Covid-19 News/Discussion

[Deadpulse]

Just now, MWil23 said:

TBF to you, you can't really DO history anyways 

[MWil23]

Just now, Deadpulse said:

TBF to you, you can't really DO history anyways 

As proven over the last (fill in whatever number makes you the most comfortable/uncomfortable here) years, you can't "Do Government" either. (I'm also certified to teach that, and anything else in the social science realm; be afraid people. Be very afraid.)

[TVScout]

More info on molnupiravir:

An FDA summary showed that in the second half of the study, patients in the group treated with the drug were more likely to be hospitalized or to die than those who got the placebo. The drug's protection against death seen in the first half of the study didn't hold up in the second half.

When asked about this discrepancy by committee chairperson Dr. Lindsey Baden, Dr. Nicholas Kartsonis, a Merck senior vice president, said, "I don't have a satisfying answer to your question."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/11/30/1060130774/an-fda-panel-supports-merck-covid-drug-in-mixed-vote

[Shanedorf]

3 hours ago, MWil23 said:

We lost more than that in the Civil War. Sorry to be "that guy". I'm a history teacher.

Don't ever apologize for being that guy- happy to be corrected and lord knows we don't need any more misinformation in this thread. As a history teacher, you might enjoy this one- I was watching this just before I posted and its very well done. ( much better on a laptop than phone)

 

 

[MWil23]

22 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Don't ever apologize for being that guy- happy to be corrected and lord knows we don't need any more misinformation in this thread. As a history teacher, you might enjoy this one- I was watching this just before I posted and its very well done. ( much better on a laptop than phone)

 

 

This is good stuff! I may have to show it/parts of it to my students when we cover WWII in a couple of months. The USSR number always floors them. Pretty crazy stuff!

[Shanedorf]

16 hours ago, Xenos said:

If I was the FDA, I would not approve this for anything but the absolute emergency. This part scares me.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/30/fda-panel-narrowly-recommends-authorization-of-merck-covid-pill-after-day-of-tense-discussion/
 

 

Let me add a little context around the pregnancy question. For every drug/vaccine that is developed they are required to assess any issues to fertility, pregnancy or harm to the developing embryo/fetus. This is called Reproductive Toxicology and they study it in rats and rabbits by giving them supra-therapeutic doses and then assessing what happens to eggs, sperm, embryos and follow those offspring throughout their (short) lives to see if there are any deleterious effects for the parents, the offspring and their offspring.
( 3 generations)

(reproductive study requirements originated after the Thalidomide birth defects were discovered in the 1960s. )

But...these Tox studies are in animals, not humans and are not 100% predictive on either side of the equation ( Its safe/ not safe) So if there are any concerns, an MD will choose a different treatment if one exists

In an emergency situation like COVID, they'd approve the new treatments for all males - and for females not of child bearing age. ( or require contraception) That way you get the meds/vaccines to the people who need them, while excluding the patients who may be at higher risk of getting pregnant and potentially having problems.

Women of child-bearing age are generally excluded from clinical trials for obvious reasons - but that stunts our ability to learn more. So we rely on animal studies and make the best decision based on those results

What the committee said is that they have concerns and that's part of the Risk/Reward decision making for every new med that comes out. But its important to note the use of the words here:

It MAY have an effect. There is POTENTIAL for a problem.

This is how the system is supposed to work
They see a risk and have to weigh it vs the reward. IF Mom is in trouble and at risk of dying from COVID or losing her baby - then maybe these therapies make sense. But if Mom has a mild case, then you would not take any risk at all.

And finally, I'll shine a light on the comments in your link- they talk about Molnupiravir being a short term treatment - and the shorter the duration and the smaller the dose - the lower the risk for side effects. Chronic meds like blood pressure pills that you take every day for 20 years- that's a higher potential for side effects vs a 5 day treatment regimen. All part of the complex Risk/Reward evaluations done at FDA

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Shanedorf

[Xenos]

2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Let me add a little context around the pregnancy question. For every drug/vaccine that is developed they are required to assess any issues to fertility, pregnancy or harm to the developing embryo/fetus. This is called Reproductive Toxicology and they study it in rats and rabbits by giving them supra-therapeutic doses and then assessing what happens to eggs, sperm, embryos and follow those offspring throughout their (short) lives to see if there are any deleterious effects for the parents, the offspring and their offspring.
( 3 generations)

(reproductive study requirements originated after the Thalidomide birth defects were discovered in the 1960s. )

But...these Tox studies are in animals, not humans and are not 100% predictive on either side of the equation ( Its safe/ not safe) So if there are any concerns, an MD will choose a different treatment if one exists

In an emergency situation like COVID, they'd approve the new treatments for all males - and for females not of child bearing age. ( or require contraception) That way you get the meds/vaccines to the people who need them, while excluding the patients who may be at higher risk of getting pregnant and potentially having problems.

Women of child-bearing age are generally excluded from clinical trials for obvious reasons - but that stunts our ability to learn more. So we rely on animal studies and make the best decision based on those results

What the committee said is that they have concerns and that's part of the Risk/Reward decision making for every new med that comes out. But its important to note the use of the words here:

It MAY have an effect. There is POTENTIAL for a problem.

This is how the system is supposed to work
They see a risk and have to weigh it vs the reward. IF Mom is in trouble and at risk of dying from COVID or losing her baby - then maybe these therapies make sense. But if Mom has a mild case, then you would not take any risk at all.

And finally, I'll shine a light on the comments in your link- they talk about Molnupiravir being a short term treatment - and the shorter the duration and the smaller the dose - the lower the risk for side effects. Chronic meds like blood pressure pills that you take every day for 20 years- that's a higher potential for side effects vs a 5 day treatment regimen. All part of the complex Risk/Reward evaluations done at FDA

 

Thanks as always for addressing my concerns Shane.

[Xenos]

A different type of vaccine may be available next year. In this case it’s the protein subunit ones ie. Novavax

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/01/1060141850/a-different-kind-of-covid-vaccine-is-about-ready-to-roll
 

Quote

A new kind of COVID-19 vaccine is about to roll out around the world. Although it won't replace the highly successful vaccines currently available, it could make a difference in the course of the pandemic, especially in lower resourced countries. 

These new vaccines are what's called protein subunit vaccines. They work by injecting people with a tiny portion of the virus. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, that tiny portion is the so-called spike protein critical for the virus to enter cells.

An advantage of protein subunit vaccines is they tend to be very stable, so they don't require freezers for storage. A regular refrigerator is adequate. This makes distributing the vaccine much easier.

 

Quote

Novavax has begun filing for emergency use authorization with various regulatory agencies. 

"We have filed for authorization all over the world, including in the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand," says Silvia Taylor, vice president of global corporate affairs and investor relations for Novavax

These filings mean Novavax thinks it has licked its manufacturing problems, because getting an authorization requires convincing regulators you can reliably produce the vaccine.

Taylor expects the company will seek emergency use authorization in this country early next year. She says to boost manufacturing capacity, Novavax has teamed up with several vaccine manufacturers, including the Serum Institute of India, the world's largest maker of vaccines.

 

[Xenos]

NBA study. Wonder if we’ll get one from the NFL.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/12/01/breakthrough-covid-infections-shorter-and-spread-less-study-finds/8808202002/
 

Quote

New research about breakthrough coronavirus infections finds they may be less likely to spread to others because vaccinated people don't shed the virus for as long as the unvaccinated.

The study, which involved NBA players, their families and staff, found that people with breakthrough COVID-19 cases stopped producing the virus two days sooner than the unvaccinated. The vaccinated people who got COVID-19 cleared the virus from their systems on average in 5½ days. The unvaccinated took 7½ days.

 

[Tugboat]

17 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Don't ever apologize for being that guy- happy to be corrected and lord knows we don't need any more misinformation in this thread. As a history teacher, you might enjoy this one- I was watching this just before I posted and its very well done. ( much better on a laptop than phone)

 

 

There are parts of this that are good, but parts of it that are truly terrible.

 

The idea of the US deploying atomic weapons against a deliberately civilian population, is hand-waved away as "had to be done".  Meanwhile, the Soviets are criticized for...having had a HUGE number of people die in WWII?  Attributed to "Lenin wouldn't let them retreat", rather than...they spent the majority of the war fighting it, staving off the Nazis, entirely by themselves while the Allies dithered around preparing for an invasion years later.

 

It's just bad history.  It's the kind of trash i was taught in high school.  Which isn't remotely accurate.

 

Whether you agree with Communism as a philosophy or not, the reality is...the Soviet Union fought the vast majority of WWII alone.  And they did indeed face the brunt of that in terms of casualties.  You face a lot fewer casualties when, like the US...you just sit on the sidelines and watch for half the war, and without any actual land border skin in the game.  That doesn't make the US "better" at fighting the war.  It doesn't make the USSR "worse" at fighting the war, because they halfway won it all by themselves with peripheral help.  It's just...the reality of what WWII was.

[MWil23]

6 hours ago, Tugboat said:

There are parts of this that are good, but parts of it that are truly terrible.

Very true

Quote

The idea of the US deploying atomic weapons against a deliberately civilian population, is hand-waved away as "had to be done". 

This is a bit of an oversimplification (agreed). There are a lot of controversial angles here, and I'm sure most of us would be divided with one another on the issue.

Quote

Meanwhile, the Soviets are criticized for...having had a HUGE number of people die in WWII?  Attributed to "Lenin wouldn't let them retreat",

Shouldn't that read "Stalin"? In the case of the Battle of Stalingrad, that's absolutely the major reason. They were gunned down/had their own machine guns turned on them if they retreated. They were also VERY ill equipped throughout, not having enough weapons/ammunition for all of their soldiers.

Quote

rather than...they spent the majority of the war fighting it, staving off the Nazis, entirely by themselves while the Allies dithered around preparing for an invasion years later.

Eh, there are a LOT of factors. The French were eliminated early, the British were forced to stave off the Nazi's because of the constant fire-bombing of London and other areas during the Battle of Britain, the U.S. was fighting a 2 front war themselves with the Japanese, not to mention the African/European front (by the way, the Soviets refused to help us after VE Day, which they promised to do, resulting in a lot of feelings that only fueled the Cold War)...so what exactly were the Allies supposed to do?

The rest of the allies (and the US) had to fight in North Africa, we had to fight in the Pacific, etc.

Quote

It's just bad history.  It's the kind of trash i was taught in high school.  Which isn't remotely accurate.

Quote

Whether you agree with Communism as a philosophy or not, the reality is...the Soviet Union fought the vast majority of WWII alone. 

On the Eastern Front, sure, albeit I guess we are now excluding the vast majority of the rest of Eastern Europe who was basically butter through the Nazi's hot knife Blitzkrieg.

Quote

And they did indeed face the brunt of that in terms of casualties.  You face a lot fewer casualties when, like the US...you just sit on the sidelines and watch for half the war, and without any actual land border skin in the game. 

Not to be a jerk here, but you do realize that we joined the war less than 6 months after the Soviets, right? Due to the non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler, the Soviets didn't join until June 22 of 1941 when they were invaded, very similarly to how we didn't join until after December 7, 1941 when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Quote

That doesn't make the US "better" at fighting the war.  It doesn't make the USSR "worse" at fighting the war, because they halfway won it all by themselves with peripheral help.  It's just...the reality of what WWII was.

See above

Edited December 2, 2021 by MWil23

[TVScout]

2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

Shouldn't that read "Stalin"?

Yes it should and it was incompetence on his part that was responsible for the majority of Soviet losses.

[TVScout]

Is Omicron More Contagious Than Delta? A Virus Expert Explains What We Know So Far.

https://www.sciencealert.com/is-omicron-more-contagious-than-delta-here-s-what-we-know-and-what-we-don-tl

[Xenos]

On 11/30/2021 at 3:37 PM, ramssuperbowl99 said:

On one hand, nerds win again, vaccination is still effective.

On the other hand, those stats are terrifying. COVID is going to (officially) kill a million Americans. That's...bat****.

It is crazy. But at the same time, this whole thing has made my heart hardened to the point where if you’re dying because you chose to be unvaccinated because of “freedom”, then I don’t care. 

[MWil23]

I got my booster yesterday and spent the night with chills, aches, and feeling miserable, continuing into this morning. Going to be a very long day.