoritarian overreach, one could still mask as a voluntary common-sense measure). But shutdowns, at-home work or learning, and even distancing, all have risks of their own, not of COVID-19, but of economic, learning, or psychological harm...which can sometimes have severe, even fatal consequences. That explains a lot. I am experienced psychological harm due to taking a course online. (It has been driving me nuts.) BTW, I was not saying that I agree that schools should be closed. I was just giving a possible explanation.
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Nov 30, 2020 14:43:01 GMT -5
So if your kids prefer to go to school in person or seem to be better off that way, and/or your logistics require that, make 'em wear masks at home, too, maybe even have the adults have their meals at some distance from the kids, too (since one can't really mask and eat at the same time); and make an extra effort with hygiene, even at home. And make sure the kids understand that they need to be careful about distancing and hygiene themselves, even when not supervised. Not perfect, but better than nothing, if in the parent's (and kid's?) view, the risks of avoiding in-person school outweigh the risks of COVID-19. (edit: under those circumstances, perhaps the adults should mask at home, too, as much to set an example as for self-protection - since a mask tends to protect others more than the wearer) Except for those with significant existing breathing difficulties and/or severe psychological issues (or very young children that might choke on them), masks are a minimal hazard, even if a nuisance (and even if one believes that mandates are authoritarian overreach, one could still mask as a voluntary common-sense measure). But shutdowns, at-home work or learning, and even distancing, all have risks of their own, not of COVID-19, but of economic, learning, or psychological harm...which can sometimes have severe, even fatal consequences. That explains a lot. I am experienced psychological harm due to taking a course online. (It has been driving me nuts.) BTW, I was not saying that I agree that schools should be closed. I was just giving a possible explanation. Funny, sort of, and a fair point. But I was referring to the reports of at least a few suicides where school closings may have been a contributing factor, as an indication that such things may cause harm, even harm contributing to fatality, to some. Not that a suicide isn't mostly responsible for their own action...but that adding to the pressures on people also has some risk.
|
|