CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

For those interested a meta-analysis is a statistical analysis of multiple previous studies, there is a nice description of Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

While meta-analysis can be useful, the big problem is they are easily distorted by selection methods, what studies/data to include and what studies/data to reject. It's most useful when all studies are included, but this can even become problematic when bogus studies/data become numerically dominant. At that time a meta-analysis becomes worthless and must be supplanted by a large study.

Adding any quantity of small studies together no matter how many does not supersede the results of a single large study, because all small studies are likely to contain the same bias. As Wikipedia puts in quite nicely;

A meta-analysis of several small studies does not always predict the results of a single large study. Some have argued that a weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method: a good meta-analysis cannot correct for poor design or bias in the original studies. This would mean that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice called 'best evidence synthesis'.

This is a big reason why the hacks are always posting/quoting you results of a meta-analysis, often nested as a meta-analysis of a meta-analysis of a meta-analysis.

[PaulP]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-as...582fl.html

[ElwoodBlues1]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-as...582fl.html

The Pfizer is doing its fair share of damage too as a previously healthy 18 year old in Melbourne with extreme SVT can tell you but it probably wont make the news because the media are being told to can negative side effect stories. He might be looking at a pacemaker now given his heart rate is still rapid so thats the end of any sporting career for him..

[Thryleon]

I think that a vaccine for a novel virus isnt correlated to previous anti vax sentiments.

Most people are apprehensive of virus and vaccine for the same reasons.

Some people are only apprehensive about the virus, some are only apprehensive of the vaccine.

All of them are valid concerns.

[Lods]

I think that a vaccine for a novel virus isnt correlated to previous anti vax sentiments.

Most people are apprehensive of virus and vaccine for the same reasons.

Some people are only apprehensive about the virus, some are only apprehensive of the vaccine.

All of them are valid concerns.

I get the flu shot every year.
My kids got all their vaccinations.
I've never worried about vaccines....but I did have a pause and think with this one.
In the end I had it as soon as I was able.

Simply because the covid is such a concern I think there is a feeling for some that the development of vaccines has been fast tracked.
We're still not sure about each vaccines efficiency with different strands and any side effects.
The fact that we're pretty much in control of outbreaks and respond quickly means that folks feel they have the luxury of just holding off for a bit until things are a little clearer.
It's a no brainer for most that they'll be vaccinated in the end because the alternative can be deadly.
Watch folks rush to get the jab when things look like they may get out of  control.

[Gointocarlton]

Yes, let’s open up to vaccinated people. Fully vaccinated people should have some sort of immunity/vaccine passport that allows them to bypass restrictions. But to make that fair in Australia, vaccinations have to be open to everybody who wants one (and to those who don’t but will have one to gain the benefits that go with the passport).

I’d imagine the right wingers will rise up as one against this idea, though, as they’ll say anti-vaxxers can’t be discriminated against. So we’re back to square one. We have to treat the vaccinated as if they haven’t been vaccinated.

With decisions there are consequences, that's life. Cant have your cake and eat it.

[Mav]

I agree. If I were appointed dictator for a day, I’d implement a vaccine passport without any reservations. But there’s no way the Federal Government will go there. The vaccinated will remain handcuffed to the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated will remain the dictionary definition of free riders.

Interesting article in The Atlantic: Expect the Unexpected From the Delta Variant.

It considers why the UK’s Alpha variant didn’t cause an expected Springtime wave in the US save for an outbreak in Michigan despite being 50% more transmissible than the original virus.

Delta has gotten so much attention because it has the most troubling collection of traits yet: It is markedly more transmissible than Alpha, can sicken a large proportion of people who have had only one dose of a vaccine (though not those who have had two), and may even cause more severe disease. All of this is enough to be a warning, especially as Delta is now responsible for 10 percent of U.S. cases and rising. But as with Alpha, which was also suspected to be more severe, how the variant ends up behaving in the real world will depend on more than its biology. It will also depend on how we—the virus’s hosts—choose to behave, how many more people we vaccinate, and, to some extent, how lucky we get.

All of these factors are likely to have played a role in the Alpha-associated springtime spike in Michigan. According to cellphone mobility data from that period, people in the state had gone back to nearly pre-pandemic levels of movement, says Emily Martin, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan. The Alpha variant also got to Michigan relatively early, and happened to find its way into groups of young people who were not yet eligible to be vaccinated. “It was sort of bad timing,” Martin told me. If Alpha had arrived a little later, or the vaccines a little earlier, then Michigan might have looked more like the rest of the country, where immunization was able to blunt Alpha’s impact. In the race between variants and vaccines elsewhere in the U.S., vaccines won.

Two concepts about viral spread help explain why timing and chance make such a difference. First, the coronavirus spreads exponentially, which means that even a slight delay in mitigation efforts can lead to dramatically different outcomes. Second, the virus’s spread is what epidemiologists call “overdispersed,” which means that the majority of patients do not infect anyone else but a small handful might infect dozens of people. In other words, most sparks of infection do not catch fire. But occasionally a single infection might cause an early super-spreader event, which ends up seeding a major outbreak. “Looking from state to state, it can be like, ‘Well, why is this state doing well versus that state?’ Sometimes it’s just luck,” says Adam Lauring, a virologist at the University of Michigan.

[Mav]

Studies suggest Covid (or some condition caused by Covid) shrinks parts of the brain and this brings with it concerns that it might set up dementia further down the road. The studies aren’t yet peer-reviewed though.

[Thryleon]

Doesn't that depend on where you are and when, go somewhere the health system is over run to reconfirm that and the story might be very different.

It seems our health system isn't over-run because of the aggressive restrictions, not in spite of them!

And I'll reiterate, COVID deaths are only one measure, long COVID is going to become a much bigger issue if effective treatments are not found. If the restrictions and lockdowns buy time to develop those treatments, then that is probably a good thing.

If too many 20 somethings get heart or kidney disease, that's a lifetime of care dollar$ we will all be subsidising, it is not an insignificant risk!

Our health system has never really been under pressure to date, even with the 100's of cases per day.

The lockdowns have caused more grief through the baby boom we are currently experiencing for the health services than covid ever caused.

That could change, but whilst we remain on the path to elimination it wont.

[Mav]

What would your preferred solution be, Thryleon?