Coronavirus in Massachusetts (appointed, how much, live)

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by rach5

Redplum, so what is your goal/hope? My goal/hope is to curb cases until vaccines and better treatment. That news (and yes, I saw the 7 day reports!) was pretty much more than anybody could have hoped for (and yes, probably better than it will work in the long run) - and if it helps convince some people that it's worth distancing and mask wearing for a few more months, I am all for it. If there is no hope of a vaccine and better treatment - well than we better invest in cremation centers and PTSD treatment for medical providers.

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. We all know we're rushing the vaccines through, but as long as there are no serious side effects, the current situation calls for a different risk/reward scenario than we are used to. But what better news than to have not one, but two, vaccines with 90+% potential success rate, and ready for scaleup to mass production? We should all get behind this, and our strategy in the meantime should quickly change to containment for the next 5 months or so. In other words, do whatever it takes--universal masking, interstate travel bans, cancel Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Year's--to make sure the numbers don't continue their current exponential trend.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

More good news from Moderna, 94.5% effective. 15,000 participants were given the vaccine, and only five of them developed Covid-19. None of the five became severely ill and no abnormal side effects were reported. The storage requirements are less complicated than Pfizer as well.

Impressive sample sizes. You, of course, don't need sample sizes near that large for statistically significant (or even highly significant) results, depending on the variance. But its good to see.


The question is, to me (and I'm sure others), is how well these test populations mirror demographically the general population. That has, in the past, tripped up some studies (I'm not saying specifically vaccine studies, but medical studies in general).

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by timberline742

The question is, to me (and I'm sure others), is how well these test populations mirror demographically the general population. That has, in the past, tripped up some studies (I'm not saying specifically vaccine studies, but medical studies in general).

I am sure is not a great samples but frankly I can't think of an easier/safer drug to develop than a vaccine (ok, with the exception of HIV). So, I would be very surprised if there were huge problems with these vaccines.

I am more concerned that the virus is going to mutate and jump again to humans from animals and/or that the protection is going to be short lasting and people will need to be vaccinated constantly, like the flu.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I am more concerned that the virus is going to mutate and jump again to humans from animals and/or that the protection is going to be short lasting and people will need to be vaccinated constantly, like the flu.

I presume this will be the case. These types of diseases mutate frequently. It's not a polio or measles situation. If we could even get to a 1x a year cover majority of strains situation, I'd be more than content.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I am more concerned that the virus is going to mutate and jump again to humans from animals and/or that the protection is going to be short lasting and people will need to be vaccinated constantly, like the flu.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

[timberline742]

It also very much be that there isn't one yearly vaccine, but there will be several that a curated toward different groups with different risk factors... age, pre-existing conditions, etc. Still, this is excellent news overall. Of course there will still be some hiccups, that's almost inevitable, but that's ok.

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Impressive sample sizes. You, of course, don't need sample sizes near that large for statistically significant (or even highly significant) results, depending on the variance. But its good to see.


The question is, to me (and I'm sure others), is how well these test populations mirror demographically the general population. That has, in the past, tripped up some studies (I'm not saying specifically vaccine studies, but medical studies in general).

So my sample size isn't remotely statistically significant, but when the Moderna trial first came out I shared how to register on Facebook. While I'm disappointed that I wasn't selected, 5 friends who saw my post and commented/kept me updated did. They range from age 35 to 68, 4 women and 1 man, and 3 are cancer survivors. 2 are Black, 1 is mixed race, and two are white (one Ashkenazi Jewish). Like I said, super small group but relatively diverse with a range of complicating factors.


The youngest who was enrolled in the trial expressed that she had a really robust immune response to whatever she got. She was knocked out on her couch for 2 days. She feels fairly convinced that she got the actual vaccine versus the placebo. Of course, the big concern is that if the vaccine makes you feel like crap for a day or two that the antivaxers will have more ammunition.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

So my sample size isn't remotely statistically significant, but when the Moderna trial first came out I shared how to register on Facebook. While I'm disappointed that I wasn't selected, 5 friends who saw my post and commented/kept me updated did. They range from age 35 to 68, 4 women and 1 man, and 3 are cancer survivors. 2 are Black, 1 is mixed race, and two are white (one Ashkenazi Jewish). Like I said, super small group but relatively diverse with a range of complicating factors.

I am not particularly concerned about the diversity in term of race or age. I am concerned about the diversity in term of behavior.
How many of these people were really good at social distancing, washing hands, wearing masks and so on? I would assume much more than the general population and we know very well that masks and social distancing are effective.
So the 90% efficacy could be lower. How much lower is the question.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

The youngest who was enrolled in the trial expressed that she had a really robust immune response to whatever she got. She was knocked out on her couch for 2 days. She feels fairly convinced that she got the actual vaccine versus the placebo. Of course, the big concern is that if the vaccine makes you feel like crap for a day or two that the antivaxers will have more ammunition.

Not just antivaxers, but it will be at odds with human nature. Younger people at minimal risk are not going to be inclined to get a vaccine that hits them harder than the actual virus. Much of this demographic has already proven that they do not see the big picture for the greater good. Universities and K-12 will probably mandate vaccination. Not sure how you are going to ensure good coverage with unaffiliated young adults though.

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Not just antivaxers, but it will be at odds with human nature. Younger people at minimal risk are not going to be inclined to get a vaccine that hits them harder than the actual virus. Much of this demographic has already proven that they do not see the big picture for the greater good. Universities and K-12 will probably mandate vaccination. Not sure how you are going to ensure good coverage with unaffiliated young adults though.

It should still be OK as more people get vaccinated (or catch it...) it will be that much more difficult for it to spread. But you are right there will be outbreaks.