Machu Peach
-
Posts
227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Machu Peach
-
There should be little to no correlation between the reaction to the immunization and severity of a hypothetical infection.
-
True. But how often are vaccines given emergency approval for use? If we compare this to a normal vaccine roll-out, we would still be in the clinical trial phase, right?Yes, these are much larger and much shorter duration than standard vaccine trials. ...yet another reason why I would not call it 'normal'. It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions about decisions made by scientists or "the experts." The pause could have real-world negative consequences; it is also OK to discuss them.
-
The issue isn't just clotting. It's clotting in a specific location, specifically the brain's venous sinuses. Looking at the overall rate of clotting per person to the rate of clotting in the brain post vaccination is not a good comparison. Notably, the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is getting all the attention, but these patients also all apparently had low platelet levels. That, to me, is far more significant than just the CVST. It's much easier to hypothesize links from vaccination to thrombocytopenia than it is to clots in the brain.
-
Pausing a clinical trial is normal. I would not call pausing use of a vaccine already administered to 6-7 million people normal.
-
Absent a direct mechanistic link, any explanation for a novel one in a million adverse event with 6 total events seems like pure speculation.
-
It's hard to know what to make of the clotting correlation without more information. For example, I have no idea what normal background clotting occurs with this population and I have no idea how long after the vaccination the clotting occurred. Any rare-event data presented without controls, even if it's just historical controls, is difficult to form opinions on. If anyone has a link with data, rather than a summary of the findings or someone's interpretation of the issue, I'd be grateful. I will say I have extensive experience with rAdenovirus vaccines, specifically including the rAd26 vector these vaccines are based off of, and have never seen nor heard anything related to clotting being associated with them.
-
Less than 25% of all people are fully vaccinated in Wisconsin. Given the prioritized age group (65+) is 93% white it is expected that there would be lower vaccination rates in non-white demographics Even if one accepts that minority populations in WI are refusing to get vaccinated at a much higher rate (which I don't) they only make up 17% of the state's population. Roughly 60% of the state's population is white and unvaccinated. Only about 10% of the state's population is black or hispanic and unvaccinated. Explaining Wisconsin's current COVID numbers using the 10% group and not the 60% group does not make sense, at least as it pertains to vaccination status.
-
This contradicts far larger, more fleshed out studies. Without presenting any actual data or the methodology it's hard to put any stock in it at all. Daily mortality has been steadily decreasing for over 3 months. There's no reason to believe that decline will not continue. Nearly 70% of people are unvaccinated or are in the process of being vaccinated. The rate of vaccination is averaging over 3 million doses per day and rising. There will be a point where vaccine skeptics begin to slow down progress, but we are not near that point yet.
-
Here's two studies from last week looking at high efficacy of the vaccine at preventing asymptotic or symptomatic infections. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 Here's a neat graph from one of the studies. [attachment=0]nejmc2102153_f1 copy.jpg[/attachment] I believe this was the primary endpoint of the original phase III trials. I believe they're measuring reduction in relative risk. Normal vaccine studies have defined endpoints, so the statistics used would be different.
-
I think there's a dangerous line regarding 'giving out information that was later proven incorrect'- this seems to imply malice or incompetence, when in reality, with a novel virus, things that are thought/assumed to be correct initially often prove themselves differently as time goes on and research is actually able to be conducted/completed. There's a huge distinction there that the general public doesn't seem to grasp, IMO. Fauci has admitted to knowingly lying on at least two topics. I understand why people might not trust someone that has lied to them repeatedly. That said, everyone should get vaccinated even if public health officials have done a terrible job with messaging.
-
We were taught 3 feet (well 1 meter, but US...) for respiratory diseases in grad school. I have absolutely no idea how that became 6 feet and I've spent a good amount of time looking.
-
I sorta understand the anti-vax crowd's hesitancy. Public health has really abused public trust to the point where I understand why people might not trust them at all. It's part of the reason I've been so upset with them since May-ish. Even my own (largely well-educated, non-conspiracy theorist, and mostly non-political) extended family was hesitant and wanted to check with me before getting the vaccine. That said, anti-vaxers are completely wrong and everyone who is eligible should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.
-
I don't understand this at all. Vaccination started in earnest in late-December. The number of new daily infections has fallen almost 80% since then. The number of new daily deaths has fallen over 60% since then. How is that not an obvious benefit?
-
The logistics of distributing 400 million-ish doses of vaccine are difficult. I'm not sure why someone would intentionally make it even more difficult.
-
Generally a recall response will be more severe than a primary response. Therefore if you've had COVID there's a chance that both the 1st and 2nd vaccination will lead to increased general immune-activation-related side-effects. If you've haven't had COVID the 1st vaccination will be a primary response and only the 2nd will be a recall response. ...but it's the sort of thing that can vary a lot between people, so I wouldn't read too much into anecdotes.
-
It is accessible with a free account. In case you don't want to do that.WI has used 79.9% of its vaccine, the national average is 68.3% WI has given 10% of its population one dose, the national average is 9.5% WI has given 2.7% of its population two doses, the national average is 2.7% I can't speak to feelings and I don't know the factors going into distribution plans, but it would make sense to prioritize geographical locations at the most risk. Urban areas have had significantly higher mortality and morbidity rates than rural areas. There was outcry a couple weeks ago that too much vaccine was being withheld for second doses. There's just not a balance that's going to satisfy everyone.
-
Wisconsin has actually been lagging way behind most states in distributing shots. My wife told me the state is 2nd worst in the nation at getting our people vaccinated. Roughly 1/5 of all the vaccines sent to Wisconsin haven't been used (source below). . I know they started out slow but I thought a lot of progress was made in the last week. I thought they had moved up to like 28th best or something. Per this guy they are now 6th in the nation: Yep. Publicly available info lists Wisconsin as 6th in the nation as far as percent of vaccine used and near the national average in percent of people receiving one dose and percent of people receiving two doses.https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/
-
No, this is a seemingly common misunderstand arising from how the vaccine trials were designed and use of the word "asymptomatic" instead of "subclinical". The trials were only designed to look at people with infections severe enough to warrant clinical attention and did not look into subclinical infections. Why not look at subclinical infections? Because that would require PCR testing 70,000 people twice a week for up to 9 months. It's simply not feasible. Thus the trials can only claim that it reduced disease severity and cannot claim that it reduces infections. However, just because they're unable to claim a reduction in subclinical infections does not mean one did not occur. In fact, based on results from every other vaccine and basic immunology it's quite likely a significant reduction in subclinical infections did occur. I, personally, would be very surprised if that were not that case. The vaccines certainly do reduce viral loads in infected individuals. Viral spread directly correlates with viral load in pretty much every disease. Thus vaccinated individuals are much less likely to spread the virus. It still can occur, but the risk greatly reduced.
-
I agree that the mask compliance is very high. Wood country is home to the massive Marshfield Clinic, so it likely has a disproportionate number of children with parents in healthcare related fields. Maybe that's helping them cultivate a culture of compliance? ...and yea, one always worries about response-bias with these survey-type studies. 50% response rate seems really good (major congrats to the study authors and the teachers for that) but it's still a major variable.
-
Then perhaps it's not fair to describe it a "pretty good case study on" their (or my) failure to "back track on sources"? They do address potential asymptomatic spread via the absences of child-to-staff transmission. You might disagree with the methodology and that's fair to do, but it has nothing to do with failing to "back track on sources." It also highlight something I've complained about before. The term "asymptomatic" is largely useless. With other diseases we use "subclinical", but with COVID even people who should know better say "asymptomatic."
-
I am very interested in discussing what you think I can learn from this "case study". These are complaints about an entirely different study. I've posted the MMWR (CDC) study. This reference is used to support the sentence "This apparent lack of transmission is consistent with recent research." The reference has nothing to do with the study's methodology or results. Again, it's criticizing a different study, not the MMWR study. This is general criticism of 'experts' which is a perfectly ok thing to do. However, it doesn't specifically address any issues with the MMWR study itself. It's fair to criticize and/or not trust the study, but personal intuition, anecdotes, and observations are difficult for others to contextualize and quantify. The nice thing about well written studies, even observational ones, is that they are comparatively easy contextualize and quantify. It seems the source of your (seemingly negative?) view of this study is actually issues with other studies. Am I misreading that? Do you have issues with this study that you've not mentioned (or that you mentioned and I'm failing to see)?
-
Not really new news there were already independent studies that showed this to be true for some time now. I believe I posted an article about this previously in this thread. You posted a link to this study (published yesterday), specifically about the spread of CV in schools in Wood Country, WI in this thread?
-
Given the prevalence of teachers and WI residents here, I think many will be happy to read this study. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm
-
It's another catch-22. If there is strict adherence to priority tiers vaccination will slow down (and there will be waste) and people will complain. If strict adherence to priority tiers is relaxed people will complain about the inconsistency. There's just no balance that's going to make everyone happy. I personally feel that vaccinating any essential worker (other than those directly related to elder/COVID care), including teachers, before everyone over 65 is hard to justify. As a result, I'm not too upset that I'm currently not scheduled for vaccination despite working a research hospital, interacting with patient samples, and being essential enough that I have not had a single day of missed work or remote work, even when almost everything was closed.
-
It's a catch 22. Give people a date that isn't 100% certain and they're disappointed if there are delays. Don't give people dates until it's absolutely 100% set in stone and they're disappointed in the lack of communication/lack of planning. I don't think there's a balance that's going to make everyone happy. I think some people may be overestimating the predictability of the manufacturing of biology active, cGMP-compliant products and reagents. It's not like one can say they're going to get exactly X doses off of each run. Additionally, I would hope that the distribution plan is being continuously updated as new data is produced and new needs emerge.