Sponsored by |
---|
Summary
1. On Thursday, 21st January, NERVTAG presented evidence to SAGE of increased disease severity in people infected with variant of concern (VOC ) B.1.1.7 compared to people infected with non-VOC virus variants. In that report it was stated that ‘data will accrue in coming weeks, at which time the analyses will become more definitive’.
2. Here we report updated and additional analyses, which together strengthen the earlier finding of increased disease severity in people infected with VOC B.1.1.7compared to other virus variants...
7. Based on these analyses, it is likely that infection with VOC B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and death compared to infection with non-VOC viruses...
22. LSHTM undertook a population-level (ecological) analysis of the relationship between cases (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2), hospitalisations, and deaths as a function of local prevalence of SGTF. [11]
a. This analysis suggests that VOC has increased the number of hospitalisations per case, and deaths per hospitalisation, which, in turn, is compatible with an increase in the case-hospitalisation rate and the hospitalisation-fatality rate.b. Allowing baseline ratios to vary at the level of upper-tier local authorities resulted in estimates of a 1.4 (1.3-1.5) times higher number of hospitalisations per case and 1.4 (1.2-1.5) times higher number of fatalities per hospitalisation associated with VOC.c. These estimates need to be interpreted with caution as they are likely to be confounded by other factors that varied over time and that could have affected changes in the rate of hospitalisations or deaths.
We all have strong opinions but you have yo remember they are just that.. opinions...
For our reality-based members
The study was an interesting read... better than most I've seen recently..In the US, a new study (posted previously)
Thats exactly the shit im on about.. a petty dig...
It did clearly state at the very top, in the beginning of the posted study
classified as an unrefereed preprint:
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
The point of the last few pages is that not all opinions are equal.
Well yeah....we ALL seem to think that OUR opinions are more valid than other contrasting opinions....that is part of why are are called opinions and NOT facts.
I think (yes, my opinion) that the point of the last few pages is that much of what is posted is just that...opinions....and no more.
No. I think that FACTS proven through rigorous testing, sufficiently reviewed by independent means, and which have withstood scrutiny over time are superior to all opinions.You seemed to believe that opinions that are derived from adequately referenced, original sources are worth more than those that are fabricated outright or based on second-hand interpretations of unidentified sources, for example.
No. I think that FACTS proven through rigorous testing, sufficiently reviewed by independent means, and which have withstood scrutiny over time are superior to all opinions.
And, I think that this: "those that are fabricated outright or based on second-hand interpretations of unidentified sources, for example" is an example of what I see as your rather consistently expressed view of the intellectual superiority of your opinions, based on your sources, compared to those with whom you do not agree.
And yes, I do think that there is a lot of "myths" and "rumors" about COVID, restrictions, treatment, vaccine, etc that are completely off the wall and which I personally feel free to utterly dismiss. I mean, people buy the National Enquirer and actually believe that stuff. What are you going to do? There are a lot of truly stupid people in the world...really Darwin Award Winner candidates. Blame it on social blather (which is all it is to me and calling it "media" is a joke), if you like. I do. haha
But, I also think most of this "scientific proof" that is put out there, pretty much daily, is anything but. It strikes me as being, for the most part, preliminary information against which some far reaching conclusions had to be drawn as action had to be taken in a very limited amount of time. So, you go with the best you have....but that makes it a best guess...not a fact. And I personally think that we have seen tons of "best guesses" come out of guys like Fauci which then get treated by media/people like they are established and agreed upon facts, which they are not.
However, IMO a contrary view that some of these "best guess" conclusions have overreached the available evidence is also not, to me, unfounded and that the burden to be right on public policy decision makers is very high given the very great and very negative impact on a huge number of people from closings and other restrictions.
As an example of this last point, I do wear a mask and I don't go out to bars, gyms, and try to limit my exposure overall. And I will most definitely take the vaccine. These are my decisions made in consideration of my age and comorbidity and I don't personally need proof to take these actions as they only impact me and I'm willing to do so just on the chance...any chance no matter how small... that they may reduce the probability of my contracting COVID....no matter how small this reduction might be. These are personal choices, NOT public policy.
But ALL of the restaurants (and a lot of other stuff) where I live are currently closed...yet fucking again. But, I have no found not one instance of well validated contact tracing that proved (please not that word) that what we were running....which was restaurants at 25% capacity with staff in masks, patrons in masks until eating/drinking, expanded air filtering and cleaning, etc....contributed in any significant way whatsoever to the spread of this disease.
And this is not even to climb into the shit pile of hypocricy that has seemed to declare some super spreader events are in fact not...and other as being in fact so...mostly based on political considerations.
I personally do not think we will actually know what the fuck has really happened here...what was real and what was Memorex... except in retrospect, 5 years down the road.
Cheers and good god, why did I dip my toe back in this thread again.....sigh.
I could not have said it better. Thank you @Kellya86 .I really understand why we dont have political threads now...
Differences of opinions can turn members against each other who would normally have got on fine...
We all have strong opinions but you have yo remember they are just that.. opinions...
We all have to respect others opinions and choices...
Truly glad you did, thanks. Sorry about coming off that way. You should know this mind can change, because you've changed it, just as @Jeff and @voyciz have. That's what makes participation so worthwhile.No. I think that FACTS proven through rigorous testing, sufficiently reviewed by independent means, and which have withstood scrutiny over time are superior to all opinions.
And, I think that this: "those that are fabricated outright or based on second-hand interpretations of unidentified sources, for example" is an example of what I see as your rather consistently expressed view of the intellectual superiority of your opinions, based on your sources, compared to those with whom you do not agree...
But, I also think most of this "scientific proof" that is put out there, pretty much daily, is anything but. It strikes me as being, for the most part, preliminary information against which some far reaching conclusions had to be drawn as action had to be taken in a very limited amount of time. So, you go with the best you have....but that makes it a best guess...not a fact. And I personally think that we have seen tons of "best guesses" come out of guys like Fauci which then get treated by media/people like they are established and agreed upon facts, which they are not.
However, IMO a contrary view that some of these "best guess" conclusions have overreached the available evidence is also not, to me, unfounded and that the burden to be right on public policy decision makers is very high given the very great and very negative impact on a huge number of people from closings and other restrictions.
As an example of this last point, I do wear a mask and I don't go out to bars, gyms, and try to limit my exposure overall. And I will most definitely take the vaccine. These are my decisions made in consideration of my age and comorbidity and I don't personally need proof to take these actions as they only impact me and I'm willing to do so just on the chance...any chance no matter how small... that they may reduce the probability of my contracting COVID....no matter how small this reduction might be. These are personal choices, NOT public policy.
But ALL of the restaurants (and a lot of other stuff) where I live are currently closed...yet fucking again. But, I have no found not one instance of well validated contact tracing that proved (please not that word) that what we were running....which was restaurants at 25% capacity with staff in masks, patrons in masks until eating/drinking, expanded air filtering and cleaning, etc....contributed in any significant way whatsoever to the spread of this disease.
And this is not even to climb into the shit pile of hypocricy that has seemed to declare some super spreader events are in fact not...and other as being in fact so...mostly based on political considerations.
I personally do not think we will actually know what the fuck has really happened here...what was real and what was Memorex... except in retrospect, 5 years down the road.
Cheers and good god, why did I dip my toe back in this thread again.....sigh.
Ah....insurance, yes. Seat belts, always wear them. Mandatory...not so sure for the driver or adult passenger...if they want to do stupid shit they are welcome to it. Children in cars, absolutely.do you believe in mandatory seatbelts and folks having to need liability insurance to drive a car?
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S) plays critical roles in host cell entry. Non-synonymous substitutions affecting S are not uncommon and have become fixed in a number of SARS-CoV-2 lineages. A subset of such mutations enable escape from neutralizing antibodies or are thought to enhance transmission through mechanisms such as increased affinity for the cell entry receptor, ACE2. Independent genomic surveillance programs based in New Mexico and Louisiana contemporaneously detected the rapid rise of numerous clade 20G (lineage B.1.2) infections carrying a Q677P substitution in S. The variant was first detected in the US on October 23, yet between 01 Dec 2020 and 19 Jan 2021 it rose to represent 27.8% and 11.3% of all SARS-CoV-2 genomes sequenced from Louisiana and New Mexico, respectively... Phylogenetic analyses revealed the independent evolution and spread of at least six distinct Q677H sub-lineages, with first collection dates ranging from mid August to late November, 2020. Four 677H clades from clade 20G (B.1.2) , 20A (B.1.234), and 20B (B.1.1.220, and B.1.1.222) each contain roughly 100 or fewer sequenced cases, while a distinct pair of clade 20G clusters are represented by 754 and 298 cases, respectively. Although sampling bias and founder effects may have contributed to the rise of S:677 polymorphic variants, the proximity of this position to the polybasic cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary are consistent with its potential functional relevance during cell entry, suggesting parallel evolution of a trait that may confer an advantage in spread or transmission. Taken together, our findings demonstrate simultaneous convergent evolution, thus providing an impetus to further evaluate S:677 polymorphisms for effects on proteolytic processing, cell tropism, and transmissibility.
Sponsored by |
---|