Deadpulse Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, MWil23 said: *MAYBE a mandatory 10PM-6AM curfew why 10p? What is special about that timeframe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, MWil23 said: *Mandatory virtual education for K-12 for the remainder of 2020 *No in person dining/drinking for bars and restaurants If the general public could choose to open only one or the other - what would the public choose ? Open the bars or open the schools ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: why 10p? What is special about that timeframe? In Minnesota most cases were contracted after that time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 Reading Facebook comments on an article about this vaccine makes me feel better about my own knowledge 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 21 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: why 10p? What is special about that timeframe? Just information that's been floated around/purely hypothetical. It's also the mandated "stop serving alcohol" time as of now, so it wouldn't be that much of a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: 33 minutes ago, MWil23 said: *Mandatory virtual education for K-12 for the remainder of 2020 *No in person dining/drinking for bars and restaurants If the general public could choose to open only one or the other - what would the public choose ? Open the bars or open the schools ? *Checks our levy failure voting result from under two weeks ago* Huh, that's a great question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Shanedorf said: Two things happening - vaccines being approved and readied for distribution while simultaneously thousands/millions are getting infected every day. That means the supply is growing and the demand is declining. I'd think/hope we'd move toward herd immunity faster than the compliance-only numbers might suggest I touched on this earlier and don't think I got a response. As for everyone, this is new but you all might be aware of procedures. Person A has been infected and had no complications, just a cold. Person B has not been infected. That is literally the only difference between Person A and Person B. They are the same height, weight, gender, sex, medical issues, etc. They are literally mirrors of each other aside from one person knowingly having antibodies and the other does not. Would Person B get priority over Person A in the vaccine or do they still not take into account Person A has been infected and carries immunity? Sorry if this is a horrendous question that is worded awfully. I would just expect those who don't have protection to get it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: I touched on this earlier and don't think I got a response. As for everyone, this is new but you all might be aware of procedures. Person A has been infected and had no complications, just a cold. Person B has not been infected. That is literally the only difference between Person A and Person B. They are the same height, weight, gender, sex, medical issues, etc. They are literally mirrors of each other aside from one person knowingly having antibodies and the other does not. Would Person B get priority over Person A in the vaccine or do they still not take into account Person A has been infected and carries immunity? Sorry if this is a horrendous question that is worded awfully. I would just expect those who don't have protection to get it first. I don't know why someone that had a confirmed infecting would try to be near the top of the list to get the vaccine tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 57 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said: I don't know why someone that had a confirmed infecting would try to be near the top of the list to get the vaccine tbh Neither do I but I feel there's gotta be something I'm overlooking. I feel you'd want to get the most vulnerable first: front line, elderly, then work your way backwards to the youngsters, then get those who have already confirmed had it.... but, again, there's gotta be something simple I'm just not thinking about that will destroy this logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted November 16, 2020 Share Posted November 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: Neither do I but I feel there's gotta be something I'm overlooking. I feel you'd want to get the most vulnerable first: front line, elderly, then work your way backwards to the youngsters, then get those who have already confirmed had it.... but, again, there's gotta be something simple I'm just not thinking about that will destroy this logic. I don't think your logic is bad, ideally we'd find a way to avoid dosing people who have already been infected. But the only way to figure out the difference between Persons A and B in your example is to do an antibody test, and by the time we did antibody tests on the 300 million Americans who haven't been infected yet, we probably could have just vaccinated everyone instead. So I think we just have to accept that ~5% (assuming 30% asymptomatic and 15% total US infection rate) of the vaccine doses are going to go to those unknowingly immune. Cost of dosing business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I don't think your logic is bad, ideally we'd find a way to avoid dosing people who have already been infected. But the only way to figure out the difference between Persons A and B in your example is to do an antibody test, and by the time we did antibody tests on the 300 million Americans who haven't been infected yet, we probably could have just vaccinated everyone instead. So I think we just have to accept that ~5% (assuming 30% asymptomatic and 15% total US infection rate) of the vaccine doses are going to go to those unknowingly immune. Cost of dosing business. It's like what I said prior though; if you've tested positive, your name is likely in a database that can be referenced. The one thing that doesn't account for are the many false positives that can absolutely exist, leaving those people exposed when we think they've got protection. That was the only thing I could think of that would be the flaw. This would negate the need to conduct antibody testing, right? Plus, don't T cells offer protection even when antibodies aren't present? Potentially have maybe a cutoff date say "if you've been infected within the last 3 months, move to the back of the line"? I dunno, just seems like the best way to go about this IMO. Maybe I'm just subconsciously trying to find a way to move myself up in the pecking order lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: Maybe I'm just subconsciously trying to find a way to move myself up in the pecking order lol. You can take my spot although I don't imagine I'm very high on tht list either 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 17 hours ago, Deadpulse said: why 10p? What is special about that timeframe? Virus gotta sleep too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 Makes me wonder what else the collective minds can solve if this much energy and money was dumped into a whole lot of problems in the world. Maybe one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 12 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: It's like what I said prior though; if you've tested positive, your name is likely in a database that can be referenced. The one thing that doesn't account for are the many false positives that can absolutely exist, leaving those people exposed when we think they've got protection. That was the only thing I could think of that would be the flaw. This would negate the need to conduct antibody testing, right? Plus, don't T cells offer protection even when antibodies aren't present? Potentially have maybe a cutoff date say "if you've been infected within the last 3 months, move to the back of the line"? I dunno, just seems like the best way to go about this IMO. Maybe I'm just subconsciously trying to find a way to move myself up in the pecking order lol. You've got to consider the costs. This vaccine is going for $20/dose, so that's your budget. If it costs more than $20 to identify which person shouldn't get it and exclude them from the list, but still make sure they're flagged as immune for their employer or airline and whatnot, it's easier and cheaper to just dose them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts