Carlton Supporters Club
CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-12-2021

(12-12-2021, 10:58 PM)madbluboy date Wrote:I read an article discussing boosters that said the moderna booster worked better than pfizer or astra but the Novavax as a booster smashed them both especially after two shots of astra.
It's quite possible, the science seems to indicate cross vaccination is clearly delivering the best antibody response and better long term adaptive immune response ( T-Cell and B-Cell memory).

Pfizer works OK but it's efficacy is perhaps overhyped, the pharmaceutical companies are clearly all massive commercial entities, but it appears to me that Pfizer is an order of magnitude ahead of the others in terms of marketing and promoting it's product. I worry that a lot of it's spin is about it's balance sheet more than curing the pandemic, Pfizer's CEO pushing more frequent and earlier boosters shots should be an alarm bell for the authorities, the science should be pursuing better outcomes not just more of the same!


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-12-2021

(12-12-2021, 10:59 PM)Lods date Wrote:The fact that the majority of eligible folks in the country are now double vaccinated means that most of the ongoing transmission will come from vaccinated folks.
[member=906]Lods[/member]  That might not be correct, viral load and shedding determines how infectious someone might be, while there may be more vaccinated people roaming around it still appears that they shed less virus, have lower viral loads and remain less likely to transmit by about an order of magnitude. Based on uptake that probably means if you get Sars-CoV-2 it's still more likely you get it from someone unvaccinated.

It's not a simple situation to evaluate, the math is serious complicated, too much of the media coverage talks like getting infected is easy like getting fur off you from contact with a cat or dog. If you pass or brush against infected people they aren't all putting you at the same level of risk, and that level of risk is non-linear.

There remains a risk that vaccinated or unvaccinated could become super-spreaders, but it's wrong to assume all is equal, the chance of a vaccinated person becoming a super-spreader is very very low, several orders of magnitude lower.

Finally, being vaccinated is a clear indicator of willingness to comply with health directives, social distancing, mask wearing in hazard zones, getting tested if unwell. It makes a difference and all feeds back into the math.


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-12-2021

Boris Johnson: UK Faces 'Tidal Wave' Of Omicron Cases, Huffpost.

Perhaps Boris Johnson isn't well placed to inform the masses given that he would welcome a distraction from his political problems (including the fallout from the revelation his Tories held parties during the lockdown and had a laugh about it). But the epidemiologists are more credible:
Quote:Johnson’s announcement came hours after the government raised the country’s official coronavirus threat level, warning the rapid spread of the omicron variant had pushed the U.K. into risky territory.

The chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland said the 1of the highly transmissible new strain “adds additional and rapidly increasing risk to the public and health care services” at a time when COVID-19 is already widespread. They recommended raising the alert level from 3 to 4 on a 5-point scale. The top level, 5, indicates authorities think the health care system is about to be overwhelmed.

The doctors said early evidence shows omicron is spreading much faster than the currently dominant delta variant, and that vaccines offer less protection against it. British officials say omicron is likely to replace delta as the dominant strain in the U.K. within days.

“Data on severity will become clearer over the coming weeks but hospitalizations from omicron are already occurring and these are likely to increase rapidly,” they said.

Concerns about the new variant led Johnson’s Conservative government to reintroduce restrictions that were lifted almost six months ago. Masks must be worn in most indoor settings, COVID-19 certificates must be shown to enter nightclubs and people are being urged to work from home if possible.

Many scientists say that’s unlikely to be enough, however, and are calling for tougher measures, which the government so far has resisted.



Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - ElwoodBlues1 - 12-12-2021

(12-12-2021, 10:58 PM)madbluboy link Wrote:I read an article discussing boosters that said the moderna booster worked better than pfizer or astra but the Novavax as a booster smashed them both especially after two shots of astra.
I want the Novavax and its been prescribed for my daughters MIL who has multiple health issues and cant have the others but is the same old story with supply being the issue and its also going to cost more.
Moderna gave my Son in Law lumps along his collarbone and a shingles type rash after one dose......


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Lods - 12-13-2021

(12-12-2021, 11:10 PM)LP link Wrote:[member=906]Lods[/member]  That might not be correct, viral load and shedding determines how infectious someone might be, while there may be more vaccinated people roaming around it still appears that they shed less virus, have lower viral loads and remain less likely to transmit by about an order of magnitude. Based on uptake that probably means if you get Sars-CoV-2 it's still more likely you get it from someone unvaccinated.


I can get my head around the fact that you're a lot less likely to get it from a vaccinated person due to the lesser impact of the  virus on their system and the load they carry but surely that's countered by the number of folks vaccinated and still passing it on.

Failing clear data we really have no idea as to where the transmission is coming from...and I'm not sure you how you measure where you've caught it from.
There are so many variables, including waning protection in some of the early vaccinated.

With the Queensland situation we really shouldn't have any 'interstate unvaccinated' roaming free so it will be interesting to see if it takes hold. I think a rise in cases is the expectation from the health folk.





Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-13-2021

It's nonsense to try to aggregate the risk of vaccinated people passing on Covid in order to say unvaccinated people are no longer a problem.

Forget about aggregation. If the average unvaccinated person is more likely to catch and infect others with Covid than the average vaccinated person (and yes, a lot of work has to be done in assessing those risks), that's a reasonable basis to impose mandates and the like.

The CDC reports that only 28% of fatal accidents in the US involve alcohol impairment. As sober drivers are 3 times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents, does that mean we shouldn't try to keep drunk drivers off the road? Maybe it would be better to concentrate on the increased risk of an alcohol-affected driver being involved in a collision compared to a sober driver rather than the aggregate statistics. 


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - madbluboy - 12-13-2021

Comparing someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated to someone getting sloshed and getting behind the wheel is beyond reaching.



Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-13-2021

No, it's simple probability and statistics. The point is only how aggregation is nonsensical. If you saw a statistician using the same methodology to compute the probability that 5 tosses of a coin result in 3 heads and a random group of 5 people has 3 females in it, would you seriously argue that it would be outrageous to compare people and coins?


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-13-2021

(12-13-2021, 02:40 AM)Lods date Wrote:I can get my head around the fact that you're a lot less likely to get it from a vaccinated person due to the lesser impact of the  virus on their system and the load they carry but surely that's countered by the number of folks vaccinated and still passing it on.
It's to do with the level of viral load and viral shedding relative to what level of virus you have to take up to have a good chance of being infected.

Can I offer some simplistic numbers to explain the chance/risk concept because I do not know the real figures, if so read on?

Let's say you need to take on a viral load of 1,000 to have a chance of being infected, but a vaccinated person might only be shedding a load of 100, they are giving you 1/10th of a chance of being infected. This is per unit time/exposure. An unvaccinated person might be shedding 100,000, you still only need 1,000 to have a chance but now that one contact is giving you 100 chances to get infected. In ratio that makes you 1000x more likely to get the virus off the person shedding 100,000 versus the person shedding 100, from the same level of exposure.

btw., How much virus and bacteria can you shed? When I asked this of an associate in the field they mentioned that a healthy person sheds about 50,000 virus or bacteria particles with every deep breath, while simply coughing and/or sneezing can shed 10x to 50x more!

Now think about these figures and how the vaccine providers might calculate efficacy, where does that 95% or 97% efficacy figure come from, knowing that shedding is part of the calculation it clear how these ratios can relate to deliver vastly different outcomes!

PS; I want to be clear about this because naysayers will latch onto the figures, I do not know the real numbers. I've used powers of 10 to simplify the explanation, it may be that the real world numbers are 3, 30 and 3000 or 15, 150 and 15000, whatever they are isn't important it's the relationship between them. The ratios may even be non-linear requiring the use of exponents, roots and complex numbers (The reason why I used the term simplistic rather than imaginary!) Also the term "a chance" might be 50/50, or 60/40, or 40/60, etc., etc..


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Lods - 12-13-2021

(12-13-2021, 04:23 AM)Mav link Wrote:It's nonsense to try to aggregate the risk of vaccinated people passing on Covid in order to say unvaccinated people are no longer a problem.

Forget about aggregation. If the average unvaccinated person is more likely to catch and infect others with Covid than the average vaccinated person (and yes, a lot of work has to be done in assessing those risks), that's a reasonable basis to impose mandates and the like.

The CDC reports that only 28% of fatal accidents in the US involve alcohol impairment. As sober drivers are 3 times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents, does that mean we shouldn't try to keep drunk drivers off the road? Maybe it would be better to concentrate on the increased risk of an alcohol-affected driver being involved in a collision compared to a sober driver rather than the aggregate statistics. 

I'm certainly not suggesting that (in bold)...

There seems to be a bit of a line of thinking that if you mention vaccinated folk spread covid you're helping promote the philosophies of the unvaccinated.

In actual fact having some confusion over the fact that you're still at risk is surely a dangerous practice...it leads to a false sense of security.
Folks should be aware of all the issues surrounding the disease and vaccines.

In a situation that changes day by day anyone who thinks they have all the answers probably needs to take a pause.
Advice can change quickly.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-11/booster-access-brought-forward-to-slow-spread-of-omicron-variant/100693484

Quote:"There is no evidence to suggest, at the moment, that an earlier booster does of the current covid-19 vaccines, will augment the protection against the omicron variant," Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly said on December 3.

But much more has been learned about the Omicron variant since then, including its transmissibility, and the advice has now been changed.

Omicron has thrown into question some of the strategies and effectiveness used with the Delta strain, just as Delta meant a change from previous strains (need for boosters).
The next variant might present even more challenges.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/how-omicron-appears-to-be-infecting-britain-despite-the-vaccine/ar-AARJzDr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

"Get vaccinated, get your boosters" is the best current advice...but the challenge remains that there is still a lot of work needed to stay ahead of this thing.