Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A couple of good things about the Moderna vaccine, beside the high efficacy rate, is that it only needs to be stored at -20°C (-4°F), like a typical normal freezer and it can be kept for 30 days in the refrigerator, where Pfizer's vaccine can last only five days in the refrigerator.
I've been wondering how they test the effectiveness of a new vaccine. Do they intentionally expose all subjects, vaccine and placebo, to the virus, to see if they get it? That seems like the only real way to test effectiveness, but probably not ethical. Do they tell subjects to go out and about, ignoring precautions on distancing, etc., to see if they get it? Or do they let them take the same precautions many of us might take, which doesn't really test the the vaccine to a great extent because you can't tell if avoidance behavior or the vaccine keeps them from getting sick?
Cohabitation with a dog is a strong risk factor. Not surprising since the virus easily jumped from humans to dogs, cats, and even zoo animals. It initially jumped species to get to us.
People looked at me like I grew a second head when I told my kids to avoid dogs that run up to them at the park because the mutts could be virus carriers, but I knew the mention of dogs as vectors was being suppressed because they didn't want a wave of abandoned pets.
The difference with dogs and other pets is that dog owners typically let their dog run up to other dogs, strangers, etc, and collect viruses, while other pets are usually kept under better control, or just aren't as social in general (cats)
I've been wondering how they test the effectiveness of a new vaccine. Do they intentionally expose all subjects, vaccine and placebo, to the virus, to see if they get it? That seems like the only real way to test effectiveness, but probably not ethical. Do they tell subjects to go out and about, ignoring precautions on distancing, etc., to see if they get it? Or do they let them take the same precautions many of us might take, which doesn't really test the the vaccine to a great extent because you can't tell if avoidance behavior or the vaccine keeps them from getting sick?
I'm in a Phase 3 clinical trial for AZD1222 the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine. No, it's not a human challenge study where they will knowing infect people with the virus (after they receive the vaccine or placebo), although that would definitely speed up the results.
Of course they don't want people in the trial that are hermits, that never go out, work from home and don't really interact with anybody. They didn't tell me to be "unsafe", they said do whatever I'm doing now, whether it's wearing a mask in public or not, washing my hands or not, social distancing or not, continuing doing whatever it is.
Take the Pfizer study for instance, I think they enrolled 44,000 or so participants since July, half got the vaccine and half got the placebo, and it took what, 4+ months to get about 100 or so people to catch the virus, out of the 44,000.
That's why they try and use so many people, especially in locations with high case numbers, to try and speed up the process.
I've been wondering how they test the effectiveness of a new vaccine. Do they intentionally expose all subjects, vaccine and placebo, to the virus, to see if they get it? That seems like the only real way to test effectiveness, but probably not ethical. Do they tell subjects to go out and about, ignoring precautions on distancing, etc., to see if they get it? Or do they let them take the same precautions many of us might take, which doesn't really test the the vaccine to a great extent because you can't tell if avoidance behavior or the vaccine keeps them from getting sick?
They randomly split people between those who get the vaccine and those who get the placebo. So both groups will have people who stay home all the time, average people, and people who take a lot of risks. If there is enough community transmission in the area where recruited people live, enough people will become infected, and then they’ll be able to compare both groups to find out how much the vaccine helped reduce infections.
This is why all companies stress the need to test the vaccine in areas where there is a lot of community transmission, otherwise it might take too long to get enough data. Right now that’s not much of an issue in most of the western world.
Back on September 11th the IHME model was projecting 3,000 daily deaths by December 1st. Today they are projecting 1,534 daily deaths by December 1st and even that may end up being a high projection. At least things aren't as bad as the experts were projecting back in September or we would be seeing nearly double the daily deaths right now.
Has there been any more news concerning widespread antibody studies to determine the percentage of the population that has been exposed in various areas? Months ago this was touted as a big issue, and IIRC back in April studies showed that 23-25% of New York City residents had tested positive for antibodies. That has to be far higher now-but I haven't been able to find any information, in spite of a fair amount of web searching.
Also, is there any more refined information concerning the necessary number for herd immunity? Months ago there was a good bit of conversation concerning a combination of T-cell immunity and antibody-based immunity. The hypothesis is that due to the combination of the two-"actual" herd immunity rates might be in the 20-25% range based only on antibody testing, rather than the 60% plus rate per 1-1/R0. Again, it's been months since I've read anything about that, but the drop in infections in NYC seemed to support that hypothesis. Granted, NY state at least is currently spiking, like most of the rest of the world. Not sure if that entire hypothesis has been discounted by now.
I remain disgusted with our MSM "news" reporting of Covd. While it dominates the news and is pushed with FUD, actual news, concerning the above issues is not covered. Even the basics that people need to know (say how long between exposure to an infected person and when you will test positive/be infectious/show symptoms) isn't well covered. Or even what the process and cost is to get tested. Oh well, expecting useful info from the MSM has never been reasonable.
Has there been any more news concerning widespread antibody studies to determine the percentage of the population that has been exposed in various areas? Months ago this was touted as a big issue, and IIRC back in April studies showed that 23-25% of New York City residents had tested positive for antibodies. That has to be far higher now-but I haven't been able to find any information, in spite of a fair amount of web searching.
Also, is there any more refined information concerning the necessary number for herd immunity? Months ago there was a good bit of conversation concerning a combination of T-cell immunity and antibody-based immunity. The hypothesis is that due to the combination of the two-"actual" herd immunity rates might be in the 20-25% range based only on antibody testing, rather than the 60% plus rate per 1-1/R0. Again, it's been months since I've read anything about that, but the drop in infections in NYC seemed to support that hypothesis. Granted, NY state at least is currently spiking, like most of the rest of the world. Not sure if that entire hypothesis has been discounted by now.
I remain disgusted with our MSM "news" reporting of Covd. While it dominates the news and is pushed with FUD, actual news, concerning the above issues is not covered. Even the basics that people need to know (say how long between exposure to an infected person and when you will test positive/be infectious/show symptoms) isn't well covered. Or even what the process and cost is to get tested. Oh well, expecting useful info from the MSM has never been reasonable.
The cdc recently released their final numbers from August serosurveys. Back then, the Midwest was 2% infected, the west was 5%, and the east coast was between 5 and 20%
Unfortunately, based on that survey, the regional breakdown still holds most of the country around 10-15% infected. ND and SD are showing that the virus will, if left unchecked in cold weather, infect at least 40% of the population before peaking, and likely 60-70% before diminishing to background levels.
If this wave isn't stopped by the half measures being implemented now (and I don't think it will), or by people locking themselves down out of fear, we are likely to see anywhere from 2X to 5X the number of daily infections we have today within 2 weeks, and at least a month of hell before rates naturally fall off.
Then again, I've thought the same about each previous wave, so what do I know? I think I've said this before, but "this time feels different": the asymptotic rises are sharper, the increases are more universal.
On the other hand, europe seemed to flatten their curve sooner than I'd expect from their lockdowns, so maybe our wave will flatten as well...
Cohabitation with a dog is a strong risk factor. Not surprising since the virus easily jumped from humans to dogs, cats, and even zoo animals. It initially jumped species to get to us.
People looked at me like I grew a second head when I told my kids to avoid dogs that run up to them at the park because the mutts could be virus carriers, but I knew the mention of dogs as vectors was being suppressed because they didn't want a wave of abandoned pets.
The difference with dogs and other pets is that dog owners typically let their dog run up to other dogs, strangers, etc, and collect viruses, while other pets are usually kept under better control, or just aren't as social in general (cats)
Eh, the study was sort of empty, basically it was a study to say there is evidence to have a study.
It basically said there is no evidence either way, just a casual relationship, for all we know, dog owners have a higher risk due to them being outside more, more in contact with other owners, than someone without a dog, and has nothing to do with the dog itself. Or, it could be a dog can carry it, but the study does not come to any conclusion, it just says there is evidence to study it more.
Such a study also could come to the same conclusion regarding shoes, strollers, purses, etc. Establishing a relationship, but nothing else.
I have seen how many dog owners been acting since this virus began, being at home they are outside a lot more, in some places in the world, one of the ways a person could go outside was to walk the dog, to the point they had "rent a dog" programs for people to rent a dog so they could go outside. It really is no surprise that dog owners, a group who is outside a lot and comes into contact a lot more with the general public, have a higher risk for getting infected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dogs Spread Covid?
