The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
White House Prods FDA Into Approving Vaccine
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From iSteve on Thursday evening:

So the FDA panel voted 17 to 4 with one abstention to approve the Pfizer vaccine. But that still isn’t official FDA approval, which is expected to come “within days.” (Why not tonight? Does the FDA brass have something more important on their schedules?)

From the New York Times Friday morning:

Covid-19 Live Updates: F.D.A. Expected to Issue Pfizer Vaccine Authorization on Friday Evening

The accelerated timeline comes after President Trump’s chief of staff threatened the F.D.A. head’s job if he didn’t get it done on Friday. The Trump Administration will buy another 100 million doses of Moderna vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration accelerated its timeline for issuing an emergency authorization for Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine after President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, the agency’s leader, to consider looking for another job if the vaccine was not approved Friday, according to a senior administration official.

Regulators had been planning to authorize the vaccine for emergency use early Saturday. But on Friday morning, Dr. Hahn told officials at the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to act by the end of the day, according to one person familiar with his directive.

It is unclear whether shaving a half-day off the timetable for authorization would speed up the delivery of vaccine shipments to sites around the country or simply placate the White House’s desire for action. Several officials said that the delivery timetable was already set.

The pressure also did not alter the outcome of the process. F.D.A. had already determined it would approve Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency authorization after an advisory panel of experts on Thursday recommended that it do so, according to multiple administration officials.

But it nonetheless showed that even at the 11th hour, the White House was unwilling to allow regulators the independence to work according to their own plan as they processed key documents, including instructions to physicians for use of the vaccine and a fact sheet on the product.

Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2, Trump had spent the final 18 hours before the election boasting nonstop about the vaccine, and that had flipped 1 out of every 300 votes, giving Trump a 269-269 Electoral College tie and likely victory with House delegations voting by state? The mainstream media would be screaming right now about how nobody can trust Pfizer’s vaccine pseud0-science.

You can understand why Pfizer shut down lab work on the World’s Most Important Trial from late October until the day after the election, when it discovered belatedly that it had more cases on hand than it had specified for the first, second, and even third interim analyses.

From the New York Times Friday evening:

F.D.A. Clears Pfizer Vaccine, and Millions of Doses Will Be Shipped Right Away
An initial shipment of about 2.9 million doses of the vaccine will be sent around the United States over the next week.

By Katie Thomas, Sharon LaFraniere, Noah Weiland, Abby Goodnough and Maggie Haberman
Dec. 11, 2020, 9:10 p.m. ET

The Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use on Friday, according to three people with knowledge of the decision who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. The action means millions of highly vulnerable people will begin receiving the vaccine within days.

These vaccinations should start lowering the death rate around Biden’s inauguration day, if it takes 14 days for the first dose to start working at reducing infections, and then there’s a 22 day lag on average between infections and subsequent deaths, that sounds like the good effect will kick in about January 20. Expect coverage of how President Biden is already saving lives around January 21.

In other vaccine news, Britain’s AstraZeneca will be teaming up with Russia’s Sputnik V in a clinical trial. The highly touted Oxford-designed vaccine reported mediocre results for most of the sample (62% efficacy) but serendipitously botched its way to 90% efficacy among a subsample who had incompetently been given a first dose only half as strong as planned. The Russians claim 92% efficacy in a small clinical trial. The Russians use two different vectors for their two doses, which sounds in theory like it might work better than the Brits’ original plan of using the same vector twice. Here’s a Russian tweet from a few weeks that the Brits have picked up upon:

The Anglo-Russian alliance is now considering making one dose the Russian vaccine and one the British vaccine, or some other combinations.

Can you imagine if Trump had won what the media would be saying about Trump’s Vaccine and Putin’s Vaccine?

And from StatNews, bad news on the French Sanofi vaccine trial that is reminiscent of the AstraZeneca screw-up:

Sanofi suffers major setback in development of a Covid-19 vaccine
By HELEN BRANSWELL @HelenBranswellDECEMBER 11, 2020

… The problem relates to inadequate results in older adults in Sanofi’s Phase 1/2 trial, which the company traced back to an inadequate formulation of their vaccine, Su-Peing Ng, global medical head for Sanofi Vaccines, told STAT in an interview.

Ng said both Sanofi and GSK are committed to continuing work on the vaccine, and plan to begin a Phase 2b trial in February.

“We’re disappointed that there is a delay,” she said. “I think, though, that we’re encouraged that we have enough information, enough of the results from preclinical and clinical [studies] to tell us that we have a path forward. We need to optimize this formulation.”

In effect, participants in the trial received too little vaccine. While the too-small dose generated adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies in adults aged 18 to 49 in the trial, adults 60 and older generated lower levels of neutralizing antibodies than are seen in the blood of people who have recovered from Covid-19 infection, Ng said.

Perplexed by the findings, the company set out to figure out why the vaccine underperformed. It discovered two commercial reagents used to measure how much antigen — active vaccine — was included in each dose were giving false readings. In fact, Ng said, the concentration of the antigen “was insufficient.”

Much the same thing happened to AstraZeneca’s vaccine, except their botch turned out to work better.

Because it will be harder to get volunteers in 2021 for trials with a 50% chance of getting a placebo, Sanofi is inquiring if it can do a clinical trial versus one of the mRNA vaccines that are 95% efficacious.

 
Hide 200 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Anglo-Russian alliance is now considering making one dose the Russian vaccine and one the British vaccine, so some other combinations.

    When AstraZeneca and Sputnik announced their results some weeks ago, the Sputnik people gently needled AstraZeneca with a tweet.

    Looks like it was taken in a can-do spirit.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @PiltdownMan

    Thanks.

    , @annon
    @PiltdownMan

    Have you and Steve though about the implications of this?

    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.

    1)Antibodies are temporary

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.

    What vectors will they use next year? This is a disaster.

    PS Steve: Your characterization of the "southern wave" as a "second wave" is so anti-scientific that it borders on retarded.

    Please google Dr Hope-Simpson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8D7Gnq0TE

    WTF is wrong with you? Get a grip.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

  2. >does the FDA brass have something more important on their schedules?

    I don’t know, Steve, are there viruses with something worse than a 99% survival rate?

    • Troll: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @J.Ross

    Not according to CNN.

  3. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Killer of 3+ people in Australia gets parole after taking on new identity as a woman.

    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/secrets-aliases-of-notorious-serial-killer-regina-arthurell-revealed/news-story/90351dbdcfb0d1ee7f5af9c9cdc59f59

    So is this hypermasculine guy discovers he always was a female, or just a guy with multiple aliases trying a new, female one on in order to get one more shot at frredom?

    • Replies: @Dan Smith
    @Anonymous

    The guy wore a wig and the dress of one his victims. Did he do taxidermy? I think Hitchcock covered this.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous

    There are about ten "sanity points" that distinguish sane, traditional, civilizationally-capable societies from sick ones.

    That you protect your border and keep foreigners out is obviously #1.

    Executing, expelling or locking up criminals is another one.

    Knowing that there are two different--complementary--sexes, is apparently another one.

    Replies: @lavoisier

  4. The Pfizer study ran for 4 months with 20,000 in the placebo group and about 170 of them contracted coronavirus, which is less than a 1% infection rate in the control arm of the study during the 4 month trial.. So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months, vaccinating 3 million could prevent 30,000 from contracting COVID over the next few months.

    if the vaccine is 100% effective in the 3 million who get inoculated this month it will prevent about 20,000 to 30,000 cases of COVID and if we assume a fatality rate of 2% it will save about 500 lives over the next 4 months.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    "So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months"

    I thought we were practically to herd immunity already?

    Replies: @Federalist

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

  5. Spanish Flu (1918-19) killed at least 50 million people out of the
    global population of 1.8 billion. By comparison, Covid-19 so far has
    killed only 1.6 million out of the total population of 7.8 billion, and yet it’s
    treated like a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Have we become
    so psychologically fragile that we can’t even deal with a minor
    amount of extra suffering? Well, we’re living in the Great Age of
    Pandemics. As the population explosion continues, there will be
    more pandemics and more suffering coming our way, so we’d
    better get ready

    • Replies: @ken
    @Anon 2

    Think about the world in which we live, if you quote scripture it's hate speech. If Ann Coulter speaks to a couple of hundred students at a 25,000 student university the school needs to create safe spaces. If a black junkie dies while being restrained by the police half the world protests. We have been softened to the point that we no longer have a rational gauge of pain and suffering. The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures. With most COVID deaths involving older/health compromised individuals you'd think they'd be wanting the bug to spread. Think about it, after the initial die off there would be less strees on the healthcare system and personally I'd prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.

    Replies: @utu, @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Anon 2

    Astute comment! The species homo sapiens sapiens is the ideal population for organisms causing communicable diseases: large numbers of hosts in the first place, who increasingly crowd together in megacities. The COVID-19 overreaction is likely a prelude to hysteria over future communicable diseases.

  6. @Travis
    The Pfizer study ran for 4 months with 20,000 in the placebo group and about 170 of them contracted coronavirus, which is less than a 1% infection rate in the control arm of the study during the 4 month trial.. So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months, vaccinating 3 million could prevent 30,000 from contracting COVID over the next few months.

    if the vaccine is 100% effective in the 3 million who get inoculated this month it will prevent about 20,000 to 30,000 cases of COVID and if we assume a fatality rate of 2% it will save about 500 lives over the next 4 months.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    “So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months”

    I thought we were practically to herd immunity already?

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @Steve Sailer


    “So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months”

    I thought we were practically to herd immunity already?
     
    15 days to flatten the curve.
  7. But that still isn’t official FDA approval, which is expected to come “within days.” (Why not tonight? Does the FDA brass have something more important on their schedules?)

    Maybe they’re busy making Tik-Tok videos.

  8. @Travis
    The Pfizer study ran for 4 months with 20,000 in the placebo group and about 170 of them contracted coronavirus, which is less than a 1% infection rate in the control arm of the study during the 4 month trial.. So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months, vaccinating 3 million could prevent 30,000 from contracting COVID over the next few months.

    if the vaccine is 100% effective in the 3 million who get inoculated this month it will prevent about 20,000 to 30,000 cases of COVID and if we assume a fatality rate of 2% it will save about 500 lives over the next 4 months.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    Let’s reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven’t died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we’ll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    • LOL: Polynikes
    • Troll: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    , @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    100 million have already recovered from COVID and many people have natural immunity to it. If another 100 million Americans contract COVID over the next year we would expect under 300,000 additional deaths because treatments have gotten much better. we would also reach heard immunity if another 100 million Americans contract COVID and the pandemic would be over.

    to suggest that 2 million Americans would die from COVID without a vaccine is preposterous at this point. The many vaccine trials confirm the very low fatality rate observed in the placebo groups. There was no second wave in New York because 33% the population already recovered from COVID by June. While not at the level of heard immunity, when a third of the people of an area have already recovered the spread is dramatically reduced , eliminating the possibility of a large second wave of deaths.

    It is good news that we have some effective vaccines, and if most of the Americans at risk of COVID get the vaccine it will may save 100,000 lives over the next year. The vast majority of Americans are not at risk of dying from this virus, for people under the age of 49 (200 million Americans) the risk is similar to the flu.

    Replies: @utu, @S. Anonyia

    , @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    You have “dread fear” and have completely lost it.

    It’s embarrassing to see such an incredibly thoughtful person spout such nonsense.

    An egregious example is your ongoing conflation of infection numbers and number of immune people.

    Do you not understand that cross-immunity is the source of the very concept of vaccination!?

    T cell immunity denier!

    This is sad to watch.

    , @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @Steve Sailer

    The CDC calculated that 54 million Americans had recovered from COVID back in September, and by now close to 100 million Americans have recovered. The case fatality rate is about .3% this year. It has been falling as hospitals get better at treating this virus and is about .2% now.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939365087/government-model-suggests-u-s-covid-19-cases-could-be-approaching-100-million

    The case fatality rate never approached 1%. Even in NYC which was the hardest hit area back in April, antibody testing demonstrated that 33% of New Yorkers had the antibodies by May, and the case fatality rate never exceeded .4% in New York City. Two different antibody studies , one done by NY state and one done by Stanford confirm this.
    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/09/few-americans-have-coronavirus-antibodies-study-finds.html

    , @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve, Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco's comments about your calculation are spot on.

    The virus has been floating around a lot, and probably as early as a year ago December. Cuomo took the credit for "flattening" the curve, but the virus did that without consulting him, infecting a whole bunch of people, with probably half of the 40,000 or so dead in NY due to putting infected 90 year old Mabel back into the home, and consigning her housemates to the morgue.

    As Hernan said, when all is said and done, the IFR PRE-vaccine is going to come in at around .2%

    Bottom line? Unless you have a vaccine AT THE START, the virus is simply going to run through the population no matter what theatrical nonsense you do as you pretend that such theatrics might stop it or slow it down. We won't do this, no or should we, but if we did nothing at all now, we'd likely see this whole thing die down after this winter just by natural selection.

    Meanwhile, we of course need to ask who's dying? Not people in the prime of their lives, or healthy people. It's easy to find the purported demos -- older, already heath compromised individuals. Obese blacks and Hispanics with uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes.

    Really, this may sound callous, but do need to bring the entire economic and social fabric to a screeching halt for this demographic? Really?

    Meanwhile, isn't it interesting that we are no longer seeing large flu numbers?

    Let's put what happening into a historical perspective.

    In 1957-58 Asian flu, we had a population of 172 million. Estimates are around 116,000 people died. That's a per capita fatality rate of 0.06%. And the population was younger, skinnier, lots more White, and everybody smoked. Did we lock down? Wear masks? Destroy the economy and the lives of millions of normal people along with it? Um, no, we did fucking bupkus. People continued to live.

    In the 1968 flu, we lost 100,000 people out of population of 197 million (though it could be lower, but let's stick with the higher number) a per capita fatality rate of .05%. Didn't do a whole lot of social distancing there.

    In those days, people shrugged their shoulders and moved on. No one expected medicine to save you.

    Today we're at around 300,000 deaths in a population of 328 million -- that makes for per capita fatality rate of .08%. And we're fatter, older, have a larger Black population proportionally with really bad health habits along with a huge swath of immigrant lower class Hispanics who aren't religiously following the Mediterranean diet. Even if we got to 500,000 deaths -- which could be more or less peak level sans vaccine ANYway -- then the per capita death rate would be .15%.

    And that assumes we can even TRUST these latest numbers. How many deaths were incorrectly ascribed to the Wuhan? We do know that hospitals have the incentive to "miscode."

    Anyway, all of this stuff may eventually be unknowable, but here is what we DO know. Wuhan is bad, but not so bad that we destroy the lives of 10% to 15% of the population in doing a whole range of stupid things in reaction to the deaths of less than one half of one percent of the population, many of whom are five years away from dying ANYWAY.

    On top of that, it's gives a golden opportunity to our wannabe Stalinist politicians, who pretend it's oh-so-awful but have the biggest hard on in the history of mankind, camouflaging with earnest concern their glee at making the population docile.

    Maybe five years from now we will look back on this sorry episode and rue what we have done. Maybe, but somehow, I doubt it.

  9. These vaccinations should start lowering the death rate around Biden’s inauguration day, if it takes 14 days for the first dose to start working at reducing infections, and then there’s a 22 day lag on average between infections and subsequent deaths, that sounds like the good effect will kick in about January 20. Expect coverage of how President Biden is already saving lives around January 21.

    I’m sure the Biden administration will have a plan for stopping the plague that Trump just couldn’t beat. The Biden CDC and NIAID will mandate that a Ct of only 25 be used on PCR tests. That’ll cut “infections” by a considerable amount.

    • Agree: Hippopotamusdrome
  10. @PiltdownMan

    The Anglo-Russian alliance is now considering making one dose the Russian vaccine and one the British vaccine, so some other combinations.
     
    When AstraZeneca and Sputnik announced their results some weeks ago, the Sputnik people gently needled AstraZeneca with a tweet.

    https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/status/1330869140358377472?s=20


    Looks like it was taken in a can-do spirit.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @annon

    Thanks.

  11. Anonymous[768] • Disclaimer says:

    You can understand why Pfizer shut down lab work on the World’s Most Important Trial from late October until the day after the election, when it discovered belatedly that it had more cases on hand than it had specified for the first, second, and even third interim analyses.

    Uh, no, I don’t understand. What is the explanation?

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
    @Anonymous

    It might have been bad for their business if they would have been perceived to have done something that could have helped Hit... erm, Trump.

    Tldr: The business of business is business.

  12. Has Israel come through with a vaccine? They are cutting edge in pharma and technology.

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  13. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    • Troll: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve that's laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That's the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn't.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don't? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @JR Ewing, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon

    , @BenKenobi
    @Steve Sailer

    "anti-maskers cause lockdowns"

    "people who don't like being wet cause rain"

    Steve...

    Replies: @ken

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Steve Sailer



    the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks

     

    Sigh.
    Just shelter in place two weeks to flatten the curve.
    Just lockdown for 30 days to slow the spread.
    Just wear a mask for one, maybe two months to get the virus under control. Ok, actually Biden says 100 days.
    Just get a vaccine...


    Dr. Fauci Says When We'll Get Back to "Some Sort of Normality"
    ...
    just because you're vaccinated does not mean that you should abandon all public health measures. The vaccine is a complement, not a substitute.
    ...
    If we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine and you have on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year

     

    Note the legalese fine print lawer talk. IF conditions, we COULD START getting back to a RELATIVE normal.

    Only IF an "overwhelming" majority, not just a mere majority get vaxxed, else the deals off.

    AND only IF the vaxx is "effective", else the deals off.

    Even then we COULD get back to normal, so it's not even a guarantee.

    Even then it's we will START to get back to normal.

    And it's not even normal, it's "relative" normal.

    Would you sign a contract with those conditions?

    I do not think we will be done with the pandemic at all.


    Social distancing, masks still necessary after getting COVID-19 vaccine: Fauci

    “I would recommend to people to not to abandon all public health measures just because you’ve been vaccinated,” Fauci told CNN anchor Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
    ...
    “I can feel more relaxed in essentially not having the stringency that we have right now, but I think abandoning it completely would not be a good idea"

     

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Steve Sailer


    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.
     
    Is that an old market survey trick? Putting only two choices in the question? "Would you prefer Brand X, which will rot your teeth and give you pimples, or would you rather try our new-and-improved Brand Y?" (Leaving out Brands A through W, plus Z.)

    There are (or were) choices other than vaccine vs. lockdown.

    Vaccines are fine BTW, especially after they have had the chance to prove long-term safety.

    No lockdown would have been the right choice, in terms of real cost to lives and livelihoods. Protecting the vulnerable would have been the right choice, while developing vaccines on a normal timetable.

    Hell, this thing might have run its course through us by now, had we not locked down, but that's not part of your survey, is it? That's not what you're selling.

    Replies: @John Achterhof

    , @anon
    @Steve Sailer

    The anti-vaxers will fortunately have no impact on the speed of arriving at herd immunity. Because 100% of available vaccine will be used as soon as possible. And this will abate as a problem well before supply of vaccines exceed demand.

    People who opt out of taking the vaccine their earliest opportunity are just choosing to join what is effectively the placebo group of our great 'natural experiment'. They will make their contribution to herd immunity the old fashioned way. By contracting the disease. So there are no 'free riders' until herd immunity is reached.

    I can't see this lasting beyond 100 million vaccines. By which time most of those in the vulnerable age ranges will be vaccinated if they chose.

    , @Old and Grumpy
    @Steve Sailer

    I am against both the mandatory vaccines and lockdowns. Heck I live where lockdowns are just an abstract notion. Should have let both the bug and people run free in the spring and summer months. The sun could have done its thing, and we would have hopefully be done with Covid. People will be hurt by the vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies know they can't profit from the vaccines without immunity from liability. Finally who paid for the creation of this bug? Shouldn't we ask before taking a new kind of vaccine, which has no years of tradition testing behind it?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    I am not against the vaccine, and believe they will save lives and get us to heard immunity by the Spring. I oppose the continued lockdowns here in New Jersey, because they are not effective and should have ended in May when the curve was flattened. (which was the justification for the lockdowns) Back in March the lockdowns seemed like a good idea to flatten the curve. By May the curve was flattened so they should opened the beaches, parks, businesses etc...

    The evidence demonstrates that the lockdowns failed here. The lockdown began March 12, when most of the schools were closed. Masks were made mandatory by the Governor on April 2, but all the stores had already mandated masks by the middle of March.

    The Lockdowns here had no effect on the spread of COVID. Hospitalizations peaked 30 days after the lockdowns began, All the stores required masks by March 15th. Yet hospitalizations peaked April 17th and deaths peaked April 19th. There is no evidence that the lockdowns worked. The virus ran rampant thru the population quickly despite the lockdowns and mandated mask wearing imposed by our Governor. We now know the incubation period for COVID is an average of 5 days. Peak hospital admissions was from April 12-17 when 600 per day were being hospitalized. these people were infected between April 5-April 10 which was 21 days after the lockdowns began. 4 weeks after the lockdowns started cases were peaking in New Jersey. Despite the failure of the lockdowns the governor extended them for months after the curve was flattened.

    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @Steve Sailer

    "But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners."

    You sound like a battered, domestically violenced woman, Sailer. Ooh, maybe if I don't upset my abuser, he will stop abusing me, I don't want to make him angrier than he already is.

    Faggot.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.
     
    Sure, just like how taking the war to "The Terrorists" by invading Afghanistan and Iraq meant that we could dispense with all that intrusive security like the TSA and the Star-ID drivers license (without which you will need a passport for a lot of travel within the United States - just like in the old Soviet Union) and such. I remember when they dissolved the Department of Homeland Security back in 2005 as no longer being needed. And how the NSA stopped surveiling everyone in 2008 because we were all safe.

    You're getting awfully naive in your old age, Steve. Government never gives up power. And this pandemic is part of the same racket as 911.
    , @J.Ross
    @Steve Sailer

    There's no logic here. The lockdown was a criminal mistake made and worsened without reference to medicine or fact. The gutting of the restaurant industry is a way of crushing small business and punishing people for votimg for Trump, not a medical safeguard, certainly not in light of the almost non-existence of restaurant infection or the permitting of airplanes and airport bars. We have no reason to expect that our persecuting masters will relent if we do what they say.

    , @Thoughts
    @Steve Sailer

    We're at different points in our life. You've already had kids.

    I am not done with the project of creating a family, so the idea of injecting myself with some substance that could put an end-to-that-real-fast (or delay it...which means less kids) is far worse than a disease that won't kill me, and masks...although financially lockdowns are the worst things ever

    "The number of days the men experienced fever significantly affected their semen parameters. Thus fever during meiosis and spermiogenesis reduced sperm concentration with respectively 7.1% (–12.9; –0.9) and 8.5% (–13.6; –3.0) per day of fever."

    So really it's between Steve who has finished his creating a family project, versus Those Who Have Not


    Babies >>> Old People

    Always (especially if mandatory vax talk is real)

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Kyle
    @Steve Sailer

    I wonder how long immunity lasts for?

  14. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?

    Thanks for any direct links.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Anon


    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

     

    Citation Needed. Ignoring that you should ignore anything the CDC has to say about infectious disease control, it's no longer fashionable in the US public health community, which is focused on "lifestyle" issues like banning Big Gulps and guns, I read Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination, and the only item that seemed relevant was "Does immunity after getting COVID-19 last longer than protection for COVID-19 vaccines?" which even in the title acknowledges they provide immunity. Inside, it's unequivocal, "Regarding vaccination, we won’t know how long immunity lasts until we have a vaccine and more data on how well it works." One would hope this gets updated early next week, but this is the CDC.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?
     
    In preventing symptomatic and "serious" COVID-19 infections. Pfizer/BioNTech however didn't get enough data on serious infections, it's claimed they didn't enroll a lot of older people compared to Moderna, which I'll check up on if and when the latter gets EUA approval.

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?
     
    First you have to not roll snake eyes and be in the 5% for whom the most effective vaccines don't work, or don't work completely. Which based on what I've been learning lately about our insanely complicated immune systems (so much so I decided in the mid-1970s to only learn about them "as needed"), might have more to do with the adaptive immune system's wild and crazy nature than it being "defective," but there will of course be people who's immune systems don't work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.

    At last count, based on what we were reading about the FDA's threshold for the very most minimal statistical significance for trials this big, Moderna was just about able to show proof their vaccine prevents serious illness. That might be carved out of their 5% failure rate for the primary Phase III "endpoints," their much more statistically significant results in stopping symptomatic COVID-19 infections. That is, both company's Phase III trials have a substantial degree of proof they'll prevent ~95% of the people who get them from getting symptomatic COVID-19 altogether.

    And we can reasonably hope the same for severe disease will prove true for Pfizer/BioNTech, but that has to wait on more data, probably from Phase IV, surveillance of the "post-marketing" experiences as its given to a lot of people outside of trials.

    If you're willing to make free use of a search engine to expand your vocabulary, a good start would be the protocols used by these two companies for tests, Pfizer/BioNTech for all three Phases, and Moderna for Phase III. Also see ClinicalTrials.gov which will give you the bare bones of all the trials (although I've read Phase I trials don't have to be reported to the government), and Wikipedia will give you many more vaccine candidates to search for, but not the Sanofi/GSK one. I would also hope other companies with a US presence will or have published their Phase III protocols; ignore the clown show of AZ/Oxford for now, but I'd be astounded if Janssen didn't have its act together, and Novavax might be interesting.

    For what these trials attempt to do, here's Wikipedia on clinical trials. TL;DR: All are about safety, but Phase I is focused on dosing, and Phase III is mostly about efficacy, their basic safety having already been demonstrated in Phase I and II. Now this is interesting, per ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) did a or the Moderna Phase I trial, and to more patients with more dosages than has been reported. Moderna Phase II here, and Phase III here. Note the first two will continue into late 2021, and the last will be a bit over two years at minimum. Wonder why new drugs cost so much? These trials are expensive, and there's lots of failures in Phase III.

    Then the best condensed overview of results needed for FDA EUA approval will be found in the meeting materials their Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) have or have scheduled, Pfizer/BioNTech two days ago, December 10th, and Moderna scheduled for the 17th. They're livecasting them if you're really hard core.

    The two documents you want to look at are "Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document - FDA", prepared by FDA staff for the committee, and "Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document - Sponsor" prepared by the company or companies asking for approval. There's none yet for Moderna, but for the Pfizer/BioNTech one, FDA staff, and sponsor.

    And please feel free to ask me about any questions you have, while I've decided to stop "fighting" in these iSteve topic comments for the most part, I'm continuing to follow them and for example answering honest questions like your's.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    , @Jack D
    @Anon

    The way any vaccine works is that it primes your immune system to recognize and attack a virus. Say someone with a coronavirus infection coughs on you. The virus is now in your body and begins to infect your cells, whether or not you have been vaccinated. Your immune system always fights infection but before it can fight it it has to recognize that there is an intruder and then manufacture an antibody that is custom tailored to destroy that intruder (this is an amazing process, one of the true miracles of nature, but there has been a battle between living organisms and intruders for billions of years so the system has had plenty of time to evolve - if it didn't work most of the time, your species would be extinct). It takes a while to get this process going and in the meantime the virus has a head start. Your body is then in a race - will your immune system kill the virus before the virus infects millions of cells and makes you sick?

    If you have been vaccinated, your immune system is the one with the head start in the race. As soon as the virus is in you, your immune system recognizes, attacks and destroys it before it can infect many cells. It's like a fire sprinkler system in a building. Fire sprinklers don't prevent fires from starting. What they do is that they detect fires and put them out before they can cause a lot of damage. Depending on how good the vaccine and your body' response to it was, either you won't develop symptoms at all or you will experience only a mild case. (In rare cases the vaccine doesn't give you any benefit at all).

    "Covid" is defined as the disease, not the virus. So the short answer is yes, in most (95%) of cases, the vaccine will prevent you from have the disease. The disease and the symptoms are one and the same - the disease is defined as showing symptoms. As far as preventing the virus from being in your body, no it won't - that's not how vaccines work. They just allow your body's immune system to quickly kill the virus before it gets to the point where you will show symptoms.

    A currently unanswered question is whether, when you are in the phase where you are infected but your vaccinated body is in process of killing the virus, you can still spread it to others. My guess is that is may be possible hypothetically but it is unlikely to occur in real life. People who are well and truly in an infectious phase of covid shed millions of virus particles - this is why the disease is so contagious. Certain people at certain phases of the disease become superspreaders - they are just spewing virus all over the place. The vaccine probably means that your virus count will be extremely low if not zero even at your most infectious phase.

    If another person gets hit with only a few virus particles, even if he has not been vaccinated, his natural immune system is usually able to fend off the attack - it's only when millions of invaders arrive that the defenses are overwhelmed. This is one reason why some young healthy medical workers died, especially in the early phase of the disease before the need for PPE was understood - they were in close contact with highly infected patients and got big whiffs of the virus deep into their lungs. This is also part of the reason why masks are helpful - even if they are not 100% effective, they are going to greatly reduce the amount of virus that you inhale and you may experience a much milder case. A vaccinated person is not going to be a superspreader who is shedding million of particles.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Occasional lurker
    @Anon

    It prevents you from becoming symptomatic. But you still have it in your nose for a few days and could infect other people.

  15. Steve, since the Democrats just printed votes nothing Trump would have done or any event after mail in ballot harvesting could allow him to win. I called it — the Dems would just cheat. On a massive scale. Does anyone really think Joe Biden got more votes that OBAMA? Really? When Trump had 60,000 at his rallies and Biden had … six. As in six people total.

    So no, nothing would have changed. And the vaccine is meaningless. The lockdowns will NEVER end. Not ever. Until pretty much most Western governments are violently overthrown.

    One: the Tech Oligarchs and Wall Street want the “Great Reset” which requires destroying every vestige of small and medium sized businesses. The lockdowns were never about public health just destroying the old economy. So that Big Tech and Finance can push punishing declines on standards of living: eating bugs and drinking sewage and living under a bridge in a tent (for Whites) and pods (for non-Whites a bit better). This is the whole point: a Big Tech / Wall Street COMMAND economy.

    Two: the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns. They get to make people miserable, particularly around Christmas, and also posture on TV. Politicians live for rubbing the deplorables noses in excrement, its really the only thing that gives their lives meaning — making ordinary people miserable — and that’s a drug that can’t be kicked so lockdowns forever. Think Newsom does not want to be on TV every weekday? While frolicking in Maui or French Laundry on the weekends? That’s the whole point of his life.

    Three: lockdowns over the beer flu and whatever panic is cooked up next allows politicians to release criminals especially black ones to the delight of blacks and Nice White Ladies who never met a black thug that didn’t turn them on. So the Purge Movies being reality under lockdowns is going to keep them up forever.

    Four: There is not now and never was a serious threat to public health for those relatively healthy and below 75 in age. There are no emergency rooms overflowing or people dropping dead all over the place. That’s a lie. A lie like all the others from the media: Global Warming, the Oceans drying up, Rock records turning your kids into perverts, video games making them serial killers, and all the other moral panics a female driven society gets up to.

    Five: If you have not figured it out by now, you will be one of the first (along with Ron Unz) to be disappeared. You are straight, White, and male. Each one of these is a crime in and of itself, but all three combined are unforgivable and you certainly won’t be. Everyone else here will share the same fate sooner or later.

    Six: America is dead. Completely and absolutely. Even the idea and the memory of America is over. Its history, heroes, traditions, monuments, people are all gone. In its place is a grossly obese black female twerking in the face of dead America. Forever.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Whiskey


    the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns.
     
    For better or worse, there's this thing called federalism in the US. My state's governor is doing no such thing, and my county and city governments and the ones nearest to me are using a rather light touch, but there are capacity limitations imposed on businesses in my city.

    There are no emergency rooms overflowing
     
    Again, federalism, for 150 miles in all directions, in my Red state region, ER staff are spending hours on the phone finding beds to admit their COVID-19 patient into, and giving them inferior care in meantime, their not being really set up or specializing in that sort of thing. That counts as "overflowing" to me.

    And to quote the late Jerry Pournelle about your general theme, despair is a sin.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Nico, @Nico

  16. Anonymous[854] • Disclaimer says:

    Strange to read of a putative Russian/British Covid vaccine alliance.

    The British Deep State is unremittingly hostile to Russia and is always fighting very very hard to destroy the Russian government. If you don’t believe me, just read The Economist, the voice of the British Deep State. Yet, in this instance, we see a rare example of international cooperation between two hostile regimes.
    For the past five years, at least, the UK has been absolutely saturated bombarded by the most vicious incessant propaganda that the EU is so damned wonderful, and the only way nations can cooperate in science, technology, industry etc is under the aegis of full political union – that is, a federalist superstate, such as the EU is trying to build.

    These people are just so full of shit.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    It's almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

  17. Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2

    Kind of like that mysterious new account That Would Be Telling — you know the one you keep defending — didn’t use his big brain super logic and vast pool of knowledge to educate us benighted plebs via 30 comments per day about the undeniable efficacy of the upcoming Covid vaccines BEFORE the election?

    One would think this person would deign to enlighten us about all the wonderful things President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed was on track to accomplish, right? He or she or they/them has been posting here since May* . Yet they waited — like a shy wallflower — to reveal their incredible knowledge to the Unzitariat only after the first few days in November.

    This account is a classic case of “Hello fellow Unz-posters”

    A quick perusal of this account’s posting history:

    [MORE]

    May 15: first post implies nuking China is a proper response to Covid

    May 15 #2: Anon asks “is anyone a virologist?” Account replies “not as much as you or I would like.”

    May 22: Account agrees that HCQ is likely effective but won’t be accepted because Orange Man Bad.

    June 23: Account says President Trump is fully committed to replacing “us.” Blatant attempts at fitting in to board culture via lingo.

    June 26: Account makes unintelligible post about Mitt Romney. I can usually forgive typos and bad auto-correct but the post is gibberish.

    July 9: Account says President Trump doesn’t like “us” “White” “gun owners.”

    Sept 17: Account invokes “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”

    Oct 14: Account claims Trump failed covid response, offers to be Unz.com’s “gun culture correspondent.”

    Oct 14: Accounts first mention of OWS: “plus no vaccine approved by the FDA before the election; that probably wasn’t in the cards, but promises and the end results of Operation Warp Speed (making lots of doses from a number of promising candidates before we know if any work) won’t help him much on the 3rd.”

    Oct 18: Account gives gushing praise to Israeli commanders who held the Golan Heights

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @BenKenobi



    Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2

     

    Kind of like that mysterious new account That Would Be Telling — you know the one you keep defending — didn’t use his big brain super logic and vast pool of knowledge to educate us benighted plebs via 30 comments per day about the undeniable efficacy of the upcoming Covid vaccines BEFORE the election?
     
    That's because while I believed in the theory of mRNA vaccines, I didn't have anything really useful to say until Phase III trials started reporting that in real life they were effective, and then latter safe enough for FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) applications (based on data from one half of the Phase III trial vaccine arm populations being followed for two months, so November 20th and 30th).

    I'm by nature a scientist, in this domain empiricism is all important, and having other things to do it wasn't even worth doing much research on COVID-19 vaccines until we started getting reports from the Phase III trials, nor really diving into them until FDA approval, albeit of the limited EUA type.

    Which is not really all that limited in this pandemic, seeing as how tens of millions will be vaccinated before the FDA considers licensure for general populations. Which is typically based on (more) data being collected from these two year long Phase III trials, and here, unusually timed Phase IV post-marketing surveillance, what happens with all the people who start getting them ASAP outside of any trial.

    I'm normally on Unz.com to learn about stuff I don't have deep domain knowledge of, for COVID-19 while I still learn a great deal from iSteves postings and many commentators, I'm also here to comment and teach, and I appreciate iSteve welcoming me here. But I'm hardly new on the net using this nom de plume.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  18. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    Steve that’s laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That’s the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn’t.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don’t? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    • Agree: Hippopotamusdrome, Alden
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @Whiskey

    Didn’t China lockdown completely and contact traced everybody?

    NYC didn’t even lockdown. They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style. Movie theaters closed, Broadway, but most people wouldn’t go anyway.

    The subway is running.

    As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.

    My cousin’s box factory in Cleveland never shut down. His union leaders bitched at first but the workers have kept working.

    There really has never been a lockdown. People were already watching movies on Netflix, work from home was already theoretically possible, people ride the subway and walk through the park without masks and don’t get arrested. They may get a complaint from other people now and then. But I haven’t seen it.

    I know bartenders and waitresses. Chefs. Most still working.

    I’d say people hard hit include commercial real estate moguls. But that doesn’t fit the concept of this being a top down driven scam against the working class. This is just typical people running around reacting and government flailing away trying to look effective in a democracy.

    I assume your life hasn’t changed a bit. The worst complaints on here seem to be not being able to go to a gym. Or having to wear a mask in a store for a few minutes.

    Replies: @Peterike, @ken, @utu

    , @JR Ewing
    @Whiskey

    I agree. The vaccine is meaningless. People are getting excited over a "vaccine" for a disease that is very unlikely to be a danger to them unless they happen to be in some very specific demographic categories. For most people, meaning most of productive society, covid is and has always been a very minor risk. And definitely not a risk worth shutting down society for.

    The whole point of the overblown vaccine news now is to give politicians and the media a chance to walk back the panic without having to admit they were wrong. Without admitting they were wrong, the lockdown option lives on.

    The whole point of the lockdowns (however severe they may or may not have been) and the loyalty muzzles wasn't to stop the spread of the disease, it was to condition the people into accepting that society can be curtailed and the people controlled by indefinite edict alone. And most of the people have happily complied with no resistance.

    You didn't like the response to Chinese Flu? Just wait until you experience the new and improved response to climate change. Or racism. Or obesity. Or whatever "crisis" some politician decides needs to be foisted on you whenever we wants to flex his muscles. Welcome to our future.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Whiskey


    Steve that’s laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working- and middle-class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That’s the whole point and only point when you boil it down.
     
    Only in the United States, not in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Whiskey


    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn’t.
     
    I don't know that they really have information not available to the rest of us. Or that they necessarily know what to make of it - a lot of public officials aren't that bright (Exhibit A: Eric Swalwell). But your broader point is correct. THEY don't believe it. It's called hypocrisy, but that just means not doing what you advocate. You might not do something you advocate, even though you believe it, for convenience. But this is the dreaded 'Rona were talking about. This is a life-or-death matter. And still, THEY don't really believe it.

    And, as to the rest of your post.............Well said, Whiskey. This isn't about stopping a pandemic. This is about subjugating the World to the Will of a technocratic elite and their neo-feudal billionaire overlords.
  19. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    “anti-maskers cause lockdowns”

    “people who don’t like being wet cause rain”

    Steve…

    • Replies: @ken
    @BenKenobi

    In my world anti-maskers were trying to speed up herd immunity while Steve's been dancing around like a little child desperately trying to hold in their pee while he waits for his jab. Hopefully after his innoculation he'll go back to being interesting, but my guess is he will continue full Karen about us not getting a vaccine.

  20. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks

    Sigh.
    Just shelter in place two weeks to flatten the curve.
    Just lockdown for 30 days to slow the spread.
    Just wear a mask for one, maybe two months to get the virus under control. Ok, actually Biden says 100 days.
    Just get a vaccine…

    Dr. Fauci Says When We’ll Get Back to “Some Sort of Normality”

    just because you’re vaccinated does not mean that you should abandon all public health measures. The vaccine is a complement, not a substitute.

    If we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine and you have on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year

    Note the legalese fine print lawer talk. IF conditions, we COULD START getting back to a RELATIVE normal.

    Only IF an “overwhelming” majority, not just a mere majority get vaxxed, else the deals off.

    AND only IF the vaxx is “effective”, else the deals off.

    Even then we COULD get back to normal, so it’s not even a guarantee.

    Even then it’s we will START to get back to normal.

    And it’s not even normal, it’s “relative” normal.

    Would you sign a contract with those conditions?

    I do not think we will be done with the pandemic at all.

    [MORE]

    Social distancing, masks still necessary after getting COVID-19 vaccine: Fauci

    “I would recommend to people to not to abandon all public health measures just because you’ve been vaccinated,” Fauci told CNN anchor Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “I can feel more relaxed in essentially not having the stringency that we have right now, but I think abandoning it completely would not be a good idea”

    • Agree: Travis
  21. @J.Ross
    >does the FDA brass have something more important on their schedules?

    I don't know, Steve, are there viruses with something worse than a 99% survival rate?

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    Not according to CNN.

  22. @Anonymous
    Strange to read of a putative Russian/British Covid vaccine alliance.

    The British Deep State is unremittingly hostile to Russia and is always fighting very very hard to destroy the Russian government. If you don't believe me, just read The Economist, the voice of the British Deep State. Yet, in this instance, we see a rare example of international cooperation between two hostile regimes.
    For the past five years, at least, the UK has been absolutely saturated bombarded by the most vicious incessant propaganda that the EU is so damned wonderful, and the only way nations can cooperate in science, technology, industry etc is under the aegis of full political union - that is, a federalist superstate, such as the EU is trying to build.

    These people are just so full of shit.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    It’s almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Steve Sailer


    It’s almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.
     
    More like the manly Russians are more competent with this type of vaccine than the Strong Woman at Oxford who's in charge of their effort, their featured boffins being half female including her as well. Oh, and she's not at all dedicated to science as a career.

    In detail, Oxford's vaccine uses one chimp adenovirus vector, going with a different species in an attempt to get around the fact that many if not most adults will have immunity to many if not most human adenoviruses from previous bouts with "the common cold." And, some how, some way, the Oxford boffins, before AZ was in the picture, accidentally used a half dose for the first dose in a bunch of their test subjects.

    Later they observed these people had fewer side effects, and in the ensuing investigation found out the dosing error. Even later, while I believe not statistically strong, and also going from memory, they calculated a 90% or so efficacy for the ~1,800 people who got the half dose followed by the full dose pattern, whereas two full doses is down around 60%. Thus the insane and completely bogus blended claim of around 70% efficacy. So now they're effectively going to have to restart their Phase III trials using the half dose/full dose pattern, and see if that 90% proves to be true with enough people.

    Why this pattern? One of the best guesses is that too many people who get a full dose first gain a too strong brand new immune system response to the chimp virus itself, which zaps the followup dose. The Russians avoided this at a cost of some complexity and efficiency in manufacturing etc. by using two different human adenovirus vectors, one for each dose.

    Janssen, a unit of giant Johnson and Johnson, is in part trying to sidestep this issue with their high risk, only one dose, long term, high payoff if it works approach, they intend to vaccinate one billion people by the end of 2021. Something that sounds impossible in several dimensions for the mRNA vaccine companies, but who knows, they will be learning how to better make their vaccines. But real changes to their methods will require new FDA approvals, the FDA is very hard core about this, including site visits to their factories.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer


    It’s almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

     

    As usual, while we're going on about Russia, the Chinese are quietly inserting the blade they plan to twist some time in the future:

    Data security is not just a commercial problem for IVF clinics. The American government regards it as a national security issue. A CNBC report in October revealed that a Chinese company had been blocked from buying an IVF clinic in San Diego at some stage during the Trump Administration.

    CNBC asked John Demers, a security expert in the Department of Justice, to explain why the government had bothered with IVF clinics.

    “Your genetic material, your biological material, is among the most intimate information about you, who you are, what your vulnerabilities may be, what your illnesses have been in the past, what your family medical history is,” he responded. “The Chinese approach is to gather it now, and then figure out what to do with it later.”

    This leads to two important worries. First, China could use fertility clinic data to accumulate a database of biological information about Americans.

    “That can be used from a counterintelligence perspective to either coerce you or convince you to help the Chinese,” Demers said...

    Second, the information could be weaponised. “I’m not saying that we’ve seen this, but the worst case would be the development of some kind of biological weapon.”


    Unknown hackers break into database of fertility clinics
     

  23. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Is that an old market survey trick? Putting only two choices in the question? “Would you prefer Brand X, which will rot your teeth and give you pimples, or would you rather try our new-and-improved Brand Y?” (Leaving out Brands A through W, plus Z.)

    There are (or were) choices other than vaccine vs. lockdown.

    Vaccines are fine BTW, especially after they have had the chance to prove long-term safety.

    No lockdown would have been the right choice, in terms of real cost to lives and livelihoods. Protecting the vulnerable would have been the right choice, while developing vaccines on a normal timetable.

    Hell, this thing might have run its course through us by now, had we not locked down, but that’s not part of your survey, is it? That’s not what you’re selling.

    • Replies: @John Achterhof
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Your dim appreciation for the new vaccines, broadly shared here it seems, clearly stems from disagreement with the course taken to this point of significant social and economic cost in expectation of expedient vaccine development rather than an assessment of their value at this point, by all indication, in greatly diminishing the harm to health of infection and expediting the end of the pandemic. I get it, you don't want to be wrong. An assessment in hindsight of the course taken seems to me a mixed bag of bankruptcies, rioting and political lunacy on one side and limited infection and the drug companies coming through spectacularly on the other, but in any event in looking forward from here as the saying goes, What's done is done.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  24. Steve, I think you are overoptimistic in measuring the Dems’ patience (and that of their supporters).

    It won’t be January 21 that coverage of Biden “saving lives” starts: it will be in the inaugural address, which will inform the American public that St Anthony Fauci has confirmed that rates of Covid-19 infection and death started declining at precisely 12 noon eastern time.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Richard of Melbourne

    Indeed, it could be like how the release of the American hostages in Iran was delayed until Reagan was inaugurated.

    , @anon
    @Richard of Melbourne

    I've been predicting the 'Biden Miracle' for a while. But he has already announced his intention to call for 100 million shots in 100 days. Even though OWS plans to hit 100 million vaccinations in February.

    If you add in the current surge in reported cases, we are racking up over 1 million cases/day, assuming the actual to tested ratio is over 4x. That will be at least 37 million by January 20.

    By January 20, the arithmetic of a collapse in new cases becomes likely. It could come as early as Jan 20th, but the sheer weight of new cases and vaccinations will make it inevitable. Exponential growth doesn't slowly peak and wind down...it collapses like a Ponzi scheme.

    No one will wait for Fauci to officially declare it safe. People just wanna go party.

    , @JimDandy
    @Richard of Melbourne

    Unless the move to get rid of Biden is already in full swing.

  25. @Richard of Melbourne
    Steve, I think you are overoptimistic in measuring the Dems' patience (and that of their supporters).

    It won't be January 21 that coverage of Biden "saving lives" starts: it will be in the inaugural address, which will inform the American public that St Anthony Fauci has confirmed that rates of Covid-19 infection and death started declining at precisely 12 noon eastern time.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @JimDandy

    Indeed, it could be like how the release of the American hostages in Iran was delayed until Reagan was inaugurated.

  26. @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve that's laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That's the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn't.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don't? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @JR Ewing, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon

    Didn’t China lockdown completely and contact traced everybody?

    NYC didn’t even lockdown. They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style. Movie theaters closed, Broadway, but most people wouldn’t go anyway.

    The subway is running.

    As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.

    My cousin’s box factory in Cleveland never shut down. His union leaders bitched at first but the workers have kept working.

    There really has never been a lockdown. People were already watching movies on Netflix, work from home was already theoretically possible, people ride the subway and walk through the park without masks and don’t get arrested. They may get a complaint from other people now and then. But I haven’t seen it.

    I know bartenders and waitresses. Chefs. Most still working.

    I’d say people hard hit include commercial real estate moguls. But that doesn’t fit the concept of this being a top down driven scam against the working class. This is just typical people running around reacting and government flailing away trying to look effective in a democracy.

    I assume your life hasn’t changed a bit. The worst complaints on here seem to be not being able to go to a gym. Or having to wear a mask in a store for a few minutes.

    • Replies: @Peterike
    @Hhsiii

    “NYC didn’t even lockdown.”

    Wrong.

    “ They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style.”

    That was started months into the lockdown, months of near zero deaths.

    “As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.”

    Nonsense. Corporations closed their offices. You aren’t even allowed to go at most companies. The city shut down all “non essential” workers for months.

    Replies: @Hhsiii

    , @ken
    @Hhsiii

    15,000 restaurants have closed permanently due to COVID and thousands more are providing only take out or curbside and you're really claiming bartenders and waitresses are at full employment?

    , @utu
    @Hhsiii

    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough. And then when the infection rates were brought down to the manageable level they were not followed with effective tracing and isolating. Czechia and Poland did lockdowns early when the infection rate was much lower than in Italy, Spain or UK when they did their lockdowns but then they made a mistake acting as if the virus was eliminated and did not do effective tracing and isolating letting the virus percolate during summer. And then in one month or two they lost control and squandered all gains from the first lockdown. From one of the lowest deaths per capita in the world in July Czechia is now the 11th highest in Europe. Furthermore it seems that at the peak of their second wave they overwhelmed their medical systems and they may have more excessive deaths form other causes than from covid or their official covid deaths are severely undercounted.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  27. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, anti-ICE protesters/losers surrounded a mom and daughter in their car in Manhattan, some tried to enter the vehicle, and mom sped off, hitting a few losers as she left.

    Maybe this beating and entering private cars should be legislated against as a felony?

    https://twitter.com/TheVengeance17/status/1337524862642958337?s=20

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    It already is illegal and historically the drivers would get off as soon as it was clear they feared for their life. We are witnessing a coup by a seditious bureaucracy to include judges and DAs, with sweeping non-enforcement of laws they don't like.

    , @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    ACAB

  28. Off-topic, but interesting…I was just over at Amazon, attempting to place an order for some British candy bars as a gift (they wouldn’t arrive until the middle of January, so I’m not getting them), and I got one of those offers for a free “trial” month of Prime membership.

    But right under that, I saw where if you’re on public assistance, you can now get a Prime membership at a 50 percent discount. I thought some of y’all would find that amusing.

    • LOL: Thoughts
  29. @Anonymous

    You can understand why Pfizer shut down lab work on the World’s Most Important Trial from late October until the day after the election, when it discovered belatedly that it had more cases on hand than it had specified for the first, second, and even third interim analyses.
     
    Uh, no, I don’t understand. What is the explanation?

    Replies: @Fluesterwitz

    It might have been bad for their business if they would have been perceived to have done something that could have helped Hit… erm, Trump.

    Tldr: The business of business is business.

  30. These vaccinations should start lowering the death rate around Biden’s inauguration day, if it takes 14 days for the first dose to start working at reducing infections, and then there’s a 22 day lag on average between infections and subsequent deaths, that sounds like the good effect will kick in about January 20. Expect coverage of how President Biden is already saving lives around January 21.

    Surely the MSM will constantly remind us that it was Trump’s Operation Warp Speed that produced the vaccines that broke the pandemic?

    Apologies for calling you Shirley.

  31. @BenKenobi

    Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2
     
    Kind of like that mysterious new account That Would Be Telling -- you know the one you keep defending -- didn't use his big brain super logic and vast pool of knowledge to educate us benighted plebs via 30 comments per day about the undeniable efficacy of the upcoming Covid vaccines BEFORE the election?

    One would think this person would deign to enlighten us about all the wonderful things President Trump's Operation Warp Speed was on track to accomplish, right? He or she or they/them has been posting here since May* . Yet they waited -- like a shy wallflower -- to reveal their incredible knowledge to the Unzitariat only after the first few days in November.

    This account is a classic case of "Hello fellow Unz-posters"

    A quick perusal of this account's posting history:



    May 15: first post implies nuking China is a proper response to Covid

    May 15 #2: Anon asks "is anyone a virologist?" Account replies "not as much as you or I would like."

    May 22: Account agrees that HCQ is likely effective but won't be accepted because Orange Man Bad.

    June 23: Account says President Trump is fully committed to replacing "us." Blatant attempts at fitting in to board culture via lingo.

    June 26: Account makes unintelligible post about Mitt Romney. I can usually forgive typos and bad auto-correct but the post is gibberish.

    July 9: Account says President Trump doesn't like "us" "White" "gun owners."

    Sept 17: Account invokes "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

    Oct 14: Account claims Trump failed covid response, offers to be Unz.com's "gun culture correspondent."

    Oct 14: Accounts first mention of OWS: "plus no vaccine approved by the FDA before the election; that probably wasn’t in the cards, but promises and the end results of Operation Warp Speed (making lots of doses from a number of promising candidates before we know if any work) won’t help him much on the 3rd."

    Oct 18: Account gives gushing praise to Israeli commanders who held the Golan Heights

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2

    Kind of like that mysterious new account That Would Be Telling — you know the one you keep defending — didn’t use his big brain super logic and vast pool of knowledge to educate us benighted plebs via 30 comments per day about the undeniable efficacy of the upcoming Covid vaccines BEFORE the election?

    That’s because while I believed in the theory of mRNA vaccines, I didn’t have anything really useful to say until Phase III trials started reporting that in real life they were effective, and then latter safe enough for FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) applications (based on data from one half of the Phase III trial vaccine arm populations being followed for two months, so November 20th and 30th).

    I’m by nature a scientist, in this domain empiricism is all important, and having other things to do it wasn’t even worth doing much research on COVID-19 vaccines until we started getting reports from the Phase III trials, nor really diving into them until FDA approval, albeit of the limited EUA type.

    Which is not really all that limited in this pandemic, seeing as how tens of millions will be vaccinated before the FDA considers licensure for general populations. Which is typically based on (more) data being collected from these two year long Phase III trials, and here, unusually timed Phase IV post-marketing surveillance, what happens with all the people who start getting them ASAP outside of any trial.

    I’m normally on Unz.com to learn about stuff I don’t have deep domain knowledge of, for COVID-19 while I still learn a great deal from iSteves postings and many commentators, I’m also here to comment and teach, and I appreciate iSteve welcoming me here. But I’m hardly new on the net using this nom de plume.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @That Would Be Telling

    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  32. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Steve Sailer


    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.
     
    Is that an old market survey trick? Putting only two choices in the question? "Would you prefer Brand X, which will rot your teeth and give you pimples, or would you rather try our new-and-improved Brand Y?" (Leaving out Brands A through W, plus Z.)

    There are (or were) choices other than vaccine vs. lockdown.

    Vaccines are fine BTW, especially after they have had the chance to prove long-term safety.

    No lockdown would have been the right choice, in terms of real cost to lives and livelihoods. Protecting the vulnerable would have been the right choice, while developing vaccines on a normal timetable.

    Hell, this thing might have run its course through us by now, had we not locked down, but that's not part of your survey, is it? That's not what you're selling.

    Replies: @John Achterhof

    Your dim appreciation for the new vaccines, broadly shared here it seems, clearly stems from disagreement with the course taken to this point of significant social and economic cost in expectation of expedient vaccine development rather than an assessment of their value at this point, by all indication, in greatly diminishing the harm to health of infection and expediting the end of the pandemic. I get it, you don’t want to be wrong. An assessment in hindsight of the course taken seems to me a mixed bag of bankruptcies, rioting and political lunacy on one side and limited infection and the drug companies coming through spectacularly on the other, but in any event in looking forward from here as the saying goes, What’s done is done.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @John Achterhof

    Yours is an intelligently written and thought-out reply, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

  33. “Expect coverage of how President Biden is already saving lives around January 21.”

    This is a Democrat tradition. Remember how Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 in spite of the fact that nominations closed just eleven days after he took office?

  34. @Anonymous
    OT: Killer of 3+ people in Australia gets parole after taking on new identity as a woman.

    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/secrets-aliases-of-notorious-serial-killer-regina-arthurell-revealed/news-story/90351dbdcfb0d1ee7f5af9c9cdc59f59

    So is this hypermasculine guy discovers he always was a female, or just a guy with multiple aliases trying a new, female one on in order to get one more shot at frredom?

    Replies: @Dan Smith, @AnotherDad

    The guy wore a wig and the dress of one his victims. Did he do taxidermy? I think Hitchcock covered this.

  35. OT: I received a fundraising email from VDARE this morning advising that their credit card payment processor is cutting them off as of Sunday for unspecified terms of service “violations.”

    The anaconda tightens its grip.

  36. Now these vaccines are 92% effective and 97% of those who get the disease survive with minor complications but can they guarantee that among the 8% for whom the vaccine is ineffective the 3% who have major complications or die are not included?

  37. @That Would Be Telling
    @BenKenobi



    Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2

     

    Kind of like that mysterious new account That Would Be Telling — you know the one you keep defending — didn’t use his big brain super logic and vast pool of knowledge to educate us benighted plebs via 30 comments per day about the undeniable efficacy of the upcoming Covid vaccines BEFORE the election?
     
    That's because while I believed in the theory of mRNA vaccines, I didn't have anything really useful to say until Phase III trials started reporting that in real life they were effective, and then latter safe enough for FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) applications (based on data from one half of the Phase III trial vaccine arm populations being followed for two months, so November 20th and 30th).

    I'm by nature a scientist, in this domain empiricism is all important, and having other things to do it wasn't even worth doing much research on COVID-19 vaccines until we started getting reports from the Phase III trials, nor really diving into them until FDA approval, albeit of the limited EUA type.

    Which is not really all that limited in this pandemic, seeing as how tens of millions will be vaccinated before the FDA considers licensure for general populations. Which is typically based on (more) data being collected from these two year long Phase III trials, and here, unusually timed Phase IV post-marketing surveillance, what happens with all the people who start getting them ASAP outside of any trial.

    I'm normally on Unz.com to learn about stuff I don't have deep domain knowledge of, for COVID-19 while I still learn a great deal from iSteves postings and many commentators, I'm also here to comment and teach, and I appreciate iSteve welcoming me here. But I'm hardly new on the net using this nom de plume.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Mike Tre


    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.
     
    A silly ad hominem, for while I'm at elevated risk because of my age, I'm still in the very lowest priority group, I simply don't have that option. But I have every expectation I will be taking one of these vaccines when I actually can.

    Meanwhile, you'd actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @Mike Tre

  38. anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    The anti-vaxers will fortunately have no impact on the speed of arriving at herd immunity. Because 100% of available vaccine will be used as soon as possible. And this will abate as a problem well before supply of vaccines exceed demand.

    People who opt out of taking the vaccine their earliest opportunity are just choosing to join what is effectively the placebo group of our great ‘natural experiment’. They will make their contribution to herd immunity the old fashioned way. By contracting the disease. So there are no ‘free riders’ until herd immunity is reached.

    I can’t see this lasting beyond 100 million vaccines. By which time most of those in the vulnerable age ranges will be vaccinated if they chose.

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  39. @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve that's laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That's the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn't.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don't? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @JR Ewing, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon

    I agree. The vaccine is meaningless. People are getting excited over a “vaccine” for a disease that is very unlikely to be a danger to them unless they happen to be in some very specific demographic categories. For most people, meaning most of productive society, covid is and has always been a very minor risk. And definitely not a risk worth shutting down society for.

    The whole point of the overblown vaccine news now is to give politicians and the media a chance to walk back the panic without having to admit they were wrong. Without admitting they were wrong, the lockdown option lives on.

    The whole point of the lockdowns (however severe they may or may not have been) and the loyalty muzzles wasn’t to stop the spread of the disease, it was to condition the people into accepting that society can be curtailed and the people controlled by indefinite edict alone. And most of the people have happily complied with no resistance.

    You didn’t like the response to Chinese Flu? Just wait until you experience the new and improved response to climate change. Or racism. Or obesity. Or whatever “crisis” some politician decides needs to be foisted on you whenever we wants to flex his muscles. Welcome to our future.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @JR Ewing


    it was to condition the people into accepting that society can be curtailed and the people controlled by indefinite edict alone.
     
    Cool conspiracy theory bro.
  40. Santa Clara County, California is proposing going door to door to administer tests to the large Hispanic population that finds it hard to reach test sites. This news (SF Gate) comes from Dr. Analila Garcia who is the county Health Department’s Racial and Equity Director. Because Covid is racist, true fact.

  41. @Anonymous
    OT: Killer of 3+ people in Australia gets parole after taking on new identity as a woman.

    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/secrets-aliases-of-notorious-serial-killer-regina-arthurell-revealed/news-story/90351dbdcfb0d1ee7f5af9c9cdc59f59

    So is this hypermasculine guy discovers he always was a female, or just a guy with multiple aliases trying a new, female one on in order to get one more shot at frredom?

    Replies: @Dan Smith, @AnotherDad

    There are about ten “sanity points” that distinguish sane, traditional, civilizationally-capable societies from sick ones.

    That you protect your border and keep foreigners out is obviously #1.

    Executing, expelling or locking up criminals is another one.

    Knowing that there are two different–complementary–sexes, is apparently another one.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    @AnotherDad

    I would add to your excellent list the following:

    That the leaders of your civilization are capable, honest, and are not easily bribed into doing what is not in the interest of the people they govern.

  42. @Anon
    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?

    Thanks for any direct links.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jack D, @Occasional lurker

    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

    Citation Needed. Ignoring that you should ignore anything the CDC has to say about infectious disease control, it’s no longer fashionable in the US public health community, which is focused on “lifestyle” issues like banning Big Gulps and guns, I read Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination, and the only item that seemed relevant was “Does immunity after getting COVID-19 last longer than protection for COVID-19 vaccines?” which even in the title acknowledges they provide immunity. Inside, it’s unequivocal, “Regarding vaccination, we won’t know how long immunity lasts until we have a vaccine and more data on how well it works.” One would hope this gets updated early next week, but this is the CDC.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?

    In preventing symptomatic and “serious” COVID-19 infections. Pfizer/BioNTech however didn’t get enough data on serious infections, it’s claimed they didn’t enroll a lot of older people compared to Moderna, which I’ll check up on if and when the latter gets EUA approval.

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?

    First you have to not roll snake eyes and be in the 5% for whom the most effective vaccines don’t work, or don’t work completely. Which based on what I’ve been learning lately about our insanely complicated immune systems (so much so I decided in the mid-1970s to only learn about them “as needed”), might have more to do with the adaptive immune system’s wild and crazy nature than it being “defective,” but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.

    At last count, based on what we were reading about the FDA’s threshold for the very most minimal statistical significance for trials this big, Moderna was just about able to show proof their vaccine prevents serious illness. That might be carved out of their 5% failure rate for the primary Phase III “endpoints,” their much more statistically significant results in stopping symptomatic COVID-19 infections. That is, both company’s Phase III trials have a substantial degree of proof they’ll prevent ~95% of the people who get them from getting symptomatic COVID-19 altogether.

    And we can reasonably hope the same for severe disease will prove true for Pfizer/BioNTech, but that has to wait on more data, probably from Phase IV, surveillance of the “post-marketing” experiences as its given to a lot of people outside of trials.

    If you’re willing to make free use of a search engine to expand your vocabulary, a good start would be the protocols used by these two companies for tests, Pfizer/BioNTech for all three Phases, and Moderna for Phase III. Also see ClinicalTrials.gov which will give you the bare bones of all the trials (although I’ve read Phase I trials don’t have to be reported to the government), and Wikipedia will give you many more vaccine candidates to search for, but not the Sanofi/GSK one. I would also hope other companies with a US presence will or have published their Phase III protocols; ignore the clown show of AZ/Oxford for now, but I’d be astounded if Janssen didn’t have its act together, and Novavax might be interesting.

    For what these trials attempt to do, here’s Wikipedia on clinical trials. TL;DR: All are about safety, but Phase I is focused on dosing, and Phase III is mostly about efficacy, their basic safety having already been demonstrated in Phase I and II. Now this is interesting, per ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) did a or the Moderna Phase I trial, and to more patients with more dosages than has been reported. Moderna Phase II here, and Phase III here. Note the first two will continue into late 2021, and the last will be a bit over two years at minimum. Wonder why new drugs cost so much? These trials are expensive, and there’s lots of failures in Phase III.

    Then the best condensed overview of results needed for FDA EUA approval will be found in the meeting materials their Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) have or have scheduled, Pfizer/BioNTech two days ago, December 10th, and Moderna scheduled for the 17th. They’re livecasting them if you’re really hard core.

    The two documents you want to look at are “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document – FDA”, prepared by FDA staff for the committee, and “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document – Sponsor” prepared by the company or companies asking for approval. There’s none yet for Moderna, but for the Pfizer/BioNTech one, FDA staff, and sponsor.

    And please feel free to ask me about any questions you have, while I’ve decided to stop “fighting” in these iSteve topic comments for the most part, I’m continuing to follow them and for example answering honest questions like your’s.

    • Thanks: PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @That Would Be Telling

    I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You're really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    One thing you said I wonder about:


    ...but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.
     
    I'm not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it's not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines? A substantial number of people will refuse the vaccine, especially if they are young and healthy and have little at risk by refusing it. This proportion might well exceed 25%. And how about younger children -- should we even expect them to take the vaccination, even though they might contribute (somewhat) to the spread?

    If all of the vulnerable people get the vaccine -- or at least all that don't actively refuse it -- why do we need herd immunity? Is there any segment of the population, however vulnerable, for which 95% efficacy isn't enough? If a very vulnerable segment incurs even a 10% mortality rate without the vaccine, a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%. Why isn't that enough, considering their overall high death rate from other causes, including the ordinary flu, and also considering the awful consequences of continued lockdowns, even on this very population?

    Now one variable we don't really have a good handle on yet is the exact number of people in such populations who will be spared death or serious cases of Covid because of the vaccine. In the Moderna trial, 0 of the 30 serious cases of Covid were in the vaccine arm. This suggests statistically that the actual proportion spared serious cases will be above 90%. But it's too small a number to feel great confidence where above 90% it will lie. It's entirely plausible that the reduction in the death rate will be well above 95% -- but, given these relatively rare events, this will require statistics drawn from the millions of cases of vaccination, rather than the trials.

    In any case, as we find out what the true numbers are, we should be able to make more rational decisions as to whether, and at what point, we can declare that the crisis is effectively over. I don't see how herd immunity per se should be the criterion, unless those numbers turn out much worse than we might expect -- that is, well below 95%.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Jonathan Mason, @candid_observer

  43. Also, it always bears repeating that the mask game is just about signaling compliance and accepting humiliation.

    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.

    There is, however, a germ of truth to the idea that the mask can prevent infected people from spreading the disease by blocking secretions exiting the mouth.

    But there is no such thing as “asymptomatic spread” of a respiratory virus. Respiratory viruses just don’t work that way. They can’t spread if they’re not reproducing and they’re not reproducing if the host doesn’t have (or recently had) symptoms. We’ve known this for a hundred years.

    So if you’re not scared of catching it, or if you’re not actually sick, there is simply no need to wear a mask, much less a need for politicians to mandate universal wearing of masks.

    No, the real purpose of the mask game is the exact same purpose of the sign in the window of Havel’s Greengrocer: to humiliate and to subjugate.

    • Replies: @utu
    @JR Ewing


    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.
     
    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That's why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours "signaling compliance and accepting humiliation" suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    Replies: @Peterike, @Jonathan Mason, @JR Ewing, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

  44. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

    100 million have already recovered from COVID and many people have natural immunity to it. If another 100 million Americans contract COVID over the next year we would expect under 300,000 additional deaths because treatments have gotten much better. we would also reach heard immunity if another 100 million Americans contract COVID and the pandemic would be over.

    to suggest that 2 million Americans would die from COVID without a vaccine is preposterous at this point. The many vaccine trials confirm the very low fatality rate observed in the placebo groups. There was no second wave in New York because 33% the population already recovered from COVID by June. While not at the level of heard immunity, when a third of the people of an area have already recovered the spread is dramatically reduced , eliminating the possibility of a large second wave of deaths.

    It is good news that we have some effective vaccines, and if most of the Americans at risk of COVID get the vaccine it will may save 100,000 lives over the next year. The vast majority of Americans are not at risk of dying from this virus, for people under the age of 49 (200 million Americans) the risk is similar to the flu.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Travis

    "100 million have already recovered from COVID" - You can't make this assumption. While it is possible that in some areas of NYC the infection rate was 33% you can't not extrapolate it onto the whole country. Furthermore NYC IFR in the first wave was most likely higher than 1%. meaning that the death count in NYC implied lower than 33% infection rate on average for NYC. That in the second wave in NYC and NY state the number of deaths is lower is chiefly because the vulnerable are protected better form getting infected than during the first wave.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Travis

    I don’t think 100 million people have had it. I would have probably caught it in that case, and antibody tests suggest I haven’t. I’ve traveled plenty and have been exposed many times to people who have it. I’m not sure it spreads as easily as they say. I think it may require closer contact than the experts suggest. Everyone I know who caught COVID is the gregarious “touchy feely” type who likes to hug.

    The good news is, it’s definitely becoming less deadly. Local news reported people in their 40s and 50s regularly getting hospitalized from it back in April. Not anymore. Several of my relatives came down with it around Thanksgiving, and even those that are overweight and in their 50s/60s did not got seriously ill. It was not even as bad as the flu. The younger people didn’t experience much at all other than the loss of smell/taste and fatigue.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

  45. @Whiskey
    Steve, since the Democrats just printed votes nothing Trump would have done or any event after mail in ballot harvesting could allow him to win. I called it -- the Dems would just cheat. On a massive scale. Does anyone really think Joe Biden got more votes that OBAMA? Really? When Trump had 60,000 at his rallies and Biden had ... six. As in six people total.

    So no, nothing would have changed. And the vaccine is meaningless. The lockdowns will NEVER end. Not ever. Until pretty much most Western governments are violently overthrown.

    One: the Tech Oligarchs and Wall Street want the "Great Reset" which requires destroying every vestige of small and medium sized businesses. The lockdowns were never about public health just destroying the old economy. So that Big Tech and Finance can push punishing declines on standards of living: eating bugs and drinking sewage and living under a bridge in a tent (for Whites) and pods (for non-Whites a bit better). This is the whole point: a Big Tech / Wall Street COMMAND economy.

    Two: the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can't get enough of lockdowns. They get to make people miserable, particularly around Christmas, and also posture on TV. Politicians live for rubbing the deplorables noses in excrement, its really the only thing that gives their lives meaning -- making ordinary people miserable -- and that's a drug that can't be kicked so lockdowns forever. Think Newsom does not want to be on TV every weekday? While frolicking in Maui or French Laundry on the weekends? That's the whole point of his life.

    Three: lockdowns over the beer flu and whatever panic is cooked up next allows politicians to release criminals especially black ones to the delight of blacks and Nice White Ladies who never met a black thug that didn't turn them on. So the Purge Movies being reality under lockdowns is going to keep them up forever.

    Four: There is not now and never was a serious threat to public health for those relatively healthy and below 75 in age. There are no emergency rooms overflowing or people dropping dead all over the place. That's a lie. A lie like all the others from the media: Global Warming, the Oceans drying up, Rock records turning your kids into perverts, video games making them serial killers, and all the other moral panics a female driven society gets up to.

    Five: If you have not figured it out by now, you will be one of the first (along with Ron Unz) to be disappeared. You are straight, White, and male. Each one of these is a crime in and of itself, but all three combined are unforgivable and you certainly won't be. Everyone else here will share the same fate sooner or later.

    Six: America is dead. Completely and absolutely. Even the idea and the memory of America is over. Its history, heroes, traditions, monuments, people are all gone. In its place is a grossly obese black female twerking in the face of dead America. Forever.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns.

    For better or worse, there’s this thing called federalism in the US. My state’s governor is doing no such thing, and my county and city governments and the ones nearest to me are using a rather light touch, but there are capacity limitations imposed on businesses in my city.

    There are no emergency rooms overflowing

    Again, federalism, for 150 miles in all directions, in my Red state region, ER staff are spending hours on the phone finding beds to admit their COVID-19 patient into, and giving them inferior care in meantime, their not being really set up or specializing in that sort of thing. That counts as “overflowing” to me.

    And to quote the late Jerry Pournelle about your general theme, despair is a sin.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @That Would Be Telling

    That would, what state do you live in?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Johann Ricke

    , @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling

    The "stay at home; save lives" or "wear masks; save lives" talking points have obfuscate the hospital flow issue and this is one of several problems poisoning the political discourse around the issues. First and most importantly, the hospital overflow is the ONLY justification for masks, curfews and lockdowns as the number of disability-adjusted life-years lost for these measures has to be the equivalent of hundreds of millions*. (And yes, it is justified, because people need hospital resources for conditions other than COVID-19.) Meanwhile the OECD average age of death from COVID is startlingly close to the average life expectency for these countries and about half of the victims are said to be obese, well above the 25% obesity rate for OECD: obesity decreases life expectancy by somewhere between five and eight years depending on sex and smoker status.

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn't look this promising several months ago and the "rinse-lather-repeat" approach of our Dear Leaders with seemingly indefinite renewals, restarts and extensions of social distancing measures was always going to prompt paranoia and lose them trust. No one even wanted to think about a plan B, about a paradigm shift in triage logistics in case neither a vaccine nor herd immunity was forthcoming by a certain date. That they seemed willing and in some cases even enthusiastic to allow this to go on forever is admittedly very, very scary.

    *For those interested in how I came to this conclusion, I crunched some rough numbers this afternoon assuming that full-on mask mandates such as we have in France decrease quality of life by 30% and varying degrees of lockdowns ranging from curfews to firebreak decrease it by about 65%, meaning that during the time in which they are imposed life is about 25% as good as it should be. This would amount to a loss of four and a half months in a straight six-month period: if such mandates are imposed uniformly across an about 1.3 billion OECD population

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling

    The "stay at home; save lives" or "wear masks; save lives" talking points have obfuscate the hospital flow issue and this is one of several problems poisoning the political discourse around the issues. First and most importantly, the hospital overflow is the ONLY justification for masks, curfews and lockdowns as the number of disability-adjusted life-years lost for these measures has to be the equivalent of hundreds of millions*. (And yes, it is justified, because people need hospital resources for conditions other than COVID-19.) Meanwhile the OECD average age of death from COVID is startlingly close to the average life expectency for these countries and about half of the victims are said to be obese, well above the 25% obesity rate for OECD: obesity decreases life expectancy by somewhere between five and eight years depending on sex and smoker status.

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn't look this promising several months ago and the "rinse-lather-repeat" approach of our Dear Leaders with seemingly indefinite renewals, restarts and extensions of social distancing measures was always going to prompt paranoia and lose them trust. No one even wanted to think about a plan B, about a paradigm shift in triage logistics in case neither a vaccine nor herd immunity was forthcoming by a certain date. That they seemed willing and in some cases even enthusiastic to allow this to go on forever is admittedly very, very scary.

    *For those interested in how I came to this conclusion, I crunched some rough numbers this afternoon assuming that full-on mask mandates such as we have in France decrease quality of life by 30% and varying degrees of lockdowns ranging from curfews to firebreak decrease it by about 65%, meaning that during the time in which they are imposed life is about 25% as good as it should be. This would amount to a loss of four and a half months in a straight six-month period: if such mandates are imposed uniformly across an about 1.3 billion OECD population that would make for nearly half a billion disability-adjusted life years lost.

  46. anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard of Melbourne
    Steve, I think you are overoptimistic in measuring the Dems' patience (and that of their supporters).

    It won't be January 21 that coverage of Biden "saving lives" starts: it will be in the inaugural address, which will inform the American public that St Anthony Fauci has confirmed that rates of Covid-19 infection and death started declining at precisely 12 noon eastern time.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @JimDandy

    I’ve been predicting the ‘Biden Miracle’ for a while. But he has already announced his intention to call for 100 million shots in 100 days. Even though OWS plans to hit 100 million vaccinations in February.

    If you add in the current surge in reported cases, we are racking up over 1 million cases/day, assuming the actual to tested ratio is over 4x. That will be at least 37 million by January 20.

    By January 20, the arithmetic of a collapse in new cases becomes likely. It could come as early as Jan 20th, but the sheer weight of new cases and vaccinations will make it inevitable. Exponential growth doesn’t slowly peak and wind down…it collapses like a Ponzi scheme.

    No one will wait for Fauci to officially declare it safe. People just wanna go party.

  47. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    I am against both the mandatory vaccines and lockdowns. Heck I live where lockdowns are just an abstract notion. Should have let both the bug and people run free in the spring and summer months. The sun could have done its thing, and we would have hopefully be done with Covid. People will be hurt by the vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies know they can’t profit from the vaccines without immunity from liability. Finally who paid for the creation of this bug? Shouldn’t we ask before taking a new kind of vaccine, which has no years of tradition testing behind it?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Old and Grumpy


    The pharmaceutical companies know they can’t profit from the vaccines without immunity from liability.
     
    Which explains why, in the US, they don't market to adults vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), the flu, shingles, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B, two against pneumococcal infections, meningococcal A, C, W, Y, and B in second one, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. The first TDaP set against toxins produced by bacteria, the last five against bacterial infections.

    No, the reason is that governments are cheap, and the US in particular has an insane civil legal system. The vaccine companies might be willing to market their's in the US, but assume at 10x or 100x the price. Far simpler to shunt claims to a brand new vaccine court according to a previous iSteve comment; I wonder why not the one for childhood vaccines that started running in 1988 due to pertussis vaccine becoming unobtanium, to which smallpox was added post-9/11.

    Finally who paid for the creation of this bug?
     
    No less than Saint Fauci himself, if you believe it's most likely a gain of function experiment in the Wuhan Institute for Virology; prior to that, his institute paid them for 4-5 years to collect exotic bat viruses. Probably not the only source of funding, but it's a fact studiously ignored by our betters, including researchers who correctly believe they should be subjected to a lot more rigorous restrictions if it became Officially True.

    Shouldn’t we ask before taking a new kind of vaccine, which has no years of tradition testing behind it?
     
    Citation for years of testing, vs. development which normally includes waiting for your next grant approval? I saw on a very unreliable site that the normal period for a Phase III trial is six months, but that's for general population licensure, not an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) where the FDA decided two months is enough after the last dose, based on the observation that the vast majority of severe side effects show up in a month and a half. Of course, when you're planning on vaccinating tens of millions of people based on an EUA ... well, it's an emergency for a lot of old people....
  48. “Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2, Trump had spent the final 18 hours before the election boasting nonstop about the vaccine, and that had flipped 1 out of every 300 votes, giving Trump a 269-269 Electoral College tie and likely victory with House delegations voting by state?”

    LOL, simply and patently false, iSteve. You are wildly assuming that this subset voters would have undoubtedly changed their mind due squarely on this issue. The fact of the matter is that most American citizens had decided already who they were supporting, especially those who had cast their ballot via mail days or weeks earlier.

    But I will admit it makes for tremendous drama on your part. No doubt you are inspired by the Hair Negresses and Tiger Moms.

    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine

    Stay cagey, iSteve!

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Corvinus


    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.
     
    Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic? All you had to do was watch him in those press conferences and see his overweening narcissism in action, continuing to at least the joy-ride outside of Walter Reed. For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged. He took no heed of that effect and continued boosting things, the behavior of a sociopath (loosely defined). See also Bill Gates, who at best lacks the self-awareness to realize he's about the world's worst vaccine salesman.

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine
     
    Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they'll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time? Maybe Pfizer should have taken up front money from Operation Warp Speed (OWS) to bulk up their capabilities, instead of refusing everything but a purchase guarantee?

    OWS is being done Manhattan Project style, generally huge R&D investments in six other vaccine candidates plus bulking up manufacturing capability and making lots of doses before FDA approval, with support for at least two more, and plenty of money being spent on the supply chain. If you can deal with a lot of TDS, see Wikipedia on the six, with more details on the others.

    In less digestible chronological form, see the HHS "Fact Sheet: Explaining Operation Warp Speed", it has some details on the supply chain efforts which you can then use as search terms. "Distribution" also includes money to a company which manufactures, fills, and seals one use plastic syringes, to Corning for glass vials, and another that makes "glass coated plastic" vials.

    People are complaining about how OWS spread its bets on which vaccines would actually prove themselves to the FDA, from memory only an initial 100 million doses for each except from AZ/Oxford which is also getting money elsewhere, unseemly 20/20 hindsight in the middle of a pandemic. But of course the pandemic in the US has always been more about our cold civil war and scoring cheap political points than, you know, limiting disease and death.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Desiderius, @Corvinus

  49. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    It's almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    More like the manly Russians are more competent with this type of vaccine than the Strong Woman at Oxford who’s in charge of their effort, their featured boffins being half female including her as well. Oh, and she’s not at all dedicated to science as a career.

    In detail, Oxford’s vaccine uses one chimp adenovirus vector, going with a different species in an attempt to get around the fact that many if not most adults will have immunity to many if not most human adenoviruses from previous bouts with “the common cold.” And, some how, some way, the Oxford boffins, before AZ was in the picture, accidentally used a half dose for the first dose in a bunch of their test subjects.

    Later they observed these people had fewer side effects, and in the ensuing investigation found out the dosing error. Even later, while I believe not statistically strong, and also going from memory, they calculated a 90% or so efficacy for the ~1,800 people who got the half dose followed by the full dose pattern, whereas two full doses is down around 60%. Thus the insane and completely bogus blended claim of around 70% efficacy. So now they’re effectively going to have to restart their Phase III trials using the half dose/full dose pattern, and see if that 90% proves to be true with enough people.

    Why this pattern? One of the best guesses is that too many people who get a full dose first gain a too strong brand new immune system response to the chimp virus itself, which zaps the followup dose. The Russians avoided this at a cost of some complexity and efficiency in manufacturing etc. by using two different human adenovirus vectors, one for each dose.

    Janssen, a unit of giant Johnson and Johnson, is in part trying to sidestep this issue with their high risk, only one dose, long term, high payoff if it works approach, they intend to vaccinate one billion people by the end of 2021. Something that sounds impossible in several dimensions for the mRNA vaccine companies, but who knows, they will be learning how to better make their vaccines. But real changes to their methods will require new FDA approvals, the FDA is very hard core about this, including site visits to their factories.

  50. @Richard of Melbourne
    Steve, I think you are overoptimistic in measuring the Dems' patience (and that of their supporters).

    It won't be January 21 that coverage of Biden "saving lives" starts: it will be in the inaugural address, which will inform the American public that St Anthony Fauci has confirmed that rates of Covid-19 infection and death started declining at precisely 12 noon eastern time.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @JimDandy

    Unless the move to get rid of Biden is already in full swing.

  51. Because it will be harder to get volunteers in 2021 for trials with a 50% chance of getting a placebo, Sanofi is inquiring if it can do a clinical trial versus one of the mRNA vaccines that are 95% efficacious

    .

    For that reason or because it is unethical to inject volunteers with saline when an effective vaccine is available? Normally when you do a drug trial for a drug that treats a dangerous disease you have to give the control arm the standard therapy for this reason – you can’t ask people to leave themselves exposed to a disease just so you can do a trial on them. And normally the FDA is reluctant to approve a new drug unless it is better than the existing therapies that have already been shown to be safe and effective. The problem in any drug trial is showing statistically significant results. If the people in the control arm are already getting a 95% effective vaccine, the chances that you will be able to show statistical improvement are very low. And if there is no improvement or even less efficacy than the standard therapy, why should the FDA approve your drug?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Jack D


    And if there is no improvement or even less efficacy than the standard therapy, why should the FDA approve your drug?
     
    We have a real example of this, Protein Science's Flublok vaccine.

    Instead of the painstaking creation of a hybrid seed strain which will grow effectively in chicken egg membranes, particularly hard to do with bird flus for what seems to me to be an obvious reason, then injecting, waiting, and harvesting zillions of chicken eggs, which might produce no more than three doses each, it uses modern biotechnology.

    Genes for the H proteins anticipated for the coming flu season are spliced into insect viruses. Then lots of insect cells grow lots of that H protein in bioreactors. Years before the FDA approved their Flublok vaccine, which for example was the only one Walmart bought in the US for the Northern Hemisphere 2019-2020 flu season, they created a batch of vaccine for a bad bird flu outbreak in Asia in two weeks.

    Their chicken egg competitors told the FDA their new method was unneeded, they had things completely under control. They failed. Which could save untold lives in the next really bad flu pandemic. To the extent modern medicine hasn't already mitigated that with for example antibiotics for secondary bacteria infections, which per a paper anchor authored by Saint Fauci was the primary cause of death in 1918-9. All subsequent flu pandemics have been in the age of effective antibiotics, although resistance to the existing widely used first line ones is a serious issue.
  52. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

    You have “dread fear” and have completely lost it.

    It’s embarrassing to see such an incredibly thoughtful person spout such nonsense.

    An egregious example is your ongoing conflation of infection numbers and number of immune people.

    Do you not understand that cross-immunity is the source of the very concept of vaccination!?

    T cell immunity denier!

    This is sad to watch.

  53. @Hhsiii
    @Whiskey

    Didn’t China lockdown completely and contact traced everybody?

    NYC didn’t even lockdown. They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style. Movie theaters closed, Broadway, but most people wouldn’t go anyway.

    The subway is running.

    As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.

    My cousin’s box factory in Cleveland never shut down. His union leaders bitched at first but the workers have kept working.

    There really has never been a lockdown. People were already watching movies on Netflix, work from home was already theoretically possible, people ride the subway and walk through the park without masks and don’t get arrested. They may get a complaint from other people now and then. But I haven’t seen it.

    I know bartenders and waitresses. Chefs. Most still working.

    I’d say people hard hit include commercial real estate moguls. But that doesn’t fit the concept of this being a top down driven scam against the working class. This is just typical people running around reacting and government flailing away trying to look effective in a democracy.

    I assume your life hasn’t changed a bit. The worst complaints on here seem to be not being able to go to a gym. Or having to wear a mask in a store for a few minutes.

    Replies: @Peterike, @ken, @utu

    “NYC didn’t even lockdown.”

    Wrong.

    “ They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style.”

    That was started months into the lockdown, months of near zero deaths.

    “As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.”

    Nonsense. Corporations closed their offices. You aren’t even allowed to go at most companies. The city shut down all “non essential” workers for months.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @Peterike

    Yeah, I was wrong. But that’s NYC. Was most of the country locked down?

    I’ve been able to go to my office since late March, if I want. But you need to answer Covid questions, and everyone can’t go at once. I go in one or two days a week now. I was in Wednesday,only person in my area. People could go. They are choosing not to.

    And yes, a lot of restaurants have closed. Damn, 21 just closed. My mistake. I do know folks still working. But a lot of carnage.

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

  54. and that had flipped 1 out of every 300 votes, giving Trump a 269-269 Electoral College tie

    Dude, come on, are you seriously going to keep talking as if votes mattered in this election?

    It’s too much. It’s like reading the National Review. Are you auditioning for the new Pied Piper role, now that the cuck media’s readership has dwindled to near zero?

  55. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    I am not against the vaccine, and believe they will save lives and get us to heard immunity by the Spring. I oppose the continued lockdowns here in New Jersey, because they are not effective and should have ended in May when the curve was flattened. (which was the justification for the lockdowns) Back in March the lockdowns seemed like a good idea to flatten the curve. By May the curve was flattened so they should opened the beaches, parks, businesses etc…

    The evidence demonstrates that the lockdowns failed here. The lockdown began March 12, when most of the schools were closed. Masks were made mandatory by the Governor on April 2, but all the stores had already mandated masks by the middle of March.

    The Lockdowns here had no effect on the spread of COVID. Hospitalizations peaked 30 days after the lockdowns began, All the stores required masks by March 15th. Yet hospitalizations peaked April 17th and deaths peaked April 19th. There is no evidence that the lockdowns worked. The virus ran rampant thru the population quickly despite the lockdowns and mandated mask wearing imposed by our Governor. We now know the incubation period for COVID is an average of 5 days. Peak hospital admissions was from April 12-17 when 600 per day were being hospitalized. these people were infected between April 5-April 10 which was 21 days after the lockdowns began. 4 weeks after the lockdowns started cases were peaking in New Jersey. Despite the failure of the lockdowns the governor extended them for months after the curve was flattened.

  56. @Corvinus
    "Can you imagine how bad the anti-vax propaganda in the New York Times would be if Pfizer had announced its vaccine worked on November 2, Trump had spent the final 18 hours before the election boasting nonstop about the vaccine, and that had flipped 1 out of every 300 votes, giving Trump a 269-269 Electoral College tie and likely victory with House delegations voting by state?"

    LOL, simply and patently false, iSteve. You are wildly assuming that this subset voters would have undoubtedly changed their mind due squarely on this issue. The fact of the matter is that most American citizens had decided already who they were supporting, especially those who had cast their ballot via mail days or weeks earlier.

    But I will admit it makes for tremendous drama on your part. No doubt you are inspired by the Hair Negresses and Tiger Moms.

    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine

    Stay cagey, iSteve!

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.

    Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic? All you had to do was watch him in those press conferences and see his overweening narcissism in action, continuing to at least the joy-ride outside of Walter Reed. For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged. He took no heed of that effect and continued boosting things, the behavior of a sociopath (loosely defined). See also Bill Gates, who at best lacks the self-awareness to realize he’s about the world’s worst vaccine salesman.

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine

    Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they’ll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time? Maybe Pfizer should have taken up front money from Operation Warp Speed (OWS) to bulk up their capabilities, instead of refusing everything but a purchase guarantee?

    OWS is being done Manhattan Project style, generally huge R&D investments in six other vaccine candidates plus bulking up manufacturing capability and making lots of doses before FDA approval, with support for at least two more, and plenty of money being spent on the supply chain. If you can deal with a lot of TDS, see Wikipedia on the six, with more details on the others.

    In less digestible chronological form, see the HHS “Fact Sheet: Explaining Operation Warp Speed“, it has some details on the supply chain efforts which you can then use as search terms. “Distribution” also includes money to a company which manufactures, fills, and seals one use plastic syringes, to Corning for glass vials, and another that makes “glass coated plastic” vials.

    People are complaining about how OWS spread its bets on which vaccines would actually prove themselves to the FDA, from memory only an initial 100 million doses for each except from AZ/Oxford which is also getting money elsewhere, unseemly 20/20 hindsight in the middle of a pandemic. But of course the pandemic in the US has always been more about our cold civil war and scoring cheap political points than, you know, limiting disease and death.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @That Would Be Telling

    For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged

    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    The Walter Reed ride was pure FDR-style Head of State behavior, as was the reassurance at the Church of the Presidents that unlike Norte Dame was in fact saved in time thanks to Trump and Barr’s risky but decisive action.

    The only people who have a problem with these things are those who never accepted Trump as Head of State, and that is where the blame properly lies. If you were so put off by it where were you in the primaries? Trump received record support there and in the election itself.

    What you’ve done to your party and country is shameful.

    , @Corvinus
    @That Would Be Telling

    “Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic?”

    Perhaps that is snark on your part. Regardless, I am providing a link to factual information.

    “Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they’ll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time.”

    It’s not surprising for a company to make claims and then backtrack.

  57. @That Would Be Telling
    @Whiskey


    the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns.
     
    For better or worse, there's this thing called federalism in the US. My state's governor is doing no such thing, and my county and city governments and the ones nearest to me are using a rather light touch, but there are capacity limitations imposed on businesses in my city.

    There are no emergency rooms overflowing
     
    Again, federalism, for 150 miles in all directions, in my Red state region, ER staff are spending hours on the phone finding beds to admit their COVID-19 patient into, and giving them inferior care in meantime, their not being really set up or specializing in that sort of thing. That counts as "overflowing" to me.

    And to quote the late Jerry Pournelle about your general theme, despair is a sin.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Nico, @Nico

    That would, what state do you live in?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I'll just say it's in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn't horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I've ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that's a low order priority, especially now that there's a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Jack D, @utu, @Known Fact

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who's currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  58. OT (Other topic):

    The James Flynn RIP post seems to have gotten “orphaned”–or at least “single-parented”– somehow. No comments and unconnected to future posts. So my i’ll say what needs saying here:

    The Raven’s vs. vocab/info graph nicely demonstrates what has been obvious to me, but which doesn’t seem to register with a lot of people when discussing the Flynn effect:

    There is no significant “Flynn effect” rise in actual “intelligence”.

    I think there were some real gains in actual intelligence in early/mid-20th century from better nutrition coupled with improved education and more information (radio, TV) prompting denser wiring. (More or less akin to how Americans got taller in the same time period.) But …

    The Flynn effect is mostly measuring increased exposure to “symbolic processing”.

    Basically people are doing wildly better on Raven’s like tests because they have learned how to do Raven’s like tests. And Raven’s type tests are super-subject to learning.

    This is unfortunate, because Raven’s type tests are an excellent way to get around language issues and test IQ “cross-culturally”. (And i do really well on them–making me “smart”.) They would be really good tests if no one taking them had ever been exposed to such “symbolic processing”. But the results are really noisy–actually just mediocre. Because the level exposure to symbolic processing, and in fact Raven’s type puzzles, varies so wildly across nations, and, as we see, across time.

    ~

    The simplest way to get a handle on cross-national, cross-racial IQ is simply to look at the societies that various people produce. There isn’t an “information flow” problem anymore. No much confusion–well outside the West!–about what’s required to make your nation a decent place, nor the technology for material prosperity. What you see from a nation gives a pretty decent picture of what its people are capable of. At least to first order: If it sucks … the people suck.

    But if you want a good IQ proxy, i’d say the PISA tests–particularly the math part. Math is cross cultural. Every society is trying to give their children a math education So with the caveats of nutrition and educational quality, the math PISA is a pretty good proxy for “how smart are those folks”.

    Finally, the most fair and direct racial/ethnic IQ scores are simply looking at them within a 1st world nation like the US, where everyone’s well fed and gets a similar basic school program. The issues of admixture and selective immigration are there. But basically what you see here is what is. If you can’t make it here … you can’t make it anywhere.

    ~~

    The basic thing to keep in mind:

    We have no direct measure of intelligence–like we do of say height. The way we measure intelligence is to give people mental tasks–IQ tests. But IQ test tasks–like any mental tasks–can be learned. People get better with practice. And on some tasks–like Raven’s–people get wildly better with more exposure and practice.

    Maybe someday we’ll have something direct. You’ll roll into the interview center and then plug some electrodes onto you–like they can do in the auto shops to see what the engine computer is seeing–load your brain a bit and see what’s under the hood and if you’ve got what it takes:

    “Sorry AnotherDad”, you’re neurons are misfiring a lot. We’ve got your old results and frankly … you ain’t 22 anymore! Stay retired.”

  59. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    “But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners.”

    You sound like a battered, domestically violenced woman, Sailer. Ooh, maybe if I don’t upset my abuser, he will stop abusing me, I don’t want to make him angrier than he already is.

    Faggot.

  60. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

    The CDC calculated that 54 million Americans had recovered from COVID back in September, and by now close to 100 million Americans have recovered. The case fatality rate is about .3% this year. It has been falling as hospitals get better at treating this virus and is about .2% now.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939365087/government-model-suggests-u-s-covid-19-cases-could-be-approaching-100-million

    The case fatality rate never approached 1%. Even in NYC which was the hardest hit area back in April, antibody testing demonstrated that 33% of New Yorkers had the antibodies by May, and the case fatality rate never exceeded .4% in New York City. Two different antibody studies , one done by NY state and one done by Stanford confirm this.
    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/09/few-americans-have-coronavirus-antibodies-study-finds.html

    • Agree: Polynikes
  61. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    "So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months"

    I thought we were practically to herd immunity already?

    Replies: @Federalist

    “So about 1% of the population is expected to get infected over the next 4 months”

    I thought we were practically to herd immunity already?

    15 days to flatten the curve.

  62. @Jack D

    Because it will be harder to get volunteers in 2021 for trials with a 50% chance of getting a placebo, Sanofi is inquiring if it can do a clinical trial versus one of the mRNA vaccines that are 95% efficacious
     
    .

    For that reason or because it is unethical to inject volunteers with saline when an effective vaccine is available? Normally when you do a drug trial for a drug that treats a dangerous disease you have to give the control arm the standard therapy for this reason - you can't ask people to leave themselves exposed to a disease just so you can do a trial on them. And normally the FDA is reluctant to approve a new drug unless it is better than the existing therapies that have already been shown to be safe and effective. The problem in any drug trial is showing statistically significant results. If the people in the control arm are already getting a 95% effective vaccine, the chances that you will be able to show statistical improvement are very low. And if there is no improvement or even less efficacy than the standard therapy, why should the FDA approve your drug?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    And if there is no improvement or even less efficacy than the standard therapy, why should the FDA approve your drug?

    We have a real example of this, Protein Science’s Flublok vaccine.

    Instead of the painstaking creation of a hybrid seed strain which will grow effectively in chicken egg membranes, particularly hard to do with bird flus for what seems to me to be an obvious reason, then injecting, waiting, and harvesting zillions of chicken eggs, which might produce no more than three doses each, it uses modern biotechnology.

    Genes for the H proteins anticipated for the coming flu season are spliced into insect viruses. Then lots of insect cells grow lots of that H protein in bioreactors. Years before the FDA approved their Flublok vaccine, which for example was the only one Walmart bought in the US for the Northern Hemisphere 2019-2020 flu season, they created a batch of vaccine for a bad bird flu outbreak in Asia in two weeks.

    Their chicken egg competitors told the FDA their new method was unneeded, they had things completely under control. They failed. Which could save untold lives in the next really bad flu pandemic. To the extent modern medicine hasn’t already mitigated that with for example antibiotics for secondary bacteria infections, which per a paper anchor authored by Saint Fauci was the primary cause of death in 1918-9. All subsequent flu pandemics have been in the age of effective antibiotics, although resistance to the existing widely used first line ones is a serious issue.

  63. @Hhsiii
    @Whiskey

    Didn’t China lockdown completely and contact traced everybody?

    NYC didn’t even lockdown. They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style. Movie theaters closed, Broadway, but most people wouldn’t go anyway.

    The subway is running.

    As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.

    My cousin’s box factory in Cleveland never shut down. His union leaders bitched at first but the workers have kept working.

    There really has never been a lockdown. People were already watching movies on Netflix, work from home was already theoretically possible, people ride the subway and walk through the park without masks and don’t get arrested. They may get a complaint from other people now and then. But I haven’t seen it.

    I know bartenders and waitresses. Chefs. Most still working.

    I’d say people hard hit include commercial real estate moguls. But that doesn’t fit the concept of this being a top down driven scam against the working class. This is just typical people running around reacting and government flailing away trying to look effective in a democracy.

    I assume your life hasn’t changed a bit. The worst complaints on here seem to be not being able to go to a gym. Or having to wear a mask in a store for a few minutes.

    Replies: @Peterike, @ken, @utu

    15,000 restaurants have closed permanently due to COVID and thousands more are providing only take out or curbside and you’re really claiming bartenders and waitresses are at full employment?

  64. @BenKenobi
    @Steve Sailer

    "anti-maskers cause lockdowns"

    "people who don't like being wet cause rain"

    Steve...

    Replies: @ken

    In my world anti-maskers were trying to speed up herd immunity while Steve’s been dancing around like a little child desperately trying to hold in their pee while he waits for his jab. Hopefully after his innoculation he’ll go back to being interesting, but my guess is he will continue full Karen about us not getting a vaccine.

  65. Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @JimB


    Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.
     
    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    Replies: @JimB, @JimB

  66. @Buffalo Joe
    @That Would Be Telling

    That would, what state do you live in?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Johann Ricke

    That would, what state do you live in?

    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I’ll just say it’s in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn’t horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I’ve ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that’s a low order priority, especially now that there’s a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    Is this from ER docs/staff that you know or the local news?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling

    If where you are is like everywhere else in the US, the average age of covid deaths is somewhere in the vicinity of 80, give or take. The oldest boomers are 75 so the majority of those who die from covid are going to be Silents and not Boomers but certainly older Boomer are going to be represented as well.

    In my suburban Philly county, the largest # of deaths was in the 80-89 group, the second highest count was in the 90+ group (despite the fact that this is not a large population group overall - most people are dead before they hit 90) and the third highest group was in the 70-79 group (which would be around 1/2 boomer although I suspect that there were more 75-79 deaths that 70-74s). Roughly speaking, Silents would have been maybe 2/3 of the dead with Boomers representing most of the rest. For people under 50 there's not a big risk of death. There are rare cases of white or Asian people under 50 without comorbidities dying but not many, especially as treatment protocols have gotten better. Blacks and Hispanics (who often have obesity or other health problems and also more frequently don't have jobs that allow them to isolate) represent a disproportionate # of the younger deaths.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @utu
    @That Would Be Telling

    In absolute numbers more 75-84 died than 85+ among men but it is reversed among women.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

    , @Known Fact
    @That Would Be Telling

    Not going to "dox yourself" by mentioning your state to back up your observations? How about at least a region? Really, unless you live in Wyoming or Rhode Island no info on your state is going to even remotely risk doxxing you. You have plenty to say and some of it is well worth considering but don't play guessing games with the readers.

    I've been perfectly willing to "risk"stating that I live in Putnam County NY, the smallest county in the state with a mere 100,000 residents. It's important context at times because it's a red county on the shores of the blue blue sea. So come and get me, coppers! Top of the world, ma!

  67. @Anon
    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?

    Thanks for any direct links.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jack D, @Occasional lurker

    The way any vaccine works is that it primes your immune system to recognize and attack a virus. Say someone with a coronavirus infection coughs on you. The virus is now in your body and begins to infect your cells, whether or not you have been vaccinated. Your immune system always fights infection but before it can fight it it has to recognize that there is an intruder and then manufacture an antibody that is custom tailored to destroy that intruder (this is an amazing process, one of the true miracles of nature, but there has been a battle between living organisms and intruders for billions of years so the system has had plenty of time to evolve – if it didn’t work most of the time, your species would be extinct). It takes a while to get this process going and in the meantime the virus has a head start. Your body is then in a race – will your immune system kill the virus before the virus infects millions of cells and makes you sick?

    If you have been vaccinated, your immune system is the one with the head start in the race. As soon as the virus is in you, your immune system recognizes, attacks and destroys it before it can infect many cells. It’s like a fire sprinkler system in a building. Fire sprinklers don’t prevent fires from starting. What they do is that they detect fires and put them out before they can cause a lot of damage. Depending on how good the vaccine and your body’ response to it was, either you won’t develop symptoms at all or you will experience only a mild case. (In rare cases the vaccine doesn’t give you any benefit at all).

    “Covid” is defined as the disease, not the virus. So the short answer is yes, in most (95%) of cases, the vaccine will prevent you from have the disease. The disease and the symptoms are one and the same – the disease is defined as showing symptoms. As far as preventing the virus from being in your body, no it won’t – that’s not how vaccines work. They just allow your body’s immune system to quickly kill the virus before it gets to the point where you will show symptoms.

    A currently unanswered question is whether, when you are in the phase where you are infected but your vaccinated body is in process of killing the virus, you can still spread it to others. My guess is that is may be possible hypothetically but it is unlikely to occur in real life. People who are well and truly in an infectious phase of covid shed millions of virus particles – this is why the disease is so contagious. Certain people at certain phases of the disease become superspreaders – they are just spewing virus all over the place. The vaccine probably means that your virus count will be extremely low if not zero even at your most infectious phase.

    If another person gets hit with only a few virus particles, even if he has not been vaccinated, his natural immune system is usually able to fend off the attack – it’s only when millions of invaders arrive that the defenses are overwhelmed. This is one reason why some young healthy medical workers died, especially in the early phase of the disease before the need for PPE was understood – they were in close contact with highly infected patients and got big whiffs of the virus deep into their lungs. This is also part of the reason why masks are helpful – even if they are not 100% effective, they are going to greatly reduce the amount of virus that you inhale and you may experience a much milder case. A vaccinated person is not going to be a superspreader who is shedding million of particles.

    • Agree: AnotherDad, MEH 0910
    • Thanks: Sam Malone
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Excellent comprehensive comment, Jack.

    I thought everyone got this knowledge in schools, as vaccines are the greatest triumph of medical science. Just vaccina--Jenner making the eradication of smallpox possible--is a huge burden lifted from mankind.

    But i guess after you do slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust ... then you gotta read the (expurgated) "Diary of Anne Frank", learn about redlining, hair-touching and spend a day on Emmett Till ... pretty soon stuff like the dreaded toll of disease in the pre-modern world, and a bunch of dead white guys figuring out how to beat that just doesn't make the cut. Hair is still being touched, today, in 2020!

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Jack D

    Basically agree, but keep in mind that "masks are reducing severity of disease by decreasing initial viral dose" is a theory. So far, the only real evidence is the "hamster study"--although I wouldn't be surprised if that is not replicable. Other papers I have seen cited are just speculation, even ones that are presented as reviews are not really reviewing evidence.

  68. @Anon 2
    Spanish Flu (1918-19) killed at least 50 million people out of the
    global population of 1.8 billion. By comparison, Covid-19 so far has
    killed only 1.6 million out of the total population of 7.8 billion, and yet it’s
    treated like a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Have we become
    so psychologically fragile that we can’t even deal with a minor
    amount of extra suffering? Well, we’re living in the Great Age of
    Pandemics. As the population explosion continues, there will be
    more pandemics and more suffering coming our way, so we’d
    better get ready

    Replies: @ken, @Diversity Heretic

    Think about the world in which we live, if you quote scripture it’s hate speech. If Ann Coulter speaks to a couple of hundred students at a 25,000 student university the school needs to create safe spaces. If a black junkie dies while being restrained by the police half the world protests. We have been softened to the point that we no longer have a rational gauge of pain and suffering. The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures. With most COVID deaths involving older/health compromised individuals you’d think they’d be wanting the bug to spread. Think about it, after the initial die off there would be less strees on the healthcare system and personally I’d prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.

    • Replies: @utu
    @ken

    "I’d prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants." - You would change your mind if you got the digestive tract cancer.

    , @Anonymous
    @ken


    and personally I’d prefer to see nursing homes go out of business
     
    Why?
    , @AnotherDad
    @ken


    The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures.
     
    Not really.

    Population control was part of package of measures--along with eugenics--of the pre-minoritarian progressive WASPs, with some secular Jews--ex. Paul Ehrlich--on board as well.

    This old WASP progressive ideology was still salient when i was a teenager--ex. the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" had some ideological traction amongst TPTB.

    But it's been crushed by Jewish minoritarianism. Once white gentile fertility had been pushed below replacement ... there's been basically zero interest in population control. (The Dick Lamm vs. David Gelbaum Sierra Club battle--won by the rich Jew--is reflective of the tale.) You may get the odd smart WASP like Bill Gates harboring bad (inc. eugenic) thoughts speaking about population control very softly. But basically it's no longer spoken of. Population control is just not a minoritarian--ergo "woke"--thing.

    Worrying about population control means worrying about black and brown people breeding--it's racist!
  69. @That Would Be Telling
    @Anon


    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

     

    Citation Needed. Ignoring that you should ignore anything the CDC has to say about infectious disease control, it's no longer fashionable in the US public health community, which is focused on "lifestyle" issues like banning Big Gulps and guns, I read Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination, and the only item that seemed relevant was "Does immunity after getting COVID-19 last longer than protection for COVID-19 vaccines?" which even in the title acknowledges they provide immunity. Inside, it's unequivocal, "Regarding vaccination, we won’t know how long immunity lasts until we have a vaccine and more data on how well it works." One would hope this gets updated early next week, but this is the CDC.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?
     
    In preventing symptomatic and "serious" COVID-19 infections. Pfizer/BioNTech however didn't get enough data on serious infections, it's claimed they didn't enroll a lot of older people compared to Moderna, which I'll check up on if and when the latter gets EUA approval.

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?
     
    First you have to not roll snake eyes and be in the 5% for whom the most effective vaccines don't work, or don't work completely. Which based on what I've been learning lately about our insanely complicated immune systems (so much so I decided in the mid-1970s to only learn about them "as needed"), might have more to do with the adaptive immune system's wild and crazy nature than it being "defective," but there will of course be people who's immune systems don't work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.

    At last count, based on what we were reading about the FDA's threshold for the very most minimal statistical significance for trials this big, Moderna was just about able to show proof their vaccine prevents serious illness. That might be carved out of their 5% failure rate for the primary Phase III "endpoints," their much more statistically significant results in stopping symptomatic COVID-19 infections. That is, both company's Phase III trials have a substantial degree of proof they'll prevent ~95% of the people who get them from getting symptomatic COVID-19 altogether.

    And we can reasonably hope the same for severe disease will prove true for Pfizer/BioNTech, but that has to wait on more data, probably from Phase IV, surveillance of the "post-marketing" experiences as its given to a lot of people outside of trials.

    If you're willing to make free use of a search engine to expand your vocabulary, a good start would be the protocols used by these two companies for tests, Pfizer/BioNTech for all three Phases, and Moderna for Phase III. Also see ClinicalTrials.gov which will give you the bare bones of all the trials (although I've read Phase I trials don't have to be reported to the government), and Wikipedia will give you many more vaccine candidates to search for, but not the Sanofi/GSK one. I would also hope other companies with a US presence will or have published their Phase III protocols; ignore the clown show of AZ/Oxford for now, but I'd be astounded if Janssen didn't have its act together, and Novavax might be interesting.

    For what these trials attempt to do, here's Wikipedia on clinical trials. TL;DR: All are about safety, but Phase I is focused on dosing, and Phase III is mostly about efficacy, their basic safety having already been demonstrated in Phase I and II. Now this is interesting, per ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) did a or the Moderna Phase I trial, and to more patients with more dosages than has been reported. Moderna Phase II here, and Phase III here. Note the first two will continue into late 2021, and the last will be a bit over two years at minimum. Wonder why new drugs cost so much? These trials are expensive, and there's lots of failures in Phase III.

    Then the best condensed overview of results needed for FDA EUA approval will be found in the meeting materials their Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) have or have scheduled, Pfizer/BioNTech two days ago, December 10th, and Moderna scheduled for the 17th. They're livecasting them if you're really hard core.

    The two documents you want to look at are "Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document - FDA", prepared by FDA staff for the committee, and "Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [December 10, 2020] Meeting Briefing Document - Sponsor" prepared by the company or companies asking for approval. There's none yet for Moderna, but for the Pfizer/BioNTech one, FDA staff, and sponsor.

    And please feel free to ask me about any questions you have, while I've decided to stop "fighting" in these iSteve topic comments for the most part, I'm continuing to follow them and for example answering honest questions like your's.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You’re really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    One thing you said I wonder about:

    …but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.

    I’m not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it’s not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines? A substantial number of people will refuse the vaccine, especially if they are young and healthy and have little at risk by refusing it. This proportion might well exceed 25%. And how about younger children — should we even expect them to take the vaccination, even though they might contribute (somewhat) to the spread?

    If all of the vulnerable people get the vaccine — or at least all that don’t actively refuse it — why do we need herd immunity? Is there any segment of the population, however vulnerable, for which 95% efficacy isn’t enough? If a very vulnerable segment incurs even a 10% mortality rate without the vaccine, a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%. Why isn’t that enough, considering their overall high death rate from other causes, including the ordinary flu, and also considering the awful consequences of continued lockdowns, even on this very population?

    Now one variable we don’t really have a good handle on yet is the exact number of people in such populations who will be spared death or serious cases of Covid because of the vaccine. In the Moderna trial, 0 of the 30 serious cases of Covid were in the vaccine arm. This suggests statistically that the actual proportion spared serious cases will be above 90%. But it’s too small a number to feel great confidence where above 90% it will lie. It’s entirely plausible that the reduction in the death rate will be well above 95% — but, given these relatively rare events, this will require statistics drawn from the millions of cases of vaccination, rather than the trials.

    In any case, as we find out what the true numbers are, we should be able to make more rational decisions as to whether, and at what point, we can declare that the crisis is effectively over. I don’t see how herd immunity per se should be the criterion, unless those numbers turn out much worse than we might expect — that is, well below 95%.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @candid_observer


    a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%.
     
    Oops, I meant 95% efficacy, of course.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    @candid_observer


    I’m not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it’s not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines?
     
    Maybe not, but lots of subpopulations will. For example, if healthcare workers are all immunized, then they will not be able to bring it home to their families, and likewise cruise-ship workers and airline employees.

    Immunizing everyone who enters a nursing home, adult living facility, college dorm, boarding school, or jail or prison, will also do a lot to prevent the spread.

    In the late 1920's George Orwell railed against 'senseless' laws dictating that beds must be 36 inches apart in homeless shelters in England, leading to a shortage of beds.

    However, such precautions did work in slowing the spread of TB, though not enough to prevent it from killing poor old Orwell at the age of 47.

    Ironically, in one of his essays, he described a neighbor in a homeless shelter coughing all night, which Orwell found extremely annoying. It could have been that night that ultimately killed Orwell. Elsewhere he wrote about a lodging house:


    The dormitory was also disgusting, with the perpetual din of coughing and spitting – everyone in a lodging house has a chronic cough, no doubt from the foul air. [Or TB?]

    Even a lower level of herd immunity will slow the spread of the bug.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    , @candid_observer
    @candid_observer

    Beyond the problem of refusal of many to get vaccinated preventing "herd immunity", there's the possibility that the reduction of infectiousness in the vaccinated is below 95%. If it's, say, only 90%, and 75% non-infectiousness is required for herd immunity, we won't achieve it until or unless all but around 15% of the population take the vaccine.

    That would seem to be a pretty unrealistic number, given that so many young and healthy people have virtually no self-interested need to be vaccinated.

    How long would we have endure lockdowns and masks, if vaccines can't get us to herd immunity?

    God only knows.

  70. These vaccinations should start lowering the death rate around Biden’s inauguration day

    You mean they’ll count heart attacks as heart attacks?

    • Agree: JR Ewing
  71. @Buffalo Joe
    @That Would Be Telling

    That would, what state do you live in?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Johann Ricke

    That would, what state do you live in?

    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who’s currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Johann Ricke


    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who’s currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.
     
    Agree.

    Anyone who cared could easily figure out exactly who i am from my plentiful comments and a lot of really boring searching around. But they'd find out i'm a boring old retired guy. Unless they give themselves the right to start seizing my 401K and brokerage accounts ... i'm going to be ok. (And if they do that, i'll saddle up and take at least one or two of 'em with me on my way out.)

    Suggest all the younger working guys make sure to keep their comments clean--revealing personal anecdote free. To the point isn't bad anyway.

    Generally my advice to the younger set: Find a smart, level headed girl, who is really committed to being a wife and mom--not an easy task in today's corrupted environment, but doable--and make a lot of babies. It's fun! And this is the path to happiness--and to contentment in your old age as mortality approaches.

    The minoritarians can--and are certainly running full out doing it--screw up our nation. (Their behavior should never have been tolerated. This cancer should have been smothered--aborted--before it was even breathing.)

    But your family can survive. Don't let the bastards wreck that. Don't let the bastards win.

    Replies: @Voltarde

  72. @That Would Be Telling
    @Corvinus


    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.
     
    Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic? All you had to do was watch him in those press conferences and see his overweening narcissism in action, continuing to at least the joy-ride outside of Walter Reed. For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged. He took no heed of that effect and continued boosting things, the behavior of a sociopath (loosely defined). See also Bill Gates, who at best lacks the self-awareness to realize he's about the world's worst vaccine salesman.

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine
     
    Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they'll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time? Maybe Pfizer should have taken up front money from Operation Warp Speed (OWS) to bulk up their capabilities, instead of refusing everything but a purchase guarantee?

    OWS is being done Manhattan Project style, generally huge R&D investments in six other vaccine candidates plus bulking up manufacturing capability and making lots of doses before FDA approval, with support for at least two more, and plenty of money being spent on the supply chain. If you can deal with a lot of TDS, see Wikipedia on the six, with more details on the others.

    In less digestible chronological form, see the HHS "Fact Sheet: Explaining Operation Warp Speed", it has some details on the supply chain efforts which you can then use as search terms. "Distribution" also includes money to a company which manufactures, fills, and seals one use plastic syringes, to Corning for glass vials, and another that makes "glass coated plastic" vials.

    People are complaining about how OWS spread its bets on which vaccines would actually prove themselves to the FDA, from memory only an initial 100 million doses for each except from AZ/Oxford which is also getting money elsewhere, unseemly 20/20 hindsight in the middle of a pandemic. But of course the pandemic in the US has always been more about our cold civil war and scoring cheap political points than, you know, limiting disease and death.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Desiderius, @Corvinus

    For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged

    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @J.Ross



    For me the key inflection point was what [Trump] continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged
     
    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.
     
    Some nice moralizing there, but in the real world, that crazy but deterministic person is still there, still willing to shoot more hostages, and you can't take him out, only manage him so he does the least damage to the hostages.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross

  73. @Anonymous
    Meanwhile, anti-ICE protesters/losers surrounded a mom and daughter in their car in Manhattan, some tried to enter the vehicle, and mom sped off, hitting a few losers as she left.

    Maybe this beating and entering private cars should be legislated against as a felony?

    https://twitter.com/TheVengeance17/status/1337524862642958337?s=20

    Replies: @J.Ross, @AndrewR

    It already is illegal and historically the drivers would get off as soon as it was clear they feared for their life. We are witnessing a coup by a seditious bureaucracy to include judges and DAs, with sweeping non-enforcement of laws they don’t like.

  74. But right under that [offer for a free “trial” month of Prime membership], I saw where if you’re on public assistance, you can now get a Prime membership at a 50 percent discount.

    Right now I expect the population on public assistance is significantly skewed by people put out of work by lockdowns, fair or not, and of course all the industries which without government diktats were slagged by COVID-19, particularly people transportation and the “hospitality” sector. A lot of these people are not classic welfare recipients, and a bunch of them eventually have the prospect of returning to something like normal incomes etc.

    So a half price Prime Membership could be a long term play for these populations, and in the meanwhile it probably doesn’t cost Amazon a lot to incrementally pump out more video and music that’s part of a basic Prime membership.

    They should also be concerned with Walmart, which is building its own version of Prime with a rather different set of benefits, except for mail order, which also has the benefit of being a lot faster than Amazon based on my experiences. And Walmart.com or pickup or delivery has a tremendous advantage in Walmart’s well controlled and sane supply chain, vs. Amazon’s endless counterfeits, including commingling with their own inventory. Just spent 50% more to buy an electronic item from Walmart instead of Amazon because I was confident I’d get the real thing, plus an accessory which I may or may not use. Oh, and three days from order to delivery, lots better than their promise by Thursday of next week.

  75. @Anonymous
    Meanwhile, anti-ICE protesters/losers surrounded a mom and daughter in their car in Manhattan, some tried to enter the vehicle, and mom sped off, hitting a few losers as she left.

    Maybe this beating and entering private cars should be legislated against as a felony?

    https://twitter.com/TheVengeance17/status/1337524862642958337?s=20

    Replies: @J.Ross, @AndrewR

    ACAB

  76. @Hhsiii
    @Whiskey

    Didn’t China lockdown completely and contact traced everybody?

    NYC didn’t even lockdown. They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style. Movie theaters closed, Broadway, but most people wouldn’t go anyway.

    The subway is running.

    As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.

    My cousin’s box factory in Cleveland never shut down. His union leaders bitched at first but the workers have kept working.

    There really has never been a lockdown. People were already watching movies on Netflix, work from home was already theoretically possible, people ride the subway and walk through the park without masks and don’t get arrested. They may get a complaint from other people now and then. But I haven’t seen it.

    I know bartenders and waitresses. Chefs. Most still working.

    I’d say people hard hit include commercial real estate moguls. But that doesn’t fit the concept of this being a top down driven scam against the working class. This is just typical people running around reacting and government flailing away trying to look effective in a democracy.

    I assume your life hasn’t changed a bit. The worst complaints on here seem to be not being able to go to a gym. Or having to wear a mask in a store for a few minutes.

    Replies: @Peterike, @ken, @utu

    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough. And then when the infection rates were brought down to the manageable level they were not followed with effective tracing and isolating. Czechia and Poland did lockdowns early when the infection rate was much lower than in Italy, Spain or UK when they did their lockdowns but then they made a mistake acting as if the virus was eliminated and did not do effective tracing and isolating letting the virus percolate during summer. And then in one month or two they lost control and squandered all gains from the first lockdown. From one of the lowest deaths per capita in the world in July Czechia is now the 11th highest in Europe. Furthermore it seems that at the peak of their second wave they overwhelmed their medical systems and they may have more excessive deaths form other causes than from covid or their official covid deaths are severely undercounted.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @utu


    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough.
     
    The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they're needed at all. Permanent lockdown - that's the only answer.

    Don't be late for rollcall, Utu.

    Replies: @utu

  77. Emergency Alert

    Ben and Jerry’s have a new Ice Cream flavor; Kapernick Dismantle Systems Oppression. Don’t know who would eat it?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ben-jerrys-unveils-kaepernick-ice-cream-dismantle-systems-oppression

    Non Dairy – Lactose free.

  78. @John Achterhof
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Your dim appreciation for the new vaccines, broadly shared here it seems, clearly stems from disagreement with the course taken to this point of significant social and economic cost in expectation of expedient vaccine development rather than an assessment of their value at this point, by all indication, in greatly diminishing the harm to health of infection and expediting the end of the pandemic. I get it, you don't want to be wrong. An assessment in hindsight of the course taken seems to me a mixed bag of bankruptcies, rioting and political lunacy on one side and limited infection and the drug companies coming through spectacularly on the other, but in any event in looking forward from here as the saying goes, What's done is done.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Yours is an intelligently written and thought-out reply, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

    • Thanks: John Achterhof
  79. @candid_observer
    @That Would Be Telling

    I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You're really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    One thing you said I wonder about:


    ...but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.
     
    I'm not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it's not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines? A substantial number of people will refuse the vaccine, especially if they are young and healthy and have little at risk by refusing it. This proportion might well exceed 25%. And how about younger children -- should we even expect them to take the vaccination, even though they might contribute (somewhat) to the spread?

    If all of the vulnerable people get the vaccine -- or at least all that don't actively refuse it -- why do we need herd immunity? Is there any segment of the population, however vulnerable, for which 95% efficacy isn't enough? If a very vulnerable segment incurs even a 10% mortality rate without the vaccine, a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%. Why isn't that enough, considering their overall high death rate from other causes, including the ordinary flu, and also considering the awful consequences of continued lockdowns, even on this very population?

    Now one variable we don't really have a good handle on yet is the exact number of people in such populations who will be spared death or serious cases of Covid because of the vaccine. In the Moderna trial, 0 of the 30 serious cases of Covid were in the vaccine arm. This suggests statistically that the actual proportion spared serious cases will be above 90%. But it's too small a number to feel great confidence where above 90% it will lie. It's entirely plausible that the reduction in the death rate will be well above 95% -- but, given these relatively rare events, this will require statistics drawn from the millions of cases of vaccination, rather than the trials.

    In any case, as we find out what the true numbers are, we should be able to make more rational decisions as to whether, and at what point, we can declare that the crisis is effectively over. I don't see how herd immunity per se should be the criterion, unless those numbers turn out much worse than we might expect -- that is, well below 95%.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Jonathan Mason, @candid_observer

    a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%.

    Oops, I meant 95% efficacy, of course.

  80. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Sure, just like how taking the war to “The Terrorists” by invading Afghanistan and Iraq meant that we could dispense with all that intrusive security like the TSA and the Star-ID drivers license (without which you will need a passport for a lot of travel within the United States – just like in the old Soviet Union) and such. I remember when they dissolved the Department of Homeland Security back in 2005 as no longer being needed. And how the NSA stopped surveiling everyone in 2008 because we were all safe.

    You’re getting awfully naive in your old age, Steve. Government never gives up power. And this pandemic is part of the same racket as 911.

  81. @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve that's laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That's the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn't.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don't? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @JR Ewing, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon

    Steve that’s laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working- and middle-class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That’s the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    Only in the United States, not in the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jonathan Mason

    You seem to be responding to the racial details, which are of course specific to each case, but the simple character of the Great Reset is reducing the United States to European standards: no Constitutional rights, no high salaries for working people, no inherent property rights, no privacy, no huge houses or land plots, government unmoored from any pretense to anything but war upon its people, entrepreneurship made as difficult as possible, bureaucracy stifling everything, no expectation of public safety, police chasing "hate speech" and not murderers, etc.. The ruling caste thinks America was a mistake and essentially wants us to be France or Canada. So in this understanding "the rest of the world" is already there.

  82. @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve that's laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working and middle class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That's the whole point and only point when you boil it down.

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn't.

    The lockdowns will never ever end. Not ever. Not unless and until nearly every single government in the West is overthrown. There is no real threat for most by Beer Flu. China is not locked down. What do they know that you don't? It started there and they know more about it than anyone (since it was brewed up in their labs).

    Only a naive fool would trust the media on anything at this point.

    Replies: @Hhsiii, @JR Ewing, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon

    When Gavin Newsom was partying with his public health advisors and heads of every public health agency without masks, it should have been clear to you that there was no public health risk to them. THEY have inside info you do not, stuff not released to the media. What makes you smarter than the heads of the public health agencies? THEY did not act like Beer Flu was a risk to them. Because they knew it wasn’t.

    I don’t know that they really have information not available to the rest of us. Or that they necessarily know what to make of it – a lot of public officials aren’t that bright (Exhibit A: Eric Swalwell). But your broader point is correct. THEY don’t believe it. It’s called hypocrisy, but that just means not doing what you advocate. You might not do something you advocate, even though you believe it, for convenience. But this is the dreaded ‘Rona were talking about. This is a life-or-death matter. And still, THEY don’t really believe it.

    And, as to the rest of your post………….Well said, Whiskey. This isn’t about stopping a pandemic. This is about subjugating the World to the Will of a technocratic elite and their neo-feudal billionaire overlords.

  83. @utu
    @Hhsiii

    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough. And then when the infection rates were brought down to the manageable level they were not followed with effective tracing and isolating. Czechia and Poland did lockdowns early when the infection rate was much lower than in Italy, Spain or UK when they did their lockdowns but then they made a mistake acting as if the virus was eliminated and did not do effective tracing and isolating letting the virus percolate during summer. And then in one month or two they lost control and squandered all gains from the first lockdown. From one of the lowest deaths per capita in the world in July Czechia is now the 11th highest in Europe. Furthermore it seems that at the peak of their second wave they overwhelmed their medical systems and they may have more excessive deaths form other causes than from covid or their official covid deaths are severely undercounted.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough.

    The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer.

    Don’t be late for rollcall, Utu.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Mr. Anon

    "The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. " - There is a paradoxical truth in it. Lockdowns are more effective when the infection rate is low. The best way of keeping horses in the barn is to shut the barn door before they bolt. Early lockdowns are also less costly because the lockdown duration is proportional to the infection rate. If NYC went on lockdown two weeks sooner probably they could start relaxing countermeasures in four weeks providing that they would not import more cases form outside of the city and sate and began doing effective tracing and isolation.

    "Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer." - Trying to be funny, right? Not permanent bu very short. The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1. They should have gone on lockdown on that very day and began to work on closing borders and finding quarantine areas for travelers and people who had contacts and figuring out all kind of other issues but doing it when people were already on lockdown. I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all kids of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @vhrm, @Mr. Anon

  84. @JR Ewing
    Also, it always bears repeating that the mask game is just about signaling compliance and accepting humiliation.

    It's well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.

    There is, however, a germ of truth to the idea that the mask can prevent infected people from spreading the disease by blocking secretions exiting the mouth.

    But there is no such thing as "asymptomatic spread" of a respiratory virus. Respiratory viruses just don't work that way. They can't spread if they're not reproducing and they're not reproducing if the host doesn't have (or recently had) symptoms. We've known this for a hundred years.

    So if you're not scared of catching it, or if you're not actually sick, there is simply no need to wear a mask, much less a need for politicians to mandate universal wearing of masks.

    No, the real purpose of the mask game is the exact same purpose of the sign in the window of Havel's Greengrocer: to humiliate and to subjugate.

    Replies: @utu

    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.

    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That’s why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours “signaling compliance and accepting humiliation” suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    • Troll: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Replies: @Peterike
    @utu

    “ Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected.”

    Let’s suppose your body clears out the virus between infections. Which is what it does.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @utu


    Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time.
     
    Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first. So, lots of benefits of masks, although the main one is obviously to prevent people who are c0ughing from spraying the contents of their pharynx around.

    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.

    People with experience of working in a health care environment tend to understand these things, but for many members of the general public such concepts are surprisingly hard to get across.

    A large section of the population will never understand the rationale, so it makes sense to introduce mandatory compliance laws and noncompliance fines, just like with seatbelts. It really does not matter if you understand the reason for seatbelt laws or not, because all you need to know is that you can be fined for not wearing one.

    Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Reg Cæsar

    , @JR Ewing
    @utu

    It has always been considered against the norm to spit or cough into someone else's face, whether you're sick or not.

    (For the record, that's actually very hard to do unless you're trying to do so on purpose.)

    I'm not sure what society you live in (or want to live in), but if that's your justification for the effectiveness of masks in preventing infection to the wearer then it's not a society that I want to live in. Why don't we just always wear them from now on if we're that concerned that other people's spit is going to inadvertently get into our mouths from across the room? We've never done so in 10,000 years of recorded human history but if we've decided that getting spit on is a new crisis of civilization, then I agree, drastic problems are cause for drastic measures.

    However, as far as "airborne" viruses go - which is one of the actual justifications from the media and the government - virus particles are too small to be blocked by any kind of surgical or cloth mask.

    Furthermore, please note from the other text of my comment: infectious people - those with actual symptoms - can indeed limit the spread by wearing masks for the reasons you mention. In those circumstances, as has been the cultural norm for the same 10,000 years, isolating oneself and not distributing one's spit and snot in public is the polite and effective thing to do. We don't need the government telling us that - presumably our mothers already did - and we don't need the government ordering us not to be too liberal with our spittle. Or, at least, an humble government that knows the limits of its own power.

    But for the rest of us from traditional human society who aren't deathly scared of getting spit on, whether you think we should be or not, and who are not symptomatic and therefore not at risk of spreading the Wu Flu, wearing a mask accomplishes nothing except to function as a loyalty badge for conformity with a government order.

    Replies: @utu

    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @utu

    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical 'cases' data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don't do anything. The science is settled. Sperging about virums in spittle droplets is irrelevant. Hypothetically, diapers stop respiratory disease transmission - peer reviewed science says otherwise.

    Replies: @utu

  85. @ken
    @Anon 2

    Think about the world in which we live, if you quote scripture it's hate speech. If Ann Coulter speaks to a couple of hundred students at a 25,000 student university the school needs to create safe spaces. If a black junkie dies while being restrained by the police half the world protests. We have been softened to the point that we no longer have a rational gauge of pain and suffering. The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures. With most COVID deaths involving older/health compromised individuals you'd think they'd be wanting the bug to spread. Think about it, after the initial die off there would be less strees on the healthcare system and personally I'd prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.

    Replies: @utu, @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    “I’d prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.” – You would change your mind if you got the digestive tract cancer.

  86. @Mike Tre
    @That Would Be Telling

    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.

    A silly ad hominem, for while I’m at elevated risk because of my age, I’m still in the very lowest priority group, I simply don’t have that option. But I have every expectation I will be taking one of these vaccines when I actually can.

    Meanwhile, you’d actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    @That Would Be Telling


    you’d actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.
     
    All your words words words numbers numbers numbers boil down to “it’s just a totally safe and super necessary vaccine, bro.”

    Save yourself some keystrokes and stick to that.

    Safety and efficacy are moot. The vaccine is unnecessary.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    , @Mike Tre
    @That Would Be Telling

    Frankly, the only thing left to do is mock you pro-panic petty tyrants. You can read what I've already written about what the fundamental issue is here. You PPPT's have not only given up even more of your freedom of association, speech, and movement, you are celebrating it, and you are condemning those of us who dare to not run off the cliff with you.

    So if you, and Love-Ewe-tu, and Sailer, and Jack F want to hide out, mask up, and get poked, be my guest. I don't care what you do... until you start telling me how I'm supposed to live my life. Then you are no better than any of the rest of the totalitarian mouth breathers currently running Western Civilization into the outhouse.

  87. @candid_observer
    @That Would Be Telling

    I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You're really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    One thing you said I wonder about:


    ...but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.
     
    I'm not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it's not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines? A substantial number of people will refuse the vaccine, especially if they are young and healthy and have little at risk by refusing it. This proportion might well exceed 25%. And how about younger children -- should we even expect them to take the vaccination, even though they might contribute (somewhat) to the spread?

    If all of the vulnerable people get the vaccine -- or at least all that don't actively refuse it -- why do we need herd immunity? Is there any segment of the population, however vulnerable, for which 95% efficacy isn't enough? If a very vulnerable segment incurs even a 10% mortality rate without the vaccine, a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%. Why isn't that enough, considering their overall high death rate from other causes, including the ordinary flu, and also considering the awful consequences of continued lockdowns, even on this very population?

    Now one variable we don't really have a good handle on yet is the exact number of people in such populations who will be spared death or serious cases of Covid because of the vaccine. In the Moderna trial, 0 of the 30 serious cases of Covid were in the vaccine arm. This suggests statistically that the actual proportion spared serious cases will be above 90%. But it's too small a number to feel great confidence where above 90% it will lie. It's entirely plausible that the reduction in the death rate will be well above 95% -- but, given these relatively rare events, this will require statistics drawn from the millions of cases of vaccination, rather than the trials.

    In any case, as we find out what the true numbers are, we should be able to make more rational decisions as to whether, and at what point, we can declare that the crisis is effectively over. I don't see how herd immunity per se should be the criterion, unless those numbers turn out much worse than we might expect -- that is, well below 95%.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Jonathan Mason, @candid_observer

    I’m not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it’s not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines?

    Maybe not, but lots of subpopulations will. For example, if healthcare workers are all immunized, then they will not be able to bring it home to their families, and likewise cruise-ship workers and airline employees.

    Immunizing everyone who enters a nursing home, adult living facility, college dorm, boarding school, or jail or prison, will also do a lot to prevent the spread.

    In the late 1920’s George Orwell railed against ‘senseless’ laws dictating that beds must be 36 inches apart in homeless shelters in England, leading to a shortage of beds.

    However, such precautions did work in slowing the spread of TB, though not enough to prevent it from killing poor old Orwell at the age of 47.

    Ironically, in one of his essays, he described a neighbor in a homeless shelter coughing all night, which Orwell found extremely annoying. It could have been that night that ultimately killed Orwell. Elsewhere he wrote about a lodging house:

    The dormitory was also disgusting, with the perpetual din of coughing and spitting – everyone in a lodging house has a chronic cough, no doubt from the foul air. [Or TB?]

    Even a lower level of herd immunity will slow the spread of the bug.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Jonathan Mason

    While some subpopulations may be able mostly to stop the spread amongst themselves or to others, there may be many large segments of the population in which R is well above 1, among which the spread will simply continue -- say young and healthy people who aren't otherwise required to take the vaccine for work or school.

    Should this spread really concern us if all of the vulnerable are vaccinated who choose to be?

    Unlike others, I'm pretty sure that masks and lockdowns do improve R. But, given current outbreaks even with masking and lockdowns, I do wonder how effective they actually are. I don't know what number can be put to their effect with any confidence.

  88. @utu
    @JR Ewing


    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.
     
    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That's why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours "signaling compliance and accepting humiliation" suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    Replies: @Peterike, @Jonathan Mason, @JR Ewing, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    “ Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected.”

    Let’s suppose your body clears out the virus between infections. Which is what it does.

  89. @utu
    @JR Ewing


    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.
     
    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That's why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours "signaling compliance and accepting humiliation" suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    Replies: @Peterike, @Jonathan Mason, @JR Ewing, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time.

    Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first. So, lots of benefits of masks, although the main one is obviously to prevent people who are c0ughing from spraying the contents of their pharynx around.

    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.

    People with experience of working in a health care environment tend to understand these things, but for many members of the general public such concepts are surprisingly hard to get across.

    A large section of the population will never understand the rationale, so it makes sense to introduce mandatory compliance laws and noncompliance fines, just like with seatbelts. It really does not matter if you understand the reason for seatbelt laws or not, because all you need to know is that you can be fined for not wearing one.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @Jonathan Mason

    "Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first."

    Perhaps you do. Most Diaper-Americans touch their faces constantly whilst diapered. And I have never, not once, seen a diaperist sanitize her hands before adjusting her muzzle.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jonathan Mason


    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.
     
    That's what Kimberly Bergalis said, and everyone mocked her.
  90. @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    100 million have already recovered from COVID and many people have natural immunity to it. If another 100 million Americans contract COVID over the next year we would expect under 300,000 additional deaths because treatments have gotten much better. we would also reach heard immunity if another 100 million Americans contract COVID and the pandemic would be over.

    to suggest that 2 million Americans would die from COVID without a vaccine is preposterous at this point. The many vaccine trials confirm the very low fatality rate observed in the placebo groups. There was no second wave in New York because 33% the population already recovered from COVID by June. While not at the level of heard immunity, when a third of the people of an area have already recovered the spread is dramatically reduced , eliminating the possibility of a large second wave of deaths.

    It is good news that we have some effective vaccines, and if most of the Americans at risk of COVID get the vaccine it will may save 100,000 lives over the next year. The vast majority of Americans are not at risk of dying from this virus, for people under the age of 49 (200 million Americans) the risk is similar to the flu.

    Replies: @utu, @S. Anonyia

    “100 million have already recovered from COVID” – You can’t make this assumption. While it is possible that in some areas of NYC the infection rate was 33% you can’t not extrapolate it onto the whole country. Furthermore NYC IFR in the first wave was most likely higher than 1%. meaning that the death count in NYC implied lower than 33% infection rate on average for NYC. That in the second wave in NYC and NY state the number of deaths is lower is chiefly because the vulnerable are protected better form getting infected than during the first wave.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @utu


    “100 million have already recovered from COVID” – You can’t make this assumption.
     
    Or rather, you can't base public health policy on this CDC!!! estimate if you're sane, the health and lives of too many people depend on getting this right. Some really high quality and expensive research would be required, I would think in a number of different parts of the country, never forgetting that there's a ceiling to serological immune system tests due to how wild and crazy, mostly in a good way, our adaptive immune systems are. I've heard it's 96%, but have seen individual tests claiming higher numbers, which might be possible given advances in the technology.

    Otherwise I defer to your thorough bird dogging of this topic.
  91. @candid_observer
    @That Would Be Telling

    I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You're really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    One thing you said I wonder about:


    ...but there will of course be people who’s immune systems don’t work well in that 5%. And thus the need for herd immunity.
     
    I'm not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it's not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines? A substantial number of people will refuse the vaccine, especially if they are young and healthy and have little at risk by refusing it. This proportion might well exceed 25%. And how about younger children -- should we even expect them to take the vaccination, even though they might contribute (somewhat) to the spread?

    If all of the vulnerable people get the vaccine -- or at least all that don't actively refuse it -- why do we need herd immunity? Is there any segment of the population, however vulnerable, for which 95% efficacy isn't enough? If a very vulnerable segment incurs even a 10% mortality rate without the vaccine, a 50% efficacy in suppressing death would reduce it to 0.5%. Why isn't that enough, considering their overall high death rate from other causes, including the ordinary flu, and also considering the awful consequences of continued lockdowns, even on this very population?

    Now one variable we don't really have a good handle on yet is the exact number of people in such populations who will be spared death or serious cases of Covid because of the vaccine. In the Moderna trial, 0 of the 30 serious cases of Covid were in the vaccine arm. This suggests statistically that the actual proportion spared serious cases will be above 90%. But it's too small a number to feel great confidence where above 90% it will lie. It's entirely plausible that the reduction in the death rate will be well above 95% -- but, given these relatively rare events, this will require statistics drawn from the millions of cases of vaccination, rather than the trials.

    In any case, as we find out what the true numbers are, we should be able to make more rational decisions as to whether, and at what point, we can declare that the crisis is effectively over. I don't see how herd immunity per se should be the criterion, unless those numbers turn out much worse than we might expect -- that is, well below 95%.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Jonathan Mason, @candid_observer

    Beyond the problem of refusal of many to get vaccinated preventing “herd immunity”, there’s the possibility that the reduction of infectiousness in the vaccinated is below 95%. If it’s, say, only 90%, and 75% non-infectiousness is required for herd immunity, we won’t achieve it until or unless all but around 15% of the population take the vaccine.

    That would seem to be a pretty unrealistic number, given that so many young and healthy people have virtually no self-interested need to be vaccinated.

    How long would we have endure lockdowns and masks, if vaccines can’t get us to herd immunity?

    God only knows.

  92. Why not tonight?

    It may have something to do with:

    The committee of independent vaccine experts voted 17 to 4, with one abstention, that the benefits of the vaccine from Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE outweigh the risks for use in people ages 16 and older.

    They may be concerned about those 4 No votes and an abstention and want to read all the fine print before scaling from 40,000 generally healthy Phase III volunteers to a wild west of people with poor health, poor hygiene, not-always-following guidelines population. That fact that in U.K., a few people got allergy right after the vaccine shot that was probably undetected in 40,000 people trial might have been concerning.

    President Trump’s chief of staff threatened the F.D.A. head’s job if he didn’t get it done on Friday

    Gives them the political cover needed to push it out the door. If anything were to go wrong, especially massively, now they can say it was a political decision to move fast. Standard behavior of hidebound organizations like FDA.

    As a comparison, just recently, FAA decided the aircraft manufacturers may certify their own planes and quickly we saw the consequences.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @epebble

    CDC will monitor for Bell’s palsy among Pfizer vaccine recipients, but sees no causal relationship

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/cdc-monitors-for-bells-palsy-among-pfizer-vaccine-recipients-sees-no-causal-relationship.html

  93. @Jonathan Mason
    @candid_observer


    I’m not sure I get the concern about herd immunity here, especially since it’s not obvious it will ever be achievable. Suppose herd immunity requires 75% immunity. Will we ever get there via vaccines?
     
    Maybe not, but lots of subpopulations will. For example, if healthcare workers are all immunized, then they will not be able to bring it home to their families, and likewise cruise-ship workers and airline employees.

    Immunizing everyone who enters a nursing home, adult living facility, college dorm, boarding school, or jail or prison, will also do a lot to prevent the spread.

    In the late 1920's George Orwell railed against 'senseless' laws dictating that beds must be 36 inches apart in homeless shelters in England, leading to a shortage of beds.

    However, such precautions did work in slowing the spread of TB, though not enough to prevent it from killing poor old Orwell at the age of 47.

    Ironically, in one of his essays, he described a neighbor in a homeless shelter coughing all night, which Orwell found extremely annoying. It could have been that night that ultimately killed Orwell. Elsewhere he wrote about a lodging house:


    The dormitory was also disgusting, with the perpetual din of coughing and spitting – everyone in a lodging house has a chronic cough, no doubt from the foul air. [Or TB?]

    Even a lower level of herd immunity will slow the spread of the bug.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    While some subpopulations may be able mostly to stop the spread amongst themselves or to others, there may be many large segments of the population in which R is well above 1, among which the spread will simply continue — say young and healthy people who aren’t otherwise required to take the vaccine for work or school.

    Should this spread really concern us if all of the vulnerable are vaccinated who choose to be?

    Unlike others, I’m pretty sure that masks and lockdowns do improve R. But, given current outbreaks even with masking and lockdowns, I do wonder how effective they actually are. I don’t know what number can be put to their effect with any confidence.

  94. @Old and Grumpy
    @Steve Sailer

    I am against both the mandatory vaccines and lockdowns. Heck I live where lockdowns are just an abstract notion. Should have let both the bug and people run free in the spring and summer months. The sun could have done its thing, and we would have hopefully be done with Covid. People will be hurt by the vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies know they can't profit from the vaccines without immunity from liability. Finally who paid for the creation of this bug? Shouldn't we ask before taking a new kind of vaccine, which has no years of tradition testing behind it?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    The pharmaceutical companies know they can’t profit from the vaccines without immunity from liability.

    Which explains why, in the US, they don’t market to adults vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), the flu, shingles, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B, two against pneumococcal infections, meningococcal A, C, W, Y, and B in second one, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. The first TDaP set against toxins produced by bacteria, the last five against bacterial infections.

    No, the reason is that governments are cheap, and the US in particular has an insane civil legal system. The vaccine companies might be willing to market their’s in the US, but assume at 10x or 100x the price. Far simpler to shunt claims to a brand new vaccine court according to a previous iSteve comment; I wonder why not the one for childhood vaccines that started running in 1988 due to pertussis vaccine becoming unobtanium, to which smallpox was added post-9/11.

    Finally who paid for the creation of this bug?

    No less than Saint Fauci himself, if you believe it’s most likely a gain of function experiment in the Wuhan Institute for Virology; prior to that, his institute paid them for 4-5 years to collect exotic bat viruses. Probably not the only source of funding, but it’s a fact studiously ignored by our betters, including researchers who correctly believe they should be subjected to a lot more rigorous restrictions if it became Officially True.

    Shouldn’t we ask before taking a new kind of vaccine, which has no years of tradition testing behind it?

    Citation for years of testing, vs. development which normally includes waiting for your next grant approval? I saw on a very unreliable site that the normal period for a Phase III trial is six months, but that’s for general population licensure, not an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) where the FDA decided two months is enough after the last dose, based on the observation that the vast majority of severe side effects show up in a month and a half. Of course, when you’re planning on vaccinating tens of millions of people based on an EUA … well, it’s an emergency for a lot of old people….

  95. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The way any vaccine works is that it primes your immune system to recognize and attack a virus. Say someone with a coronavirus infection coughs on you. The virus is now in your body and begins to infect your cells, whether or not you have been vaccinated. Your immune system always fights infection but before it can fight it it has to recognize that there is an intruder and then manufacture an antibody that is custom tailored to destroy that intruder (this is an amazing process, one of the true miracles of nature, but there has been a battle between living organisms and intruders for billions of years so the system has had plenty of time to evolve - if it didn't work most of the time, your species would be extinct). It takes a while to get this process going and in the meantime the virus has a head start. Your body is then in a race - will your immune system kill the virus before the virus infects millions of cells and makes you sick?

    If you have been vaccinated, your immune system is the one with the head start in the race. As soon as the virus is in you, your immune system recognizes, attacks and destroys it before it can infect many cells. It's like a fire sprinkler system in a building. Fire sprinklers don't prevent fires from starting. What they do is that they detect fires and put them out before they can cause a lot of damage. Depending on how good the vaccine and your body' response to it was, either you won't develop symptoms at all or you will experience only a mild case. (In rare cases the vaccine doesn't give you any benefit at all).

    "Covid" is defined as the disease, not the virus. So the short answer is yes, in most (95%) of cases, the vaccine will prevent you from have the disease. The disease and the symptoms are one and the same - the disease is defined as showing symptoms. As far as preventing the virus from being in your body, no it won't - that's not how vaccines work. They just allow your body's immune system to quickly kill the virus before it gets to the point where you will show symptoms.

    A currently unanswered question is whether, when you are in the phase where you are infected but your vaccinated body is in process of killing the virus, you can still spread it to others. My guess is that is may be possible hypothetically but it is unlikely to occur in real life. People who are well and truly in an infectious phase of covid shed millions of virus particles - this is why the disease is so contagious. Certain people at certain phases of the disease become superspreaders - they are just spewing virus all over the place. The vaccine probably means that your virus count will be extremely low if not zero even at your most infectious phase.

    If another person gets hit with only a few virus particles, even if he has not been vaccinated, his natural immune system is usually able to fend off the attack - it's only when millions of invaders arrive that the defenses are overwhelmed. This is one reason why some young healthy medical workers died, especially in the early phase of the disease before the need for PPE was understood - they were in close contact with highly infected patients and got big whiffs of the virus deep into their lungs. This is also part of the reason why masks are helpful - even if they are not 100% effective, they are going to greatly reduce the amount of virus that you inhale and you may experience a much milder case. A vaccinated person is not going to be a superspreader who is shedding million of particles.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Chrisnonymous

    Excellent comprehensive comment, Jack.

    I thought everyone got this knowledge in schools, as vaccines are the greatest triumph of medical science. Just vaccina–Jenner making the eradication of smallpox possible–is a huge burden lifted from mankind.

    But i guess after you do slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust … then you gotta read the (expurgated) “Diary of Anne Frank”, learn about redlining, hair-touching and spend a day on Emmett Till … pretty soon stuff like the dreaded toll of disease in the pre-modern world, and a bunch of dead white guys figuring out how to beat that just doesn’t make the cut. Hair is still being touched, today, in 2020!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad

    Lol no.

    You going to give us an in depth history of radio astronomy now to deny that Arecibo just ignomiously collapsed?

    None of that matters. The issue is the present day degradation of the systems that supported both those breakthroughs themselves and the translation of those breakthroughs into widespread, effective, and safe therapies.

    It’s already substantial and will kick up to the next gear under the utterly corrupt and illiterate rule of the Bidenites.

    I’ve seen this firsthand through my own multiple transplants and the contrast I saw in the medical support systems between the two. But at the end of the day I’m like Steve so went ahead and had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.

    Replies: @Jack D

  96. @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    100 million have already recovered from COVID and many people have natural immunity to it. If another 100 million Americans contract COVID over the next year we would expect under 300,000 additional deaths because treatments have gotten much better. we would also reach heard immunity if another 100 million Americans contract COVID and the pandemic would be over.

    to suggest that 2 million Americans would die from COVID without a vaccine is preposterous at this point. The many vaccine trials confirm the very low fatality rate observed in the placebo groups. There was no second wave in New York because 33% the population already recovered from COVID by June. While not at the level of heard immunity, when a third of the people of an area have already recovered the spread is dramatically reduced , eliminating the possibility of a large second wave of deaths.

    It is good news that we have some effective vaccines, and if most of the Americans at risk of COVID get the vaccine it will may save 100,000 lives over the next year. The vast majority of Americans are not at risk of dying from this virus, for people under the age of 49 (200 million Americans) the risk is similar to the flu.

    Replies: @utu, @S. Anonyia

    I don’t think 100 million people have had it. I would have probably caught it in that case, and antibody tests suggest I haven’t. I’ve traveled plenty and have been exposed many times to people who have it. I’m not sure it spreads as easily as they say. I think it may require closer contact than the experts suggest. Everyone I know who caught COVID is the gregarious “touchy feely” type who likes to hug.

    The good news is, it’s definitely becoming less deadly. Local news reported people in their 40s and 50s regularly getting hospitalized from it back in April. Not anymore. Several of my relatives came down with it around Thanksgiving, and even those that are overweight and in their 50s/60s did not got seriously ill. It was not even as bad as the flu. The younger people didn’t experience much at all other than the loss of smell/taste and fatigue.

    • Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco
    @S. Anonyia

    The antibody tests miss detecting antibodies is about 10% of recovered COVID patients, and they fade rapidly. Back in August my wife and I were tested for the antibodies. She was negative , I was positive for the antibodies. In March we both had bad colds, with sore throats and fatigue. Lasted 7 days for me, which is the longest cold I ever experienced in my life. My wife recovered in 5 days. Neither of us had a fever.

    Last week we tested negative for the antibodies when Red Cross tested our blood donations. This is typical. People who tested positive for antibodies months ago will be negative when tested again because they fade rapidly. I suspect immunity to this virus may last less than 12 months because the antibodies are gone after 8 months for most people.

  97. The pandemic will end, as all pandemics have, when the last person to contract COVID is unable to pass it on to someone else. Until that happens, you have 3 choices.

    First, the Biden choice. Avoid all contact with others.That will keep you safe, but it’s not something that most people want to do for months on end.

    Second, you can get vaccinated. I’ve never had a reaction to a flu shot, and the only vaccine I recall having a side effect from, a sore shoulder for a day or so, was the tetanus shot. This is definitely my choice. I know some people can have allergic reactions to certain vaccines, and if they have a history of such problems, they may want to avoid it and go with the Biden choice.

    Third, you can contract COVID. You’re playing Russian roulette, but it’s with a revolver that has 100, maybe 200 cylinders. If you like excitement, the movie Deer Hunter, or are afraid of needles, this is the choice for you.

  98. @utu
    @Travis

    "100 million have already recovered from COVID" - You can't make this assumption. While it is possible that in some areas of NYC the infection rate was 33% you can't not extrapolate it onto the whole country. Furthermore NYC IFR in the first wave was most likely higher than 1%. meaning that the death count in NYC implied lower than 33% infection rate on average for NYC. That in the second wave in NYC and NY state the number of deaths is lower is chiefly because the vulnerable are protected better form getting infected than during the first wave.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    “100 million have already recovered from COVID” – You can’t make this assumption.

    Or rather, you can’t base public health policy on this CDC!!! estimate if you’re sane, the health and lives of too many people depend on getting this right. Some really high quality and expensive research would be required, I would think in a number of different parts of the country, never forgetting that there’s a ceiling to serological immune system tests due to how wild and crazy, mostly in a good way, our adaptive immune systems are. I’ve heard it’s 96%, but have seen individual tests claiming higher numbers, which might be possible given advances in the technology.

    Otherwise I defer to your thorough bird dogging of this topic.

  99. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    There’s no logic here. The lockdown was a criminal mistake made and worsened without reference to medicine or fact. The gutting of the restaurant industry is a way of crushing small business and punishing people for votimg for Trump, not a medical safeguard, certainly not in light of the almost non-existence of restaurant infection or the permitting of airplanes and airport bars. We have no reason to expect that our persecuting masters will relent if we do what they say.

  100. @Jonathan Mason
    @Whiskey


    Steve that’s laughable. No one with a brain would think the lockdowns would EVER end. Why would they? They are not and never were about public health. They were ALWAYS about the Great Reset and making working- and middle-class Whites and Latinos into serfs and peons eating bugs and drinking recycled (barely) sewage. That’s the whole point and only point when you boil it down.
     
    Only in the United States, not in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    You seem to be responding to the racial details, which are of course specific to each case, but the simple character of the Great Reset is reducing the United States to European standards: no Constitutional rights, no high salaries for working people, no inherent property rights, no privacy, no huge houses or land plots, government unmoored from any pretense to anything but war upon its people, entrepreneurship made as difficult as possible, bureaucracy stifling everything, no expectation of public safety, police chasing “hate speech” and not murderers, etc.. The ruling caste thinks America was a mistake and essentially wants us to be France or Canada. So in this understanding “the rest of the world” is already there.

  101. @J.Ross
    @That Would Be Telling

    For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged

    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    For me the key inflection point was what [Trump] continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged

    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.

    Some nice moralizing there, but in the real world, that crazy but deterministic person is still there, still willing to shoot more hostages, and you can’t take him out, only manage him so he does the least damage to the hostages.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    It was Trump’s job to take him out.

    To the extent he failed that was the failure. That it is unclear to this day whether he was even aware that this was going on is of course the fundamental failure, and not just Trump’s.

    , @J.Ross
    @That Would Be Telling

    I'm moralizing? What "manage" him, what does that even mean, were you looking for the word "appease"? We're talking about people who voluntarily wrecked the economy. Have you forgotten the media fawning over Nork royalty out of TDS? There is nothing Trump could have done differently which would have persuaded these children to behave.

  102. @That Would Be Telling
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I'll just say it's in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn't horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I've ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that's a low order priority, especially now that there's a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Jack D, @utu, @Known Fact

    Is this from ER docs/staff that you know or the local news?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Desiderius

    My information is from ER docs who are speaking for themselves, but on the record and using their True Names, local news, which of course are just repeating what the local hospitals tell them, and local health departments and their dashboards.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  103. @That Would Be Telling
    @J.Ross



    For me the key inflection point was what [Trump] continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged
     
    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.
     
    Some nice moralizing there, but in the real world, that crazy but deterministic person is still there, still willing to shoot more hostages, and you can't take him out, only manage him so he does the least damage to the hostages.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross

    It was Trump’s job to take him out.

    To the extent he failed that was the failure. That it is unclear to this day whether he was even aware that this was going on is of course the fundamental failure, and not just Trump’s.

  104. @JR Ewing
    @Whiskey

    I agree. The vaccine is meaningless. People are getting excited over a "vaccine" for a disease that is very unlikely to be a danger to them unless they happen to be in some very specific demographic categories. For most people, meaning most of productive society, covid is and has always been a very minor risk. And definitely not a risk worth shutting down society for.

    The whole point of the overblown vaccine news now is to give politicians and the media a chance to walk back the panic without having to admit they were wrong. Without admitting they were wrong, the lockdown option lives on.

    The whole point of the lockdowns (however severe they may or may not have been) and the loyalty muzzles wasn't to stop the spread of the disease, it was to condition the people into accepting that society can be curtailed and the people controlled by indefinite edict alone. And most of the people have happily complied with no resistance.

    You didn't like the response to Chinese Flu? Just wait until you experience the new and improved response to climate change. Or racism. Or obesity. Or whatever "crisis" some politician decides needs to be foisted on you whenever we wants to flex his muscles. Welcome to our future.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    it was to condition the people into accepting that society can be curtailed and the people controlled by indefinite edict alone.

    Cool conspiracy theory bro.

  105. @utu
    @JR Ewing


    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.
     
    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That's why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours "signaling compliance and accepting humiliation" suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    Replies: @Peterike, @Jonathan Mason, @JR Ewing, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    It has always been considered against the norm to spit or cough into someone else’s face, whether you’re sick or not.

    (For the record, that’s actually very hard to do unless you’re trying to do so on purpose.)

    I’m not sure what society you live in (or want to live in), but if that’s your justification for the effectiveness of masks in preventing infection to the wearer then it’s not a society that I want to live in. Why don’t we just always wear them from now on if we’re that concerned that other people’s spit is going to inadvertently get into our mouths from across the room? We’ve never done so in 10,000 years of recorded human history but if we’ve decided that getting spit on is a new crisis of civilization, then I agree, drastic problems are cause for drastic measures.

    However, as far as “airborne” viruses go – which is one of the actual justifications from the media and the government – virus particles are too small to be blocked by any kind of surgical or cloth mask.

    Furthermore, please note from the other text of my comment: infectious people – those with actual symptoms – can indeed limit the spread by wearing masks for the reasons you mention. In those circumstances, as has been the cultural norm for the same 10,000 years, isolating oneself and not distributing one’s spit and snot in public is the polite and effective thing to do. We don’t need the government telling us that – presumably our mothers already did – and we don’t need the government ordering us not to be too liberal with our spittle. Or, at least, an humble government that knows the limits of its own power.

    But for the rest of us from traditional human society who aren’t deathly scared of getting spit on, whether you think we should be or not, and who are not symptomatic and therefore not at risk of spreading the Wu Flu, wearing a mask accomplishes nothing except to function as a loyalty badge for conformity with a government order.

    • Replies: @utu
    @JR Ewing

    "....virus particles are too small to be blocked by any kind of surgical or cloth mask ..."- Viruses travel on larger micro droplets and droplets. Aerosols carry electrostatic charge which is one reason they are intercepted by the threads of material of masks when passing through openings larger than their physical size. Most viruses vary in diameter from 20 nanometers to 400 nm. Covid virus is 60nm-140nm. Filtration of some fabrics can be as high as 90% in 20nm-400nm range. Multilayer fabrics do better. See figures in:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Rest of your comment is just a face saving rambling drivel. This is actually a good sign because deep down you know you are embarrassing yourself. Shame can be a good motivator.

  106. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Excellent comprehensive comment, Jack.

    I thought everyone got this knowledge in schools, as vaccines are the greatest triumph of medical science. Just vaccina--Jenner making the eradication of smallpox possible--is a huge burden lifted from mankind.

    But i guess after you do slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust ... then you gotta read the (expurgated) "Diary of Anne Frank", learn about redlining, hair-touching and spend a day on Emmett Till ... pretty soon stuff like the dreaded toll of disease in the pre-modern world, and a bunch of dead white guys figuring out how to beat that just doesn't make the cut. Hair is still being touched, today, in 2020!

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Lol no.

    You going to give us an in depth history of radio astronomy now to deny that Arecibo just ignomiously collapsed?

    None of that matters. The issue is the present day degradation of the systems that supported both those breakthroughs themselves and the translation of those breakthroughs into widespread, effective, and safe therapies.

    It’s already substantial and will kick up to the next gear under the utterly corrupt and illiterate rule of the Bidenites.

    I’ve seen this firsthand through my own multiple transplants and the contrast I saw in the medical support systems between the two. But at the end of the day I’m like Steve so went ahead and had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Desiderius


    had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.
     
    I am sorry to hear this but "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this") has been understood to be a fallacy since Roman times. It just so happens that the age at which children show signs of autism is also around the age at which they are vaccinated but numerous studies have shown that one has nothing to do with the other.

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

    Of course no one is happen to learn that they have an autistic child and it is natural to look for blame (in the old days the doctors use to blame the parenting style of the child's parents so you are lucky that those days are over) and seeking blame also leads to feeling of guilt and "did I do something to cause this?" and "is there something that I should have done differently?" The answer is NO. This is not your fault, this is not something that you did or did not do, including having your child vaccinated. Here is this vale of tears, stuff happens. People especially go looking for causes in the case of autism because the child often develops normally up to a certain point and seems to be completely fine. And then suddenly the child plateaus or even lose previously developed skills so it looks like something external has triggered the onset. It's not the vaccine, it's not anything that you did.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  107. @Johann Ricke
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who's currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who’s currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.

    Agree.

    Anyone who cared could easily figure out exactly who i am from my plentiful comments and a lot of really boring searching around. But they’d find out i’m a boring old retired guy. Unless they give themselves the right to start seizing my 401K and brokerage accounts … i’m going to be ok. (And if they do that, i’ll saddle up and take at least one or two of ’em with me on my way out.)

    Suggest all the younger working guys make sure to keep their comments clean–revealing personal anecdote free. To the point isn’t bad anyway.

    Generally my advice to the younger set: Find a smart, level headed girl, who is really committed to being a wife and mom–not an easy task in today’s corrupted environment, but doable–and make a lot of babies. It’s fun! And this is the path to happiness–and to contentment in your old age as mortality approaches.

    The minoritarians can–and are certainly running full out doing it–screw up our nation. (Their behavior should never have been tolerated. This cancer should have been smothered–aborted–before it was even breathing.)

    But your family can survive. Don’t let the bastards wreck that. Don’t let the bastards win.

    • Replies: @Voltarde
    @AnotherDad

    Beautiful comment. Thank you.


    Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.
     
    There are people who post to and read Unz who had a father (or mother, or possibly even both) who risked their lives and sacrificed the families' well-being by serving in American or Allied armed forces in WWII. The defamers of these and other contributors to, and readers of, Unz? Not so much, I suspect.

    Unz is one of the last public venues for freedom of speech in the USA. It's not whether I agree or disagree with what I read here. Too many people define freedom as other people being free to agree with them.

    If every American had as much courage as Steve Sailer or Ron Unz, America would be the country that its providential founders intended.
  108. @ken
    @Anon 2

    Think about the world in which we live, if you quote scripture it's hate speech. If Ann Coulter speaks to a couple of hundred students at a 25,000 student university the school needs to create safe spaces. If a black junkie dies while being restrained by the police half the world protests. We have been softened to the point that we no longer have a rational gauge of pain and suffering. The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures. With most COVID deaths involving older/health compromised individuals you'd think they'd be wanting the bug to spread. Think about it, after the initial die off there would be less strees on the healthcare system and personally I'd prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.

    Replies: @utu, @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    and personally I’d prefer to see nursing homes go out of business

    Why?

  109. @JimB
    Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.

    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    • Agree: tyrone
    • Replies: @JimB
    @That Would Be Telling


    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.
     
    Largely, people get the government they deserve, unless the election has mail-in balloting with crooked machines counting the ballots. Unless the Chinese people as a whole are punished severely, they will continue to enable their CCP masters both actively and passively. They must put their bodies onto the gears and wheels of the corrupt government apparatus to stop it.
    , @JimB
    @That Would Be Telling


    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.
     
    Largely, people get the government they deserve, unless the election has mail-in balloting with crooked machines counting the ballots. Chinese people as whole should be punished severely for enabling their CCP masters both actively and passively. They will never put their bodies on the gears and wheels of the oppressive CCP state so long as they are enjoying prosperity pirated from the rest of the world.
  110. @Anon
    An honest question.

    As of yesterday (12/11/20), cdc.gov faqs said that this vaccine would not prevent contraction of covid.

    I have read the newspapers about efficacy. Efficacy for what however?

    Will the vaccine prevent me from contracting covid? Or is the vaccine to alleviate symptoms post-contraction?

    Thanks for any direct links.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jack D, @Occasional lurker

    It prevents you from becoming symptomatic. But you still have it in your nose for a few days and could infect other people.

  111. The way any vaccine works is that it primes your immune system to recognize and attack a virus. Say someone with a coronavirus infection coughs on you. The virus is now in your body and begins to infect your cells, whether or not you have been vaccinated. Your immune system always fights infection but before it can fight it it has to recognize that there is an intruder and then manufacture an antibody that is custom tailored to destroy that intruder….

    That’s the wild and crazy in a mostly good way adaptive immune system you’re referring to, which is only 500,000 years old. We also have an innate immune system, which includes a mechanism to detect and destroy infected cells, just evidently not as good as the adaptive one’s which includes the antibody mediated response you refer to.

    In your last sentence you refer to it as our “natural immune system,” and you’re probably right about it being responsible for viral doses below the official “invective” level, which is thought to be as few as nine for norovirus. Fortunately an outlier, but a very unpleasant one that has for example caused cruise ships, which since the mid-1970s or so have been mostly crewed with people from the 3rd World, and Chipotle Mexican Grill a lot of grief, as well as their and its victims.

    So the race you refer is very real, can your innate immune system keep you alive by while the adaptive system is taking a week or more to gear up your Maximum Effort response? Which also includes insurance in the form of memory cells that prime the body to recreate a response if you’re attacked again, the head start you refer to (the host of antibodies created for your initial infection naturally decay; from first principles, it’s obvious they can’t hang around forever or you’d run out of room in your blood plasma for red blood cells sometime before you became an adult from all the bugs you get and recover from up to that point).

    The rest of your explanation is basically valid and most certainly useful, your fire sprinkler analogy is excellent like your “twist ties” spike protein stabilization one.

  112. @That Would Be Telling
    @J.Ross



    For me the key inflection point was what [Trump] continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged
     
    This is victim-blaming. The defamation of HCQ was a life-endangering criminal stupidity. This is like if a crazy person took hostages and shot one of them. The crazy person is still the bad guy and nothing he does is legitimate or the fault of anyone else.
     
    Some nice moralizing there, but in the real world, that crazy but deterministic person is still there, still willing to shoot more hostages, and you can't take him out, only manage him so he does the least damage to the hostages.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross

    I’m moralizing? What “manage” him, what does that even mean, were you looking for the word “appease”? We’re talking about people who voluntarily wrecked the economy. Have you forgotten the media fawning over Nork royalty out of TDS? There is nothing Trump could have done differently which would have persuaded these children to behave.

  113. @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    Is this from ER docs/staff that you know or the local news?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    My information is from ER docs who are speaking for themselves, but on the record and using their True Names, local news, which of course are just repeating what the local hospitals tell them, and local health departments and their dashboards.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    Do you know these people personally?

  114. @That Would Be Telling
    @Corvinus


    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.
     
    Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic? All you had to do was watch him in those press conferences and see his overweening narcissism in action, continuing to at least the joy-ride outside of Walter Reed. For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged. He took no heed of that effect and continued boosting things, the behavior of a sociopath (loosely defined). See also Bill Gates, who at best lacks the self-awareness to realize he's about the world's worst vaccine salesman.

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine
     
    Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they'll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time? Maybe Pfizer should have taken up front money from Operation Warp Speed (OWS) to bulk up their capabilities, instead of refusing everything but a purchase guarantee?

    OWS is being done Manhattan Project style, generally huge R&D investments in six other vaccine candidates plus bulking up manufacturing capability and making lots of doses before FDA approval, with support for at least two more, and plenty of money being spent on the supply chain. If you can deal with a lot of TDS, see Wikipedia on the six, with more details on the others.

    In less digestible chronological form, see the HHS "Fact Sheet: Explaining Operation Warp Speed", it has some details on the supply chain efforts which you can then use as search terms. "Distribution" also includes money to a company which manufactures, fills, and seals one use plastic syringes, to Corning for glass vials, and another that makes "glass coated plastic" vials.

    People are complaining about how OWS spread its bets on which vaccines would actually prove themselves to the FDA, from memory only an initial 100 million doses for each except from AZ/Oxford which is also getting money elsewhere, unseemly 20/20 hindsight in the middle of a pandemic. But of course the pandemic in the US has always been more about our cold civil war and scoring cheap political points than, you know, limiting disease and death.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Desiderius, @Corvinus

    The Walter Reed ride was pure FDR-style Head of State behavior, as was the reassurance at the Church of the Presidents that unlike Norte Dame was in fact saved in time thanks to Trump and Barr’s risky but decisive action.

    The only people who have a problem with these things are those who never accepted Trump as Head of State, and that is where the blame properly lies. If you were so put off by it where were you in the primaries? Trump received record support there and in the election itself.

    What you’ve done to your party and country is shameful.

  115. @That Would Be Telling
    @Desiderius

    My information is from ER docs who are speaking for themselves, but on the record and using their True Names, local news, which of course are just repeating what the local hospitals tell them, and local health departments and their dashboards.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Do you know these people personally?

  116. @ken
    @Anon 2

    Think about the world in which we live, if you quote scripture it's hate speech. If Ann Coulter speaks to a couple of hundred students at a 25,000 student university the school needs to create safe spaces. If a black junkie dies while being restrained by the police half the world protests. We have been softened to the point that we no longer have a rational gauge of pain and suffering. The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures. With most COVID deaths involving older/health compromised individuals you'd think they'd be wanting the bug to spread. Think about it, after the initial die off there would be less strees on the healthcare system and personally I'd prefer to see nursing homes go out of business versus restaurants.

    Replies: @utu, @Anonymous, @AnotherDad

    The biggest head scratcher of this entire affair is that most of the lockdown/we need the vaccine now crowd are the same individuals who support population control measures.

    Not really.

    Population control was part of package of measures–along with eugenics–of the pre-minoritarian progressive WASPs, with some secular Jews–ex. Paul Ehrlich–on board as well.

    This old WASP progressive ideology was still salient when i was a teenager–ex. the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” had some ideological traction amongst TPTB.

    But it’s been crushed by Jewish minoritarianism. Once white gentile fertility had been pushed below replacement … there’s been basically zero interest in population control. (The Dick Lamm vs. David Gelbaum Sierra Club battle–won by the rich Jew–is reflective of the tale.) You may get the odd smart WASP like Bill Gates harboring bad (inc. eugenic) thoughts speaking about population control very softly. But basically it’s no longer spoken of. Population control is just not a minoritarian–ergo “woke”–thing.

    Worrying about population control means worrying about black and brown people breeding–it’s racist!

  117. @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad

    Lol no.

    You going to give us an in depth history of radio astronomy now to deny that Arecibo just ignomiously collapsed?

    None of that matters. The issue is the present day degradation of the systems that supported both those breakthroughs themselves and the translation of those breakthroughs into widespread, effective, and safe therapies.

    It’s already substantial and will kick up to the next gear under the utterly corrupt and illiterate rule of the Bidenites.

    I’ve seen this firsthand through my own multiple transplants and the contrast I saw in the medical support systems between the two. But at the end of the day I’m like Steve so went ahead and had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.

    Replies: @Jack D

    had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.

    I am sorry to hear this but “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this”) has been understood to be a fallacy since Roman times. It just so happens that the age at which children show signs of autism is also around the age at which they are vaccinated but numerous studies have shown that one has nothing to do with the other.

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

    Of course no one is happen to learn that they have an autistic child and it is natural to look for blame (in the old days the doctors use to blame the parenting style of the child’s parents so you are lucky that those days are over) and seeking blame also leads to feeling of guilt and “did I do something to cause this?” and “is there something that I should have done differently?” The answer is NO. This is not your fault, this is not something that you did or did not do, including having your child vaccinated. Here is this vale of tears, stuff happens. People especially go looking for causes in the case of autism because the child often develops normally up to a certain point and seems to be completely fine. And then suddenly the child plateaus or even lose previously developed skills so it looks like something external has triggered the onset. It’s not the vaccine, it’s not anything that you did.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    Why do you insist on talking to me like a child?

    How is it that the people who can’t even run a third-world standard election are magically qualified to administer an absolutely flawless vaccine transmission system?

    I knew the risks when I signed up, but I also knew that that same system that nearly killed me twice with their flabbergasting negligence (mixed with some extraordinary talent, insight, and dedication to be sure) could very well produce vaccines that wreak all kinds of havoc without anyone being allowed, let alone incentivized, to question them.

    The ignorance here is yours Jack, not ours.

  118. @That Would Be Telling
    @Mike Tre


    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.
     
    A silly ad hominem, for while I'm at elevated risk because of my age, I'm still in the very lowest priority group, I simply don't have that option. But I have every expectation I will be taking one of these vaccines when I actually can.

    Meanwhile, you'd actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @Mike Tre

    you’d actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.

    All your words words words numbers numbers numbers boil down to “it’s just a totally safe and super necessary vaccine, bro.”

    Save yourself some keystrokes and stick to that.

    Safety and efficacy are moot. The vaccine is unnecessary.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @BenKenobi


    All your words words words numbers numbers numbers boil down to “it’s just a totally safe and super necessary vaccine, bro.”
     
    You need to seriously work on your reading comprehension. Not to mention the most basic factual knowledge about this domain, for there's a number of vaccine candidates we're discussing, only one of which has gotten a FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Which writes in flaming letters across the sky that it's not at our normal level for licensure for general populations, but, hey, the head of HHS has judged the current situation to be an Emergency, so here's the best we can do today.
  119. @utu
    @JR Ewing


    It’s well documented and well known that wearing the mask bears no actual protection for the wearer, save a sense of reassurance. Viral particles are simply too small to be blocked by the mask.
     
    You are wrong. Viruses mostly do not travel by themselves but on droplets of body fluids which are much large than viruses. Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time. The flaw of the Danish study and similar studies in the past was that people with masks (that they wore only 4.5 hour per day on average in the Danish study) got eventually infected at the same rate as people w/o masks. But this was over a long time period when the number of infected in both groups would converge to each other.

    BTW, All those studies showing ineffectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures like masking are benefiting the Big Pharma that wants to sell drugs and vaccines. WHO and CDC bought into the Big Pharma paradigm which we could see early in the epidemics when they were assuring us that masks do not work at the same time when Asians were producing masks by 10s of millions per day. Asians did no buy into the Big Pharma paradigm.

    Let suppose that it takes 10 contacts with infectious persons to get infected when you do not wear a mask. Let suppose that when you wear a not too good mask it takes 15 contacts to get infected. If the infectious people all wear masks the number of contacts with them may go up to 200 to get infected. It takes much more time to have 200 contacts than 10 contacts. In that time many of the infected will cease to be infectious. This allows you to outlast the virus in your social environment where the contacts occur. That's why R0 will go down. By outlasting the virus in your social environment.

    This phrase of yours "signaling compliance and accepting humiliation" suggests that you are an emotional person who is not really capable of dealing with it rationally. When in the 1970s there was the debate about the mandatory seatbelts many voices also were coming form similar emotional position that seatbelt were humiliating because they imply that you were a bad driver and not masculine enough by acting on fear of injury and death.

    Replies: @Peterike, @Jonathan Mason, @JR Ewing, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical ‘cases’ data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don’t do anything. The science is settled. Sperging about virums in spittle droplets is irrelevant. Hypothetically, diapers stop respiratory disease transmission – peer reviewed science says otherwise.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen


    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical ‘cases’ data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don’t do anything. The science is settled.
     
    Nonsense. Are you shilling for the Big Pharma that does not like non-pharmaceutical countermeasures or were you cast without your knowledge and acquiescence in the role of their useful idiot by your incorrigible ignorance?

    There are many laboratory studies:

    Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks, ACS Nano. 2020 Apr 24
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks
    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

    There are epidemiological studies:

    Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020.
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

    Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada (October 16, 2020)
    Alexander Karaivanov, Shih En Lu, Hitoshi Shigeoka, Cong Chen, Stephanie Pamplona
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.20201178v2

    And implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:

    Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2.full.pdf

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Chrisnonymous

  120. @Jonathan Mason
    @utu


    Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time.
     
    Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first. So, lots of benefits of masks, although the main one is obviously to prevent people who are c0ughing from spraying the contents of their pharynx around.

    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.

    People with experience of working in a health care environment tend to understand these things, but for many members of the general public such concepts are surprisingly hard to get across.

    A large section of the population will never understand the rationale, so it makes sense to introduce mandatory compliance laws and noncompliance fines, just like with seatbelts. It really does not matter if you understand the reason for seatbelt laws or not, because all you need to know is that you can be fined for not wearing one.

    Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Reg Cæsar

    “Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first.”

    Perhaps you do. Most Diaper-Americans touch their faces constantly whilst diapered. And I have never, not once, seen a diaperist sanitize her hands before adjusting her muzzle.

  121. @That Would Be Telling
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I'll just say it's in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn't horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I've ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that's a low order priority, especially now that there's a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Jack D, @utu, @Known Fact

    If where you are is like everywhere else in the US, the average age of covid deaths is somewhere in the vicinity of 80, give or take. The oldest boomers are 75 so the majority of those who die from covid are going to be Silents and not Boomers but certainly older Boomer are going to be represented as well.

    In my suburban Philly county, the largest # of deaths was in the 80-89 group, the second highest count was in the 90+ group (despite the fact that this is not a large population group overall – most people are dead before they hit 90) and the third highest group was in the 70-79 group (which would be around 1/2 boomer although I suspect that there were more 75-79 deaths that 70-74s). Roughly speaking, Silents would have been maybe 2/3 of the dead with Boomers representing most of the rest. For people under 50 there’s not a big risk of death. There are rare cases of white or Asian people under 50 without comorbidities dying but not many, especially as treatment protocols have gotten better. Blacks and Hispanics (who often have obesity or other health problems and also more frequently don’t have jobs that allow them to isolate) represent a disproportionate # of the younger deaths.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Good summary Jack.

    My tiny sample of people i personally know with definite Xi virus cases, death rates:
    20s -- 0-3
    50s -- 0-3
    60s -- 0-4
    90s -- 1-2

    But remember the audience here. For a bunch of these guys, the boomers are responsible for the destruction of America. Boomers like Phillip Hart, Emanuel Celler, Lyndon Johnson, Alan Simpson, Romano Mazzoli, Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, George H. W. Bush.

    So let's let 'em have their "die Boomer!" fun.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  122. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    We’re at different points in our life. You’ve already had kids.

    I am not done with the project of creating a family, so the idea of injecting myself with some substance that could put an end-to-that-real-fast (or delay it…which means less kids) is far worse than a disease that won’t kill me, and masks…although financially lockdowns are the worst things ever

    “The number of days the men experienced fever significantly affected their semen parameters. Thus fever during meiosis and spermiogenesis reduced sperm concentration with respectively 7.1% (–12.9; –0.9) and 8.5% (–13.6; –3.0) per day of fever.”

    So really it’s between Steve who has finished his creating a family project, versus Those Who Have Not

    Babies >>> Old People

    Always (especially if mandatory vax talk is real)

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Thoughts


    We’re at different points in our life. You’ve already had kids.

    I am not done with the project of creating a family, so the idea of injecting myself with some substance that could put an end-to-that-real-fast (or delay it…which means less kids) is far worse than a disease that won’t kill me....
     
    You really think a vaccine is more likely to kill you than a known lethal pathogen against it? It's possible, but on the other hand you can't know COVID-19 won't kill you, or main you to the point having children is problematical. You should be able to figure out your raw mortality but not morbidity odds based on age and any co-morbidities you might have, the issue with the vaccines is that we don't that data yet, although so far it looks good for the mRNA ones. But we will have that in not very many months for Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna if it gets approved for an FDA Emergency Use Authorization, after tens of millions get these shots.
  123. @That Would Be Telling
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I'll just say it's in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn't horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I've ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that's a low order priority, especially now that there's a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Jack D, @utu, @Known Fact

    In absolute numbers more 75-84 died than 85+ among men but it is reversed among women.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

  124. @AnotherDad
    @Johann Ricke


    This is not a good question to ask, of someone who’s currently working. Some have revealed enough of themselves through their comments for us to venture a good guess. But these people, unless retired, are taking a serious risk, career-wise. Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.
     
    Agree.

    Anyone who cared could easily figure out exactly who i am from my plentiful comments and a lot of really boring searching around. But they'd find out i'm a boring old retired guy. Unless they give themselves the right to start seizing my 401K and brokerage accounts ... i'm going to be ok. (And if they do that, i'll saddle up and take at least one or two of 'em with me on my way out.)

    Suggest all the younger working guys make sure to keep their comments clean--revealing personal anecdote free. To the point isn't bad anyway.

    Generally my advice to the younger set: Find a smart, level headed girl, who is really committed to being a wife and mom--not an easy task in today's corrupted environment, but doable--and make a lot of babies. It's fun! And this is the path to happiness--and to contentment in your old age as mortality approaches.

    The minoritarians can--and are certainly running full out doing it--screw up our nation. (Their behavior should never have been tolerated. This cancer should have been smothered--aborted--before it was even breathing.)

    But your family can survive. Don't let the bastards wreck that. Don't let the bastards win.

    Replies: @Voltarde

    Beautiful comment. Thank you.

    Unz is considered a Nazi site. Being doxxed over commenting here is a literal career-ender.

    There are people who post to and read Unz who had a father (or mother, or possibly even both) who risked their lives and sacrificed the families’ well-being by serving in American or Allied armed forces in WWII. The defamers of these and other contributors to, and readers of, Unz? Not so much, I suspect.

    Unz is one of the last public venues for freedom of speech in the USA. It’s not whether I agree or disagree with what I read here. Too many people define freedom as other people being free to agree with them.

    If every American had as much courage as Steve Sailer or Ron Unz, America would be the country that its providential founders intended.

  125. @Jack D
    @That Would Be Telling

    If where you are is like everywhere else in the US, the average age of covid deaths is somewhere in the vicinity of 80, give or take. The oldest boomers are 75 so the majority of those who die from covid are going to be Silents and not Boomers but certainly older Boomer are going to be represented as well.

    In my suburban Philly county, the largest # of deaths was in the 80-89 group, the second highest count was in the 90+ group (despite the fact that this is not a large population group overall - most people are dead before they hit 90) and the third highest group was in the 70-79 group (which would be around 1/2 boomer although I suspect that there were more 75-79 deaths that 70-74s). Roughly speaking, Silents would have been maybe 2/3 of the dead with Boomers representing most of the rest. For people under 50 there's not a big risk of death. There are rare cases of white or Asian people under 50 without comorbidities dying but not many, especially as treatment protocols have gotten better. Blacks and Hispanics (who often have obesity or other health problems and also more frequently don't have jobs that allow them to isolate) represent a disproportionate # of the younger deaths.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Good summary Jack.

    My tiny sample of people i personally know with definite Xi virus cases, death rates:
    20s — 0-3
    50s — 0-3
    60s — 0-4
    90s — 1-2

    But remember the audience here. For a bunch of these guys, the boomers are responsible for the destruction of America. Boomers like Phillip Hart, Emanuel Celler, Lyndon Johnson, Alan Simpson, Romano Mazzoli, Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, George H. W. Bush.

    So let’s let ’em have their “die Boomer!” fun.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad

    As someone in the middle I’d say 120% of the conflict comes down to the disparity between the experience of being white male (to a lesser extent straight, trad, patriotic, etc...) growing up in the 60s vs the 00s.

    I think we all agree that Boomers are on the narcissistic side, which exacerbates the problem. If your own vanity precludes you from seeing it, just think Trump when people say Boomer and all should be revealed.

  126. I did very much want to thank you for your invaluable contributions here. You’re really a great sounding board for questions and ideas on Covid: knowledgeable, clear, and frank.

    Thank you! I’ll answer your herd immunity questions, but the topic in general requires a lot of work to explain well, so if I haven’t responded by the time a new vaccine iSteve topic is created, feel free to repeat it in the new one and I’ll answer there.

  127. @Jack D
    @Desiderius


    had my boys get the full battery and sure enough now the older one shows up autistic/delayed.
     
    I am sorry to hear this but "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this") has been understood to be a fallacy since Roman times. It just so happens that the age at which children show signs of autism is also around the age at which they are vaccinated but numerous studies have shown that one has nothing to do with the other.

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

    Of course no one is happen to learn that they have an autistic child and it is natural to look for blame (in the old days the doctors use to blame the parenting style of the child's parents so you are lucky that those days are over) and seeking blame also leads to feeling of guilt and "did I do something to cause this?" and "is there something that I should have done differently?" The answer is NO. This is not your fault, this is not something that you did or did not do, including having your child vaccinated. Here is this vale of tears, stuff happens. People especially go looking for causes in the case of autism because the child often develops normally up to a certain point and seems to be completely fine. And then suddenly the child plateaus or even lose previously developed skills so it looks like something external has triggered the onset. It's not the vaccine, it's not anything that you did.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Why do you insist on talking to me like a child?

    How is it that the people who can’t even run a third-world standard election are magically qualified to administer an absolutely flawless vaccine transmission system?

    I knew the risks when I signed up, but I also knew that that same system that nearly killed me twice with their flabbergasting negligence (mixed with some extraordinary talent, insight, and dedication to be sure) could very well produce vaccines that wreak all kinds of havoc without anyone being allowed, let alone incentivized, to question them.

    The ignorance here is yours Jack, not ours.

    • Agree: J.Ross
  128. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @utu

    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical 'cases' data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don't do anything. The science is settled. Sperging about virums in spittle droplets is irrelevant. Hypothetically, diapers stop respiratory disease transmission - peer reviewed science says otherwise.

    Replies: @utu

    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical ‘cases’ data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don’t do anything. The science is settled.

    Nonsense. Are you shilling for the Big Pharma that does not like non-pharmaceutical countermeasures or were you cast without your knowledge and acquiescence in the role of their useful idiot by your incorrigible ignorance?

    There are many laboratory studies:

    Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks, ACS Nano. 2020 Apr 24
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks
    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

    There are epidemiological studies:

    Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020.
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

    Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada (October 16, 2020)
    Alexander Karaivanov, Shih En Lu, Hitoshi Shigeoka, Cong Chen, Stephanie Pamplona
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.20201178v2

    And implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:

    Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2.full.pdf

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @utu

    Thanks for the links. Would be nice to live in a world where one could trust them.

    https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1337813160510701568?s=20

    Replies: @utu

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @utu


    implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:
     
    As I've pointed out to you before, the two papers putting forward the hypothesis of masks contributing to decreased severity are not studies per se, in the sense that people usually associate that word with actual research. The pre-print is a new one, but still is mathematical modeling.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen is wrong, but it is true that the research on masks is wide and contradictory--more than the citations you show suggest. Plus, as I mentioned before, that study on aerosol filtration is, I think, suspect in that its conclusions run counter to other research done on the topic, but it was produced in the midst of a pandemic. As with the hanster study scientist who believed in his conclusion before finding it, I wonder about these authors. A quick review of the paper, looking at the pressure differentials is strange. They are finding similar pressure differentials both with and without gaps. I know why you keep citing this paper, however--the use of cloth masks is so widespread in Asia (not to mentiin masks worn improperly!) that you need cotton to be highlybeffective in order to support the rest of your belief system.

    Replies: @utu, @utu

  129. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    Let's reverse engineer the math: assume 300k dead so far with an Infection Fatality Rate of, say, 0.5% gives you 60 million infected so far, or a little under 1/5th of the population. The IFR might have been more like 1% in the Spring before doctors knew what they were doing. So, maybe 18% of Americans have been infected so far. How many are likely to be infected over the rest of the winter? Depends upon how much people hunker down, but this 3rd wave is a lot more national than the first (Eastern urban) and second (Sunbelt) waves. So another 15-30% seems likely, which would probably kill another 250,000-500,000 people.

    (At some point, herd immunity will start to slow the spread, along with more outdoor activity come spring. But data from cities in South America like Manaus suggests the herd immunity ceiling is between 3/5th and 4/5th of the population, so we are less than half of the way there.)

    Now, some of that death toll is already baked in among people who are already infected but haven't died yet (the estimate is 22 days from a case count to death on average, but the time from infection to case count must another 5 or 10 days).

    But it seems plausible to put a dent in that coming quarter to half million deaths by funneling vaccinations to the most at risk. Later on, vaccinations will start to add materially to the herd immunity count. When we get to 100 million people vaccinated, we will probably be at around 100 million people infected, so 200 million safe out of 330 million means we'll be seeing Ro start to fall.

    Without vaccines, we would probably have to ride it out to between 1 and 2 million deaths, depending in part upon whether it ever gets out of control and overwhelms the hospitals.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Travis, @Anon, @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @kpkinusunnyphiladelphia

    Steve, Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco’s comments about your calculation are spot on.

    The virus has been floating around a lot, and probably as early as a year ago December. Cuomo took the credit for “flattening” the curve, but the virus did that without consulting him, infecting a whole bunch of people, with probably half of the 40,000 or so dead in NY due to putting infected 90 year old Mabel back into the home, and consigning her housemates to the morgue.

    As Hernan said, when all is said and done, the IFR PRE-vaccine is going to come in at around .2%

    Bottom line? Unless you have a vaccine AT THE START, the virus is simply going to run through the population no matter what theatrical nonsense you do as you pretend that such theatrics might stop it or slow it down. We won’t do this, no or should we, but if we did nothing at all now, we’d likely see this whole thing die down after this winter just by natural selection.

    Meanwhile, we of course need to ask who’s dying? Not people in the prime of their lives, or healthy people. It’s easy to find the purported demos — older, already heath compromised individuals. Obese blacks and Hispanics with uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes.

    Really, this may sound callous, but do need to bring the entire economic and social fabric to a screeching halt for this demographic? Really?

    Meanwhile, isn’t it interesting that we are no longer seeing large flu numbers?

    Let’s put what happening into a historical perspective.

    In 1957-58 Asian flu, we had a population of 172 million. Estimates are around 116,000 people died. That’s a per capita fatality rate of 0.06%. And the population was younger, skinnier, lots more White, and everybody smoked. Did we lock down? Wear masks? Destroy the economy and the lives of millions of normal people along with it? Um, no, we did fucking bupkus. People continued to live.

    In the 1968 flu, we lost 100,000 people out of population of 197 million (though it could be lower, but let’s stick with the higher number) a per capita fatality rate of .05%. Didn’t do a whole lot of social distancing there.

    In those days, people shrugged their shoulders and moved on. No one expected medicine to save you.

    Today we’re at around 300,000 deaths in a population of 328 million — that makes for per capita fatality rate of .08%. And we’re fatter, older, have a larger Black population proportionally with really bad health habits along with a huge swath of immigrant lower class Hispanics who aren’t religiously following the Mediterranean diet. Even if we got to 500,000 deaths — which could be more or less peak level sans vaccine ANYway — then the per capita death rate would be .15%.

    And that assumes we can even TRUST these latest numbers. How many deaths were incorrectly ascribed to the Wuhan? We do know that hospitals have the incentive to “miscode.”

    Anyway, all of this stuff may eventually be unknowable, but here is what we DO know. Wuhan is bad, but not so bad that we destroy the lives of 10% to 15% of the population in doing a whole range of stupid things in reaction to the deaths of less than one half of one percent of the population, many of whom are five years away from dying ANYWAY.

    On top of that, it’s gives a golden opportunity to our wannabe Stalinist politicians, who pretend it’s oh-so-awful but have the biggest hard on in the history of mankind, camouflaging with earnest concern their glee at making the population docile.

    Maybe five years from now we will look back on this sorry episode and rue what we have done. Maybe, but somehow, I doubt it.

    • Agree: Travis
  130. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Good summary Jack.

    My tiny sample of people i personally know with definite Xi virus cases, death rates:
    20s -- 0-3
    50s -- 0-3
    60s -- 0-4
    90s -- 1-2

    But remember the audience here. For a bunch of these guys, the boomers are responsible for the destruction of America. Boomers like Phillip Hart, Emanuel Celler, Lyndon Johnson, Alan Simpson, Romano Mazzoli, Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, George H. W. Bush.

    So let's let 'em have their "die Boomer!" fun.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    As someone in the middle I’d say 120% of the conflict comes down to the disparity between the experience of being white male (to a lesser extent straight, trad, patriotic, etc…) growing up in the 60s vs the 00s.

    I think we all agree that Boomers are on the narcissistic side, which exacerbates the problem. If your own vanity precludes you from seeing it, just think Trump when people say Boomer and all should be revealed.

  131. @utu
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen


    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical ‘cases’ data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don’t do anything. The science is settled.
     
    Nonsense. Are you shilling for the Big Pharma that does not like non-pharmaceutical countermeasures or were you cast without your knowledge and acquiescence in the role of their useful idiot by your incorrigible ignorance?

    There are many laboratory studies:

    Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks, ACS Nano. 2020 Apr 24
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks
    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

    There are epidemiological studies:

    Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020.
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

    Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada (October 16, 2020)
    Alexander Karaivanov, Shih En Lu, Hitoshi Shigeoka, Cong Chen, Stephanie Pamplona
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.20201178v2

    And implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:

    Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2.full.pdf

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Chrisnonymous

    Thanks for the links. Would be nice to live in a world where one could trust them.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Desiderius

    (1) Indeed initially WHO and CDC emphasized contact and fomites transmission. But very soon German studies found that they hardly could find any viruses on objects in town that had an outbreak. It is not easy to distinguish between droplets and aerosol transmission. It is believed that concentration of aerosol is low as the larger droplets fall quickly to ground. But aerosol can stay in air for hours so in closed spaces they can lead to many transmissions while in open space with air movement they are can be quickly diluted. There is a threshold of the initial viral dose for an infection to occur. This is one more reason why masks are effective by allowing exposure to higher external dose.

    (2) Outdoor Transmission


    Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses, a Systematic Review
    https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742/6009483

    Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9).
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  132. @That Would Be Telling
    @JimB


    Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.
     
    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    Replies: @JimB, @JimB

    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    Largely, people get the government they deserve, unless the election has mail-in balloting with crooked machines counting the ballots. Unless the Chinese people as a whole are punished severely, they will continue to enable their CCP masters both actively and passively. They must put their bodies onto the gears and wheels of the corrupt government apparatus to stop it.

  133. Off topic:

    Journolist at work

  134. @That Would Be Telling
    @JimB


    Nobody should sell China a single dose of vaccine. As they wished on us publicly, let them stew in covid hell.
     
    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    Replies: @JimB, @JimB

    Problem is, our beef is with the Chinese Communist Party, not their subjects living in their despotism.

    Largely, people get the government they deserve, unless the election has mail-in balloting with crooked machines counting the ballots. Chinese people as whole should be punished severely for enabling their CCP masters both actively and passively. They will never put their bodies on the gears and wheels of the oppressive CCP state so long as they are enjoying prosperity pirated from the rest of the world.

  135. Fauci: My Vaccine Research Center developed the Moderna vaccine (seriously?”) and since one of my black doctors worked on the vaccine, blacks should feel safe taking it>

    https://www.facebook.com/NatUrbanLeague/videos/3025163154377952/

    Fauci’s black doctor: https://archive.is/Puv0N

  136. @JR Ewing
    @utu

    It has always been considered against the norm to spit or cough into someone else's face, whether you're sick or not.

    (For the record, that's actually very hard to do unless you're trying to do so on purpose.)

    I'm not sure what society you live in (or want to live in), but if that's your justification for the effectiveness of masks in preventing infection to the wearer then it's not a society that I want to live in. Why don't we just always wear them from now on if we're that concerned that other people's spit is going to inadvertently get into our mouths from across the room? We've never done so in 10,000 years of recorded human history but if we've decided that getting spit on is a new crisis of civilization, then I agree, drastic problems are cause for drastic measures.

    However, as far as "airborne" viruses go - which is one of the actual justifications from the media and the government - virus particles are too small to be blocked by any kind of surgical or cloth mask.

    Furthermore, please note from the other text of my comment: infectious people - those with actual symptoms - can indeed limit the spread by wearing masks for the reasons you mention. In those circumstances, as has been the cultural norm for the same 10,000 years, isolating oneself and not distributing one's spit and snot in public is the polite and effective thing to do. We don't need the government telling us that - presumably our mothers already did - and we don't need the government ordering us not to be too liberal with our spittle. Or, at least, an humble government that knows the limits of its own power.

    But for the rest of us from traditional human society who aren't deathly scared of getting spit on, whether you think we should be or not, and who are not symptomatic and therefore not at risk of spreading the Wu Flu, wearing a mask accomplishes nothing except to function as a loyalty badge for conformity with a government order.

    Replies: @utu

    “….virus particles are too small to be blocked by any kind of surgical or cloth mask …”– Viruses travel on larger micro droplets and droplets. Aerosols carry electrostatic charge which is one reason they are intercepted by the threads of material of masks when passing through openings larger than their physical size. Most viruses vary in diameter from 20 nanometers to 400 nm. Covid virus is 60nm-140nm. Filtration of some fabrics can be as high as 90% in 20nm-400nm range. Multilayer fabrics do better. See figures in:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Rest of your comment is just a face saving rambling drivel. This is actually a good sign because deep down you know you are embarrassing yourself. Shame can be a good motivator.

    • Thanks: Desiderius
  137. @Anon 2
    Spanish Flu (1918-19) killed at least 50 million people out of the
    global population of 1.8 billion. By comparison, Covid-19 so far has
    killed only 1.6 million out of the total population of 7.8 billion, and yet it’s
    treated like a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Have we become
    so psychologically fragile that we can’t even deal with a minor
    amount of extra suffering? Well, we’re living in the Great Age of
    Pandemics. As the population explosion continues, there will be
    more pandemics and more suffering coming our way, so we’d
    better get ready

    Replies: @ken, @Diversity Heretic

    Astute comment! The species homo sapiens sapiens is the ideal population for organisms causing communicable diseases: large numbers of hosts in the first place, who increasingly crowd together in megacities. The COVID-19 overreaction is likely a prelude to hysteria over future communicable diseases.

  138. Anon[203] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Does anyone think the leftist plan to leak Biden corruption now is part of an effort to get him impeached and removed from office, so Harris can get in? It’s beginning to look like it.

    There is another possibility. With Trump gone, the media will see a massive business slump. Trump always got them eyeballs. Is their next target a very cynical effort to create a lot of drama around Biden and slow-motion destroy him just to get those eyeballs?

  139. @Desiderius
    @utu

    Thanks for the links. Would be nice to live in a world where one could trust them.

    https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1337813160510701568?s=20

    Replies: @utu

    (1) Indeed initially WHO and CDC emphasized contact and fomites transmission. But very soon German studies found that they hardly could find any viruses on objects in town that had an outbreak. It is not easy to distinguish between droplets and aerosol transmission. It is believed that concentration of aerosol is low as the larger droplets fall quickly to ground. But aerosol can stay in air for hours so in closed spaces they can lead to many transmissions while in open space with air movement they are can be quickly diluted. There is a threshold of the initial viral dose for an infection to occur. This is one more reason why masks are effective by allowing exposure to higher external dose.

    (2) Outdoor Transmission

    Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses, a Systematic Review
    https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742/6009483

    Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9).

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @utu


    Results
    Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and two described adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.
     
    So, need to read the individual papers, but highly suspect no actual evidence for outdoor transmission. Kind of like that paper on PPE-clad HCW vs patients that supposedly proved masks worked but on closer examination actually did not support the conclusions.
  140. Lots of comments on this post, and I just want to say that the high degree of politicization of vaccine development leaves me very uneasy that there will be unanticipated side effects, particularly long-term ones. They will, however, be covered up.

    And if COVID-19 was the “with-it” virus of 2020, why won’t there be a new, deadly threat for 2021 and 2022, etc? Coronaviruses and influenza viruses mutute naturally; COVID-19 didn’t arrive on an asteroid winging in from beyond Neptune! Given the numbers manipulation that has gone on in 2020, it should be easy to gin up a public health emergency requiring all sorts of coercive measurs on demand.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet!

  141. @Jonathan Mason
    @utu


    Masks are not perfect but they reduce probability of being infected in a finite time.
     
    Of course, they do, and when I am wearing my mask, I am much less likely to put my fingers to my nose or mouth to scratch an itch without sanitizing my hands first. So, lots of benefits of masks, although the main one is obviously to prevent people who are c0ughing from spraying the contents of their pharynx around.

    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.

    People with experience of working in a health care environment tend to understand these things, but for many members of the general public such concepts are surprisingly hard to get across.

    A large section of the population will never understand the rationale, so it makes sense to introduce mandatory compliance laws and noncompliance fines, just like with seatbelts. It really does not matter if you understand the reason for seatbelt laws or not, because all you need to know is that you can be fined for not wearing one.

    Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Reg Cæsar

    This, of course, is the reason why dentists wear face masks even in normal times. If you are using a high-speed drill and spraying water, the change of transmitting germs is much greater, especially if you have your face inches from the face of the other person.

    That’s what Kimberly Bergalis said, and everyone mocked her.

  142. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    It's almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s almost as if the Russian version of that type of vaccine is better than the British version.

    As usual, while we’re going on about Russia, the Chinese are quietly inserting the blade they plan to twist some time in the future:

    Data security is not just a commercial problem for IVF clinics. The American government regards it as a national security issue. A CNBC report in October revealed that a Chinese company had been blocked from buying an IVF clinic in San Diego at some stage during the Trump Administration.

    CNBC asked John Demers, a security expert in the Department of Justice, to explain why the government had bothered with IVF clinics.

    “Your genetic material, your biological material, is among the most intimate information about you, who you are, what your vulnerabilities may be, what your illnesses have been in the past, what your family medical history is,” he responded. “The Chinese approach is to gather it now, and then figure out what to do with it later.”

    This leads to two important worries. First, China could use fertility clinic data to accumulate a database of biological information about Americans.

    “That can be used from a counterintelligence perspective to either coerce you or convince you to help the Chinese,” Demers said…

    Second, the information could be weaponised. “I’m not saying that we’ve seen this, but the worst case would be the development of some kind of biological weapon.”

    Unknown hackers break into database of fertility clinics

    • Agree: Alden
  143. @Mr. Anon
    @utu


    The so called lockdowns in the US and Europe came too late and were not strict enough.
     
    The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they're needed at all. Permanent lockdown - that's the only answer.

    Don't be late for rollcall, Utu.

    Replies: @utu

    “The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. ” – There is a paradoxical truth in it. Lockdowns are more effective when the infection rate is low. The best way of keeping horses in the barn is to shut the barn door before they bolt. Early lockdowns are also less costly because the lockdown duration is proportional to the infection rate. If NYC went on lockdown two weeks sooner probably they could start relaxing countermeasures in four weeks providing that they would not import more cases form outside of the city and sate and began doing effective tracing and isolation.

    “Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer.” – Trying to be funny, right? Not permanent bu very short. The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1. They should have gone on lockdown on that very day and began to work on closing borders and finding quarantine areas for travelers and people who had contacts and figuring out all kind of other issues but doing it when people were already on lockdown. I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all kids of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @utu


    I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all [kinds] of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.
     
    I wonder if those plans include contingencies like "first, capture and transport to Guantanamo Bay the evil and stupid governor of the state and mayor of the city." Which in this year would have gotten Trump impeached and convicted in a matter of hours, making any realistic plans moot.
    , @vhrm
    @utu


    The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1.

     

    China lied by at least 10x about deaths and the number of cases are unknown even by them (they weren't even letting sick people into hospitals for a while, let alone testing them). (The specifics are not clear but the "crematoriums went from 4 hours/day 5 days a week to 24/7" and the huge deliveries of funeral urns was reported via several channels https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/03/31/wuhan-resident-gives-world-a-more-accurate-look-at-what-the-death-toll-there-really-is-n133051 )

    In Italy it was spreading since late November 2019 but not detected until late February 2020 ( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coronavirus-identified-in-italy-months-before-first-confirmed-case/ar-BB1bODc8?ocid=uxbndlbing).

    The "first case" in New York was almost certainly in 2019 as it was already community spreading all over the country by then (https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-spreading-united-states-december-2019-20201201-rcapabhtgjeexljbigbo5hdbaq-story.html )
    There were prob 10k+ cases already in NYC by the time of the first detected case.

    Looking at it now, we know with reasonable confidence that we were off by very large factors (like 10x - 1000x ) about the extent of the virus spread in the early days. So whatever curve-fitting was being done was fairly meaningless.

    Also, as was eminently demonstrated by infection rates over 2020, R_0 varies a whole lot with both population structure/density and weather (see e.g. CA vs NY, both of which had unmitigated community spread since 2019 yet very very different outcomes).

    Also, here's something new: people (kids in this case https://www.dnaindia.com/science/report-covid-19-pandemic-researchers-case-study-children-antibodies-australia-2857320) having asymptomatic COVID and testing negative on PCR during the time that they've had it.

    i.e. even if you do surveillance via random PCR testing (which we generally don't do) it's unknown what percentage of actual infections you'll catch. Given that we've already established that antibodies are not long lasting and how many you create to begin with varies from person to person, basically we have little idea of how many people have actually had Covid in various places.

    Short of surveys for [antibody or T-Cell immunity ] (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53764640) we won't know. But then anyone's hardly doing even antibody surveys so i won't hold my breath.

    Replies: @utu

    , @Mr. Anon
    @utu


    Trying to be funny, right?
     
    No, I don't find anything funny about the whole sad, shameful episode.

    What I find most shameful is that people - you for example - unreflectively use the term "lockdown", a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.

    Replies: @vhrm

  144. @Thoughts
    @Steve Sailer

    We're at different points in our life. You've already had kids.

    I am not done with the project of creating a family, so the idea of injecting myself with some substance that could put an end-to-that-real-fast (or delay it...which means less kids) is far worse than a disease that won't kill me, and masks...although financially lockdowns are the worst things ever

    "The number of days the men experienced fever significantly affected their semen parameters. Thus fever during meiosis and spermiogenesis reduced sperm concentration with respectively 7.1% (–12.9; –0.9) and 8.5% (–13.6; –3.0) per day of fever."

    So really it's between Steve who has finished his creating a family project, versus Those Who Have Not


    Babies >>> Old People

    Always (especially if mandatory vax talk is real)

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    We’re at different points in our life. You’ve already had kids.

    I am not done with the project of creating a family, so the idea of injecting myself with some substance that could put an end-to-that-real-fast (or delay it…which means less kids) is far worse than a disease that won’t kill me….

    You really think a vaccine is more likely to kill you than a known lethal pathogen against it? It’s possible, but on the other hand you can’t know COVID-19 won’t kill you, or main you to the point having children is problematical. You should be able to figure out your raw mortality but not morbidity odds based on age and any co-morbidities you might have, the issue with the vaccines is that we don’t that data yet, although so far it looks good for the mRNA ones. But we will have that in not very many months for Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna if it gets approved for an FDA Emergency Use Authorization, after tens of millions get these shots.

  145. @utu
    @Mr. Anon

    "The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. " - There is a paradoxical truth in it. Lockdowns are more effective when the infection rate is low. The best way of keeping horses in the barn is to shut the barn door before they bolt. Early lockdowns are also less costly because the lockdown duration is proportional to the infection rate. If NYC went on lockdown two weeks sooner probably they could start relaxing countermeasures in four weeks providing that they would not import more cases form outside of the city and sate and began doing effective tracing and isolation.

    "Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer." - Trying to be funny, right? Not permanent bu very short. The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1. They should have gone on lockdown on that very day and began to work on closing borders and finding quarantine areas for travelers and people who had contacts and figuring out all kind of other issues but doing it when people were already on lockdown. I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all kids of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @vhrm, @Mr. Anon

    I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all [kinds] of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    I wonder if those plans include contingencies like “first, capture and transport to Guantanamo Bay the evil and stupid governor of the state and mayor of the city.” Which in this year would have gotten Trump impeached and convicted in a matter of hours, making any realistic plans moot.

  146. @BenKenobi
    @That Would Be Telling


    you’d actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.
     
    All your words words words numbers numbers numbers boil down to “it’s just a totally safe and super necessary vaccine, bro.”

    Save yourself some keystrokes and stick to that.

    Safety and efficacy are moot. The vaccine is unnecessary.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    All your words words words numbers numbers numbers boil down to “it’s just a totally safe and super necessary vaccine, bro.”

    You need to seriously work on your reading comprehension. Not to mention the most basic factual knowledge about this domain, for there’s a number of vaccine candidates we’re discussing, only one of which has gotten a FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Which writes in flaming letters across the sky that it’s not at our normal level for licensure for general populations, but, hey, the head of HHS has judged the current situation to be an Emergency, so here’s the best we can do today.

  147. @Jack D
    @Anon

    The way any vaccine works is that it primes your immune system to recognize and attack a virus. Say someone with a coronavirus infection coughs on you. The virus is now in your body and begins to infect your cells, whether or not you have been vaccinated. Your immune system always fights infection but before it can fight it it has to recognize that there is an intruder and then manufacture an antibody that is custom tailored to destroy that intruder (this is an amazing process, one of the true miracles of nature, but there has been a battle between living organisms and intruders for billions of years so the system has had plenty of time to evolve - if it didn't work most of the time, your species would be extinct). It takes a while to get this process going and in the meantime the virus has a head start. Your body is then in a race - will your immune system kill the virus before the virus infects millions of cells and makes you sick?

    If you have been vaccinated, your immune system is the one with the head start in the race. As soon as the virus is in you, your immune system recognizes, attacks and destroys it before it can infect many cells. It's like a fire sprinkler system in a building. Fire sprinklers don't prevent fires from starting. What they do is that they detect fires and put them out before they can cause a lot of damage. Depending on how good the vaccine and your body' response to it was, either you won't develop symptoms at all or you will experience only a mild case. (In rare cases the vaccine doesn't give you any benefit at all).

    "Covid" is defined as the disease, not the virus. So the short answer is yes, in most (95%) of cases, the vaccine will prevent you from have the disease. The disease and the symptoms are one and the same - the disease is defined as showing symptoms. As far as preventing the virus from being in your body, no it won't - that's not how vaccines work. They just allow your body's immune system to quickly kill the virus before it gets to the point where you will show symptoms.

    A currently unanswered question is whether, when you are in the phase where you are infected but your vaccinated body is in process of killing the virus, you can still spread it to others. My guess is that is may be possible hypothetically but it is unlikely to occur in real life. People who are well and truly in an infectious phase of covid shed millions of virus particles - this is why the disease is so contagious. Certain people at certain phases of the disease become superspreaders - they are just spewing virus all over the place. The vaccine probably means that your virus count will be extremely low if not zero even at your most infectious phase.

    If another person gets hit with only a few virus particles, even if he has not been vaccinated, his natural immune system is usually able to fend off the attack - it's only when millions of invaders arrive that the defenses are overwhelmed. This is one reason why some young healthy medical workers died, especially in the early phase of the disease before the need for PPE was understood - they were in close contact with highly infected patients and got big whiffs of the virus deep into their lungs. This is also part of the reason why masks are helpful - even if they are not 100% effective, they are going to greatly reduce the amount of virus that you inhale and you may experience a much milder case. A vaccinated person is not going to be a superspreader who is shedding million of particles.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Chrisnonymous

    Basically agree, but keep in mind that “masks are reducing severity of disease by decreasing initial viral dose” is a theory. So far, the only real evidence is the “hamster study”–although I wouldn’t be surprised if that is not replicable. Other papers I have seen cited are just speculation, even ones that are presented as reviews are not really reviewing evidence.

  148. @That Would Be Telling
    @Corvinus


    Let us NOTICE how Trump viewed Coronavirus throughout his presidency, which swayed a good number of Americans to NOT trust him on this dire health matter.
     
    Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic? All you had to do was watch him in those press conferences and see his overweening narcissism in action, continuing to at least the joy-ride outside of Walter Reed. For me the key inflection point was what he continued to do after his boosting of HCQ resulted in it effectively getting banned in the entire Western world, all the way to research into it being deliberately sabotaged. He took no heed of that effect and continued boosting things, the behavior of a sociopath (loosely defined). See also Bill Gates, who at best lacks the self-awareness to realize he's about the world's worst vaccine salesman.

    And let us also NOTICE a very important decision that Trump made earlier this year, but of course is denying.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529131-trump-officials-deny-turning-down-additional-doses-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine
     
    Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they'll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time? Maybe Pfizer should have taken up front money from Operation Warp Speed (OWS) to bulk up their capabilities, instead of refusing everything but a purchase guarantee?

    OWS is being done Manhattan Project style, generally huge R&D investments in six other vaccine candidates plus bulking up manufacturing capability and making lots of doses before FDA approval, with support for at least two more, and plenty of money being spent on the supply chain. If you can deal with a lot of TDS, see Wikipedia on the six, with more details on the others.

    In less digestible chronological form, see the HHS "Fact Sheet: Explaining Operation Warp Speed", it has some details on the supply chain efforts which you can then use as search terms. "Distribution" also includes money to a company which manufactures, fills, and seals one use plastic syringes, to Corning for glass vials, and another that makes "glass coated plastic" vials.

    People are complaining about how OWS spread its bets on which vaccines would actually prove themselves to the FDA, from memory only an initial 100 million doses for each except from AZ/Oxford which is also getting money elsewhere, unseemly 20/20 hindsight in the middle of a pandemic. But of course the pandemic in the US has always been more about our cold civil war and scoring cheap political points than, you know, limiting disease and death.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Desiderius, @Corvinus

    “Sending us to a TDS site like the The Atlantic?”

    Perhaps that is snark on your part. Regardless, I am providing a link to factual information.

    “Which matters how much now that Pfizer has very recently surprised us by saying they’ll only be able to manufacture half of their early promised commitments on time.”

    It’s not surprising for a company to make claims and then backtrack.

  149. @utu
    @Desiderius

    (1) Indeed initially WHO and CDC emphasized contact and fomites transmission. But very soon German studies found that they hardly could find any viruses on objects in town that had an outbreak. It is not easy to distinguish between droplets and aerosol transmission. It is believed that concentration of aerosol is low as the larger droplets fall quickly to ground. But aerosol can stay in air for hours so in closed spaces they can lead to many transmissions while in open space with air movement they are can be quickly diluted. There is a threshold of the initial viral dose for an infection to occur. This is one more reason why masks are effective by allowing exposure to higher external dose.

    (2) Outdoor Transmission


    Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses, a Systematic Review
    https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742/6009483

    Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9).
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Results
    Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and two described adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.

    So, need to read the individual papers, but highly suspect no actual evidence for outdoor transmission. Kind of like that paper on PPE-clad HCW vs patients that supposedly proved masks worked but on closer examination actually did not support the conclusions.

  150. @epebble
    Why not tonight?

    It may have something to do with:

    The committee of independent vaccine experts voted 17 to 4, with one abstention, that the benefits of the vaccine from Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE outweigh the risks for use in people ages 16 and older.

    They may be concerned about those 4 No votes and an abstention and want to read all the fine print before scaling from 40,000 generally healthy Phase III volunteers to a wild west of people with poor health, poor hygiene, not-always-following guidelines population. That fact that in U.K., a few people got allergy right after the vaccine shot that was probably undetected in 40,000 people trial might have been concerning.

    President Trump’s chief of staff threatened the F.D.A. head’s job if he didn’t get it done on Friday


    Gives them the political cover needed to push it out the door. If anything were to go wrong, especially massively, now they can say it was a political decision to move fast. Standard behavior of hidebound organizations like FDA.

    As a comparison, just recently, FAA decided the aircraft manufacturers may certify their own planes and quickly we saw the consequences.

    Replies: @epebble

    CDC will monitor for Bell’s palsy among Pfizer vaccine recipients, but sees no causal relationship

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/cdc-monitors-for-bells-palsy-among-pfizer-vaccine-recipients-sees-no-causal-relationship.html

  151. @utu
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen


    Decades of research, including recent studies and empirical ‘cases’ data, prove beyond all doubt that facediapers don’t do anything. The science is settled.
     
    Nonsense. Are you shilling for the Big Pharma that does not like non-pharmaceutical countermeasures or were you cast without your knowledge and acquiescence in the role of their useful idiot by your incorrigible ignorance?

    There are many laboratory studies:

    Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks, ACS Nano. 2020 Apr 24
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

    Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks
    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205

    There are epidemiological studies:

    Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Update August 4, 2020.
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5

    Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada (October 16, 2020)
    Alexander Karaivanov, Shih En Lu, Hitoshi Shigeoka, Cong Chen, Stephanie Pamplona
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.20201178v2

    And implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:

    Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2.full.pdf

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Chrisnonymous

    implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:

    As I’ve pointed out to you before, the two papers putting forward the hypothesis of masks contributing to decreased severity are not studies per se, in the sense that people usually associate that word with actual research. The pre-print is a new one, but still is mathematical modeling.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen is wrong, but it is true that the research on masks is wide and contradictory–more than the citations you show suggest. Plus, as I mentioned before, that study on aerosol filtration is, I think, suspect in that its conclusions run counter to other research done on the topic, but it was produced in the midst of a pandemic. As with the hanster study scientist who believed in his conclusion before finding it, I wonder about these authors. A quick review of the paper, looking at the pressure differentials is strange. They are finding similar pressure differentials both with and without gaps. I know why you keep citing this paper, however–the use of cloth masks is so widespread in Asia (not to mentiin masks worn improperly!) that you need cotton to be highlybeffective in order to support the rest of your belief system.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Chrisnonymous

    Recent Japanese lab study on mask effectiveness using real virus aerosols. Note that the scale in graphs is logarithmic.


    Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
    https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20/article-info
     
    The authors qualify:

    To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded.
     
    Providing that this is true that there is a minimal threshold of virus load that need to be crossed to initiate infection a nonlinearity must be introduced in data analysis. The effectiveness of masks is higher than what ratio of mask-to-no mask viral loads indicate.

    Explain to me why studies produced "in the midst of a pandemic" would show bias in favor of efficacy of masks? The Danish study somehow overcame this midst of the pandemic bias. And the Chinese paper, since withdrawn, on collecting virus in petri dishes from masked and not masked virus shedding patients (N=4) also did not succumb to the bias.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    , @utu
    @Chrisnonymous

    Another Japanese study in school setting:


    Effectiveness of vaccination and wearing masks on seasonal influenza in Matsumoto City, Japan, in the 2014/2015 season: An observational study among all elementary schoolchildren
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335516301553

    The overall effectiveness of vaccination and mask wearing was 9.9% and 8.6%, respectively. After dividing children into higher (grades 4–6) and lower (grade 1–3) grade groups, the effectiveness of vaccination became greater in the lower grade group, and the effectiveness of wearing masks became greater in the higher grade group.
     

    The effectiveness of 9% is not too impressive but not worse than that of vaccine. The article did not state what was the percentage wearing masks in the classroom. If masked and not-masked kids were mixed then obviously the effect will be much smaller than when comparing everybody masked vs. nobody masked.

    Other studies cited by the paper that I haven't read.

    A.E. Aiello, R.M. Coulborn, T.J. Aragon, et al.
    Research findings from nonpharmaceutical intervention studies for pandemic influenza and current gaps in the research

    A.E. Aiello, G.F. Murray, V. Perez, et al.
    Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial
    J. Infect. Dis., 201 (2010), pp. 491-498

    A.E. Aiello, V. Perez, R.M. Coulborn, B.M. Davis, M. Uddin, A.S. Monto
    Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial
    PLoS One, 7 (2012), Article e29744

    C.R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T.C. Dung, et al.
    A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
    BMJ Open, 5 (2015), Article e006577

  152. @utu
    @Mr. Anon

    "The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. " - There is a paradoxical truth in it. Lockdowns are more effective when the infection rate is low. The best way of keeping horses in the barn is to shut the barn door before they bolt. Early lockdowns are also less costly because the lockdown duration is proportional to the infection rate. If NYC went on lockdown two weeks sooner probably they could start relaxing countermeasures in four weeks providing that they would not import more cases form outside of the city and sate and began doing effective tracing and isolation.

    "Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer." - Trying to be funny, right? Not permanent bu very short. The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1. They should have gone on lockdown on that very day and began to work on closing borders and finding quarantine areas for travelers and people who had contacts and figuring out all kind of other issues but doing it when people were already on lockdown. I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all kids of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @vhrm, @Mr. Anon

    The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1.

    China lied by at least 10x about deaths and the number of cases are unknown even by them (they weren’t even letting sick people into hospitals for a while, let alone testing them). (The specifics are not clear but the “crematoriums went from 4 hours/day 5 days a week to 24/7” and the huge deliveries of funeral urns was reported via several channels https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/03/31/wuhan-resident-gives-world-a-more-accurate-look-at-what-the-death-toll-there-really-is-n133051 )

    In Italy it was spreading since late November 2019 but not detected until late February 2020 ( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coronavirus-identified-in-italy-months-before-first-confirmed-case/ar-BB1bODc8?ocid=uxbndlbing).

    The “first case” in New York was almost certainly in 2019 as it was already community spreading all over the country by then (https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-spreading-united-states-december-2019-20201201-rcapabhtgjeexljbigbo5hdbaq-story.html )
    There were prob 10k+ cases already in NYC by the time of the first detected case.

    Looking at it now, we know with reasonable confidence that we were off by very large factors (like 10x – 1000x ) about the extent of the virus spread in the early days. So whatever curve-fitting was being done was fairly meaningless.

    Also, as was eminently demonstrated by infection rates over 2020, R_0 varies a whole lot with both population structure/density and weather (see e.g. CA vs NY, both of which had unmitigated community spread since 2019 yet very very different outcomes).

    Also, here’s something new: people (kids in this case https://www.dnaindia.com/science/report-covid-19-pandemic-researchers-case-study-children-antibodies-australia-2857320) having asymptomatic COVID and testing negative on PCR during the time that they’ve had it.

    i.e. even if you do surveillance via random PCR testing (which we generally don’t do) it’s unknown what percentage of actual infections you’ll catch. Given that we’ve already established that antibodies are not long lasting and how many you create to begin with varies from person to person, basically we have little idea of how many people have actually had Covid in various places.

    Short of surveys for [antibody or T-Cell immunity ] (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53764640) we won’t know. But then anyone’s hardly doing even antibody surveys so i won’t hold my breath.

    • Replies: @utu
    @vhrm

    There are questions and some data are puzzling about the early phase of the virus spread. It seems that stochastic chains of infections are broken more frequently than expected and the process remained undetected without turning into an exponential outbreak for a longer time than expected.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/health/coronavirus-ny.html
    Other cities, like San Francisco, have similarly shown periods when the virus seemed to percolate until something — perhaps a superspreader event — triggered an exponential rise in infections.

    “We’ve seen this elsewhere repeatedly, and it’s still strange to me,” Dr. Bedford said.
     
    Is it possible that some of the results concerning antibodies in early blood samples are false positive? In the Red Cross blood data showing antibodies already in December in California only one sample was positive for the test that had the highest specificity for covid.

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/heres-why-you-should-skip-the-covid-vaccine/#comment-4327739

    The Italian paper showing antibodies already in October was criticized for using in-house test that was not validated with other tests.
  153. Isn’t Friday evening normally when they dump the bad news?

  154. @PiltdownMan

    The Anglo-Russian alliance is now considering making one dose the Russian vaccine and one the British vaccine, so some other combinations.
     
    When AstraZeneca and Sputnik announced their results some weeks ago, the Sputnik people gently needled AstraZeneca with a tweet.

    https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine/status/1330869140358377472?s=20


    Looks like it was taken in a can-do spirit.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @annon

    Have you and Steve though about the implications of this?

    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.

    1)Antibodies are temporary

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.

    What vectors will they use next year? This is a disaster.

    PS Steve: Your characterization of the “southern wave” as a “second wave” is so anti-scientific that it borders on retarded.

    Please google Dr Hope-Simpson.

    WTF is wrong with you? Get a grip.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @annon


    This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months
     
    Citations, please?

    Assuming you are right (which I doubt) then what prevents us from repeating the mRNA vaccination as necessary just as we (some of us at least) get flu shots every winter?
    , @That Would Be Telling
    @annon


    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.
     
    I wish I could say I was shocked by so much ignorance of basic facts, but that's more endemic than the virus.

    1)Antibodies are temporary
     
    Of course, otherwise your plasma wouldn't have room for red blood cells some time before you reached adulthood.

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)
     
    And mRNA vaccines, which totally simulate a real infection, except only with a stabilized spike protein, which the cells won't be pumping out quite as long, don't? Go to the FDA's page on the December 10th meeting, go down to the Event Materials section, and from Pfizer/BioNTech's briefing paper, starting page 22 they discuss "6.1.2. Immunogenicity in Study BNT162-01 Phase 1" starting with T Cells. This continues for some length, then covers their blended Phase 2/3 trial. This is then summarized on page 51 of the FDA staff briefing paper.

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.
     
    Now you're shifting to adenovirus vector vaccines, first mixing up which dose needs to be reduced for the AZ/Oxford clown show, then referring to Sputnik V, about which information is still sparse, their Phase III trial started recruitment September 10th, but their approach is one obvious gambit to get around the problem with this technology platform. Janssen is trying only one dose, which has all sorts of advantages if it works out in their massive 60,000 Phase III trial, high risk, high reward if it works and they can fulfill their ambition to vaccinate a billion people by the end of 2021.

    In any case, this class of vaccines is "active" like the mRNA ones, with a spike protein spliced into an adenovirus vector that's been gimped to not be able to reproduce. They will generate a wider variety of proteins, including the spike one of interest, and being DNA based, I assume will likely do it for longer.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months
     
    On January 12-13 Moderna's vaccine candidate was indeed experimental. Now their's and BioNTech's has been experimented with on animals and humans for many months, and we have the efficacy results, including the serological studies I cite above for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Which I understand to say there's as strong evidence these vaccines will provide lasting immunity as does SARS-CoV-2. But if you want to insist we have to wait until that's proven over time, sure, but we can still make educated decisions based on the results so far from all of the above, including the wild type virus, which after all has only been infecting people in large numbers this year.

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.
     
    Only because we currently don't believe enough people will get vaccinated to provide herd immunity, let alone there being a successful eradication program like there was for smallpox and rinderpest. That's subject to change as these vaccines get rolled out and used, and everyone learns for real their risk profiles vs. getting a wild type unlimited reproduction infection.
  155. @utu
    @Mr. Anon

    "The only way to make them timely is to impose them before they’re needed at all. " - There is a paradoxical truth in it. Lockdowns are more effective when the infection rate is low. The best way of keeping horses in the barn is to shut the barn door before they bolt. Early lockdowns are also less costly because the lockdown duration is proportional to the infection rate. If NYC went on lockdown two weeks sooner probably they could start relaxing countermeasures in four weeks providing that they would not import more cases form outside of the city and sate and began doing effective tracing and isolation.

    "Permanent lockdown – that’s the only answer." - Trying to be funny, right? Not permanent bu very short. The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1. They should have gone on lockdown on that very day and began to work on closing borders and finding quarantine areas for travelers and people who had contacts and figuring out all kind of other issues but doing it when people were already on lockdown. I have always thought that Pentagon, Homeland Security and other State and Federal agencies have plans for all kids of scenarios. That all it takes is do identify what problem you are dealing with and go to right room and right filing cabinet and pull a folder with the plan for NYC lockdowns and epidemic containment and biological agent elimination.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @vhrm, @Mr. Anon

    Trying to be funny, right?

    No, I don’t find anything funny about the whole sad, shameful episode.

    What I find most shameful is that people – you for example – unreflectively use the term “lockdown”, a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @Mr. Anon


    What I find most shameful is that people – you for example – unreflectively use the term “lockdown”, a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.
     
    Ima disagree with you here. Better that instead of some Orwellian euphemism, like "the staycation" or "an invitation to remain home" or something. Surprised the MSM has stuck with it, tbh.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon

  156. @That Would Be Telling
    @Mike Tre


    You should get vaccinated first and let everyone here know how that goes.
     
    A silly ad hominem, for while I'm at elevated risk because of my age, I'm still in the very lowest priority group, I simply don't have that option. But I have every expectation I will be taking one of these vaccines when I actually can.

    Meanwhile, you'd actually contribute to these iSteve discussions if you shifted your recent focus on me as a person to my arguments.

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @Mike Tre

    Frankly, the only thing left to do is mock you pro-panic petty tyrants. You can read what I’ve already written about what the fundamental issue is here. You PPPT’s have not only given up even more of your freedom of association, speech, and movement, you are celebrating it, and you are condemning those of us who dare to not run off the cliff with you.

    So if you, and Love-Ewe-tu, and Sailer, and Jack F want to hide out, mask up, and get poked, be my guest. I don’t care what you do… until you start telling me how I’m supposed to live my life. Then you are no better than any of the rest of the totalitarian mouth breathers currently running Western Civilization into the outhouse.

  157. “Santa Clara County, California is proposing going door to door to administer tests to the large Hispanic population…”

    Buffalo Joe, KGO radio reported yesterday that although San Jose is 25% Hispanic, they make up 55% of the Covid-19 infections here. The average age of a Hispanic person in Silicon Valley is just 26 years old. As they are the youngest, by far, demographic, it stands to reason far fewer are not deathly worried about contracting Covid-19. On the other hand, the average age of non-Hispanic Whites in Santa Clara County is ~46 years old; a little more incentive to take pause.

    Makes me wonder, is herd immunity possible if the herd routinely takes in infected outsiders?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @danand


    Makes me wonder, is herd immunity possible if the herd routinely takes in infected outsiders?
     
    Sure it is - the very definition of herd immunity is the level at which an infection will no longer spread in a herd even if it is re-introduced from outside. The question though is what percentage of the population needs to be immune (either from prior infection or vaccination) before that happens. No one really knows what % that % is for covid. For some highly contagious diseases, you need a very high % - for measles 95%. They are hoping that covid will be more like 60 to 75% but they may have been over optimistic. It appears that in certain settings (e.g. restaurants) Covid is highly contagious also, maybe just as contagious as measles.
  158. @Mr. Anon
    @utu


    Trying to be funny, right?
     
    No, I don't find anything funny about the whole sad, shameful episode.

    What I find most shameful is that people - you for example - unreflectively use the term "lockdown", a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.

    Replies: @vhrm

    What I find most shameful is that people – you for example – unreflectively use the term “lockdown”, a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.

    Ima disagree with you here. Better that instead of some Orwellian euphemism, like “the staycation” or “an invitation to remain home” or something. Surprised the MSM has stuck with it, tbh.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @vhrm

    Euphemism isn’t the proper tool for their present purposes. More like the opposite.

    One the other hand:

    https://twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/1338129860636643334?s=20

    I suspect our descendants will know Toad’s proper name.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Mr. Anon
    @vhrm

    It's true that "lockdown" has the virtue of being direct and non-euphemistic. It just shocks me that people so casually use it to describe what is being done to them as if it were completely natural and in order.

  159. OT singer Charley Pride dies today of Covid He was 76.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Alden

    86. Time flies.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Alden

    Correction, 86 years. USA life expectency, male: 76.

  160. @annon
    @PiltdownMan

    Have you and Steve though about the implications of this?

    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.

    1)Antibodies are temporary

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.

    What vectors will they use next year? This is a disaster.

    PS Steve: Your characterization of the "southern wave" as a "second wave" is so anti-scientific that it borders on retarded.

    Please google Dr Hope-Simpson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8D7Gnq0TE

    WTF is wrong with you? Get a grip.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

    This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    Citations, please?

    Assuming you are right (which I doubt) then what prevents us from repeating the mRNA vaccination as necessary just as we (some of us at least) get flu shots every winter?

  161. @Alden
    OT singer Charley Pride dies today of Covid He was 76.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Hippopotamusdrome

    86. Time flies.

  162. @danand
    "Santa Clara County, California is proposing going door to door to administer tests to the large Hispanic population..."

    Buffalo Joe, KGO radio reported yesterday that although San Jose is 25% Hispanic, they make up 55% of the Covid-19 infections here. The average age of a Hispanic person in Silicon Valley is just 26 years old. As they are the youngest, by far, demographic, it stands to reason far fewer are not deathly worried about contracting Covid-19. On the other hand, the average age of non-Hispanic Whites in Santa Clara County is ~46 years old; a little more incentive to take pause.

    Makes me wonder, is herd immunity possible if the herd routinely takes in infected outsiders?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Makes me wonder, is herd immunity possible if the herd routinely takes in infected outsiders?

    Sure it is – the very definition of herd immunity is the level at which an infection will no longer spread in a herd even if it is re-introduced from outside. The question though is what percentage of the population needs to be immune (either from prior infection or vaccination) before that happens. No one really knows what % that % is for covid. For some highly contagious diseases, you need a very high % – for measles 95%. They are hoping that covid will be more like 60 to 75% but they may have been over optimistic. It appears that in certain settings (e.g. restaurants) Covid is highly contagious also, maybe just as contagious as measles.

  163. @vhrm
    @utu


    The R0 of the epidemic was known from Wuhan and Italy before NYC got its first case on March 1.

     

    China lied by at least 10x about deaths and the number of cases are unknown even by them (they weren't even letting sick people into hospitals for a while, let alone testing them). (The specifics are not clear but the "crematoriums went from 4 hours/day 5 days a week to 24/7" and the huge deliveries of funeral urns was reported via several channels https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/03/31/wuhan-resident-gives-world-a-more-accurate-look-at-what-the-death-toll-there-really-is-n133051 )

    In Italy it was spreading since late November 2019 but not detected until late February 2020 ( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coronavirus-identified-in-italy-months-before-first-confirmed-case/ar-BB1bODc8?ocid=uxbndlbing).

    The "first case" in New York was almost certainly in 2019 as it was already community spreading all over the country by then (https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-spreading-united-states-december-2019-20201201-rcapabhtgjeexljbigbo5hdbaq-story.html )
    There were prob 10k+ cases already in NYC by the time of the first detected case.

    Looking at it now, we know with reasonable confidence that we were off by very large factors (like 10x - 1000x ) about the extent of the virus spread in the early days. So whatever curve-fitting was being done was fairly meaningless.

    Also, as was eminently demonstrated by infection rates over 2020, R_0 varies a whole lot with both population structure/density and weather (see e.g. CA vs NY, both of which had unmitigated community spread since 2019 yet very very different outcomes).

    Also, here's something new: people (kids in this case https://www.dnaindia.com/science/report-covid-19-pandemic-researchers-case-study-children-antibodies-australia-2857320) having asymptomatic COVID and testing negative on PCR during the time that they've had it.

    i.e. even if you do surveillance via random PCR testing (which we generally don't do) it's unknown what percentage of actual infections you'll catch. Given that we've already established that antibodies are not long lasting and how many you create to begin with varies from person to person, basically we have little idea of how many people have actually had Covid in various places.

    Short of surveys for [antibody or T-Cell immunity ] (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53764640) we won't know. But then anyone's hardly doing even antibody surveys so i won't hold my breath.

    Replies: @utu

    There are questions and some data are puzzling about the early phase of the virus spread. It seems that stochastic chains of infections are broken more frequently than expected and the process remained undetected without turning into an exponential outbreak for a longer time than expected.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/health/coronavirus-ny.html
    Other cities, like San Francisco, have similarly shown periods when the virus seemed to percolate until something — perhaps a superspreader event — triggered an exponential rise in infections.

    “We’ve seen this elsewhere repeatedly, and it’s still strange to me,” Dr. Bedford said.

    Is it possible that some of the results concerning antibodies in early blood samples are false positive? In the Red Cross blood data showing antibodies already in December in California only one sample was positive for the test that had the highest specificity for covid.

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/heres-why-you-should-skip-the-covid-vaccine/#comment-4327739

    The Italian paper showing antibodies already in October was criticized for using in-house test that was not validated with other tests.

  164. @Chrisnonymous
    @utu


    implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:
     
    As I've pointed out to you before, the two papers putting forward the hypothesis of masks contributing to decreased severity are not studies per se, in the sense that people usually associate that word with actual research. The pre-print is a new one, but still is mathematical modeling.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen is wrong, but it is true that the research on masks is wide and contradictory--more than the citations you show suggest. Plus, as I mentioned before, that study on aerosol filtration is, I think, suspect in that its conclusions run counter to other research done on the topic, but it was produced in the midst of a pandemic. As with the hanster study scientist who believed in his conclusion before finding it, I wonder about these authors. A quick review of the paper, looking at the pressure differentials is strange. They are finding similar pressure differentials both with and without gaps. I know why you keep citing this paper, however--the use of cloth masks is so widespread in Asia (not to mentiin masks worn improperly!) that you need cotton to be highlybeffective in order to support the rest of your belief system.

    Replies: @utu, @utu

    Recent Japanese lab study on mask effectiveness using real virus aerosols. Note that the scale in graphs is logarithmic.

    Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
    https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20/article-info

    The authors qualify:

    To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded.

    Providing that this is true that there is a minimal threshold of virus load that need to be crossed to initiate infection a nonlinearity must be introduced in data analysis. The effectiveness of masks is higher than what ratio of mask-to-no mask viral loads indicate.

    Explain to me why studies produced “in the midst of a pandemic” would show bias in favor of efficacy of masks? The Danish study somehow overcame this midst of the pandemic bias. And the Chinese paper, since withdrawn, on collecting virus in petri dishes from masked and not masked virus shedding patients (N=4) also did not succumb to the bias.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    @utu



    Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks...however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission...is unknown

     

    I agree with this paper.
  165. Alternatively, Trump could have aimed to be a decent person and competent president from day 1, Pfizer would have released their results on Nov 1, everyone cheers Trump, Trump wins election, lives are saved. Win win all around. Instead, he shot himself in the foot and spent all his time whining about others.

  166. It is a crime that challenge trials were not done.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Hodag


    It is a crime that challenge trials were not done.
     
    iSteve has reported the U.K. is going to do it, and a Dutch group is mooting it.

    It's also "a crime" to do this to humans before you believe you have enough information on the likely results of all levels of the disease short of death, not to mention a strong reading on the potential for death.

    And of course challenge trials have been done on animals, for Pfizer/BioNTech on rhesus monkeys, also referred to as nonhuman primates (NHP). See the Pfizer/BioNTech briefing paper for the FDA advisory committee, here's the FDA's page on the December 10th meeting, go down to the Event Materials section.

  167. @annon
    @PiltdownMan

    Have you and Steve though about the implications of this?

    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.

    1)Antibodies are temporary

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.

    What vectors will they use next year? This is a disaster.

    PS Steve: Your characterization of the "southern wave" as a "second wave" is so anti-scientific that it borders on retarded.

    Please google Dr Hope-Simpson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8D7Gnq0TE

    WTF is wrong with you? Get a grip.

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling

    I am truly shocked at the inability to grasp simple concepts.

    I wish I could say I was shocked by so much ignorance of basic facts, but that’s more endemic than the virus.

    1)Antibodies are temporary

    Of course, otherwise your plasma wouldn’t have room for red blood cells some time before you reached adulthood.

    2)T cell immunity is almost permanent (SARS-Cov-1 = 17 years)

    And mRNA vaccines, which totally simulate a real infection, except only with a stabilized spike protein, which the cells won’t be pumping out quite as long, don’t? Go to the FDA’s page on the December 10th meeting, go down to the Event Materials section, and from Pfizer/BioNTech’s briefing paper, starting page 22 they discuss “6.1.2. Immunogenicity in Study BNT162-01 Phase 1” starting with T Cells. This continues for some length, then covers their blended Phase 2/3 trial. This is then summarized on page 51 of the FDA staff briefing paper.

    3)The reason that the decreased second dose (mistake??) and the different vectors have (supposedly) better efficacy is that the human immune system reacts.

    Now you’re shifting to adenovirus vector vaccines, first mixing up which dose needs to be reduced for the AZ/Oxford clown show, then referring to Sputnik V, about which information is still sparse, their Phase III trial started recruitment September 10th, but their approach is one obvious gambit to get around the problem with this technology platform. Janssen is trying only one dose, which has all sorts of advantages if it works out in their massive 60,000 Phase III trial, high risk, high reward if it works and they can fulfill their ambition to vaccinate a billion people by the end of 2021.

    In any case, this class of vaccines is “active” like the mRNA ones, with a spike protein spliced into an adenovirus vector that’s been gimped to not be able to reproduce. They will generate a wider variety of proteins, including the spike one of interest, and being DNA based, I assume will likely do it for longer.

    4)This experimental mRNA vaccine will only potentially provide minimal protection for months

    On January 12-13 Moderna’s vaccine candidate was indeed experimental. Now their’s and BioNTech’s has been experimented with on animals and humans for many months, and we have the efficacy results, including the serological studies I cite above for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Which I understand to say there’s as strong evidence these vaccines will provide lasting immunity as does SARS-CoV-2. But if you want to insist we have to wait until that’s proven over time, sure, but we can still make educated decisions based on the results so far from all of the above, including the wild type virus, which after all has only been infecting people in large numbers this year.

    Do you see where this goes? This virus is already endemic.

    Only because we currently don’t believe enough people will get vaccinated to provide herd immunity, let alone there being a successful eradication program like there was for smallpox and rinderpest. That’s subject to change as these vaccines get rolled out and used, and everyone learns for real their risk profiles vs. getting a wild type unlimited reproduction infection.

  168. @Hodag
    It is a crime that challenge trials were not done.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    It is a crime that challenge trials were not done.

    iSteve has reported the U.K. is going to do it, and a Dutch group is mooting it.

    It’s also “a crime” to do this to humans before you believe you have enough information on the likely results of all levels of the disease short of death, not to mention a strong reading on the potential for death.

    And of course challenge trials have been done on animals, for Pfizer/BioNTech on rhesus monkeys, also referred to as nonhuman primates (NHP). See the Pfizer/BioNTech briefing paper for the FDA advisory committee, here’s the FDA’s page on the December 10th meeting, go down to the Event Materials section.

  169. @Peterike
    @Hhsiii

    “NYC didn’t even lockdown.”

    Wrong.

    “ They made you eat on the sidewalk like in European cafe style.”

    That was started months into the lockdown, months of near zero deaths.

    “As everyone knows, midtown is dead. But that’s because people of their own accord refuse to go in.”

    Nonsense. Corporations closed their offices. You aren’t even allowed to go at most companies. The city shut down all “non essential” workers for months.

    Replies: @Hhsiii

    Yeah, I was wrong. But that’s NYC. Was most of the country locked down?

    I’ve been able to go to my office since late March, if I want. But you need to answer Covid questions, and everyone can’t go at once. I go in one or two days a week now. I was in Wednesday,only person in my area. People could go. They are choosing not to.

    And yes, a lot of restaurants have closed. Damn, 21 just closed. My mistake. I do know folks still working. But a lot of carnage.

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Hhsiii

    About the only thing that’s closed here is a Walgreen’s. Also our only BLM march was a bunch of white Osteener dorks.

    , @anon
    @Hhsiii

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    https://i.imgur.com/A3JwoFr.jpg

    lol.

    Replies: @Hhsiii

  170. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous

    There are about ten "sanity points" that distinguish sane, traditional, civilizationally-capable societies from sick ones.

    That you protect your border and keep foreigners out is obviously #1.

    Executing, expelling or locking up criminals is another one.

    Knowing that there are two different--complementary--sexes, is apparently another one.

    Replies: @lavoisier

    I would add to your excellent list the following:

    That the leaders of your civilization are capable, honest, and are not easily bribed into doing what is not in the interest of the people they govern.

  171. @S. Anonyia
    @Travis

    I don’t think 100 million people have had it. I would have probably caught it in that case, and antibody tests suggest I haven’t. I’ve traveled plenty and have been exposed many times to people who have it. I’m not sure it spreads as easily as they say. I think it may require closer contact than the experts suggest. Everyone I know who caught COVID is the gregarious “touchy feely” type who likes to hug.

    The good news is, it’s definitely becoming less deadly. Local news reported people in their 40s and 50s regularly getting hospitalized from it back in April. Not anymore. Several of my relatives came down with it around Thanksgiving, and even those that are overweight and in their 50s/60s did not got seriously ill. It was not even as bad as the flu. The younger people didn’t experience much at all other than the loss of smell/taste and fatigue.

    Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    The antibody tests miss detecting antibodies is about 10% of recovered COVID patients, and they fade rapidly. Back in August my wife and I were tested for the antibodies. She was negative , I was positive for the antibodies. In March we both had bad colds, with sore throats and fatigue. Lasted 7 days for me, which is the longest cold I ever experienced in my life. My wife recovered in 5 days. Neither of us had a fever.

    Last week we tested negative for the antibodies when Red Cross tested our blood donations. This is typical. People who tested positive for antibodies months ago will be negative when tested again because they fade rapidly. I suspect immunity to this virus may last less than 12 months because the antibodies are gone after 8 months for most people.

  172. @vhrm
    @Mr. Anon


    What I find most shameful is that people – you for example – unreflectively use the term “lockdown”, a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.
     
    Ima disagree with you here. Better that instead of some Orwellian euphemism, like "the staycation" or "an invitation to remain home" or something. Surprised the MSM has stuck with it, tbh.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon

    Euphemism isn’t the proper tool for their present purposes. More like the opposite.

    One the other hand:

    I suspect our descendants will know Toad’s proper name.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    https://twitter.com/gaitanalyst/status/1338165153662177280?s=20

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  173. @Hhsiii
    @Peterike

    Yeah, I was wrong. But that’s NYC. Was most of the country locked down?

    I’ve been able to go to my office since late March, if I want. But you need to answer Covid questions, and everyone can’t go at once. I go in one or two days a week now. I was in Wednesday,only person in my area. People could go. They are choosing not to.

    And yes, a lot of restaurants have closed. Damn, 21 just closed. My mistake. I do know folks still working. But a lot of carnage.

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    About the only thing that’s closed here is a Walgreen’s. Also our only BLM march was a bunch of white Osteener dorks.

  174. • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  175. @Alden
    OT singer Charley Pride dies today of Covid He was 76.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Correction, 86 years. USA life expectency, male: 76.

  176. @utu
    @Chrisnonymous

    Recent Japanese lab study on mask effectiveness using real virus aerosols. Note that the scale in graphs is logarithmic.


    Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
    https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20/article-info
     
    The authors qualify:

    To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded.
     
    Providing that this is true that there is a minimal threshold of virus load that need to be crossed to initiate infection a nonlinearity must be introduced in data analysis. The effectiveness of masks is higher than what ratio of mask-to-no mask viral loads indicate.

    Explain to me why studies produced "in the midst of a pandemic" would show bias in favor of efficacy of masks? The Danish study somehow overcame this midst of the pandemic bias. And the Chinese paper, since withdrawn, on collecting virus in petri dishes from masked and not masked virus shedding patients (N=4) also did not succumb to the bias.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks…however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission…is unknown

    I agree with this paper.

  177. @Desiderius
    @vhrm

    Euphemism isn’t the proper tool for their present purposes. More like the opposite.

    One the other hand:

    https://twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/1338129860636643334?s=20

    I suspect our descendants will know Toad’s proper name.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Desiderius


    take a vaccine to protect other people with whom they have no common bonds of community
     
    That's an interesting point, unfortunately so in too much of the West, but what does "community" mean in terms of herd immunity against a respiratory virus? It's the people who's interactions are so close physically you share the same air, pretty much literally. If you're in some sort of long distance people mover, you may indeed have no common bonds with all or almost all of them.

    But day to day? Your family, your neighbors if you've got any sort of relationships with them, the stores you visit with other members of your physical community geographically, and maybe the workers as well? Your church, schools if you've got children or are attending one? If you have no bonds with any of these people, the problem is with you, at best only because of your choice of where to learn, or live for external reasons like your career. At worst, sociopathic "rugged individualism" of the sort that's dooming the Right today, which will kill you if our cold civil war turns hot.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  178. @That Would Be Telling
    @Whiskey


    the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns.
     
    For better or worse, there's this thing called federalism in the US. My state's governor is doing no such thing, and my county and city governments and the ones nearest to me are using a rather light touch, but there are capacity limitations imposed on businesses in my city.

    There are no emergency rooms overflowing
     
    Again, federalism, for 150 miles in all directions, in my Red state region, ER staff are spending hours on the phone finding beds to admit their COVID-19 patient into, and giving them inferior care in meantime, their not being really set up or specializing in that sort of thing. That counts as "overflowing" to me.

    And to quote the late Jerry Pournelle about your general theme, despair is a sin.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Nico, @Nico

    The “stay at home; save lives” or “wear masks; save lives” talking points have obfuscate the hospital flow issue and this is one of several problems poisoning the political discourse around the issues. First and most importantly, the hospital overflow is the ONLY justification for masks, curfews and lockdowns as the number of disability-adjusted life-years lost for these measures has to be the equivalent of hundreds of millions*. (And yes, it is justified, because people need hospital resources for conditions other than COVID-19.) Meanwhile the OECD average age of death from COVID is startlingly close to the average life expectency for these countries and about half of the victims are said to be obese, well above the 25% obesity rate for OECD: obesity decreases life expectancy by somewhere between five and eight years depending on sex and smoker status.

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn’t look this promising several months ago and the “rinse-lather-repeat” approach of our Dear Leaders with seemingly indefinite renewals, restarts and extensions of social distancing measures was always going to prompt paranoia and lose them trust. No one even wanted to think about a plan B, about a paradigm shift in triage logistics in case neither a vaccine nor herd immunity was forthcoming by a certain date. That they seemed willing and in some cases even enthusiastic to allow this to go on forever is admittedly very, very scary.

    *For those interested in how I came to this conclusion, I crunched some rough numbers this afternoon assuming that full-on mask mandates such as we have in France decrease quality of life by 30% and varying degrees of lockdowns ranging from curfews to firebreak decrease it by about 65%, meaning that during the time in which they are imposed life is about 25% as good as it should be. This would amount to a loss of four and a half months in a straight six-month period: if such mandates are imposed uniformly across an about 1.3 billion OECD population

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Nico


    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn’t look this promising several months ago....
     
    That's utter garbage. Ignoring that we had every reason to believe we'd be able to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines after many years of work in this class of coronaviruses after SARS and then MERS started stalking the earth, Moderna's use of new technology that allowed them to create their vaccine candidate literally over a weeken started showing convincing human serological data by late April or so. After that, it was just proving with sufficient numbers it was indeed safe and effective, although we're only part way there for both them and Pfizer/BioNTech.

    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them, when the odds were strongly in our favor of having a vaccine solution (of sorts, if no one takes them, we're still at square one with lockdowns etc. forever).

    Replies: @Nico

  179. @That Would Be Telling
    @Whiskey


    the Governors in the US States and National leaders in Europe can’t get enough of lockdowns.
     
    For better or worse, there's this thing called federalism in the US. My state's governor is doing no such thing, and my county and city governments and the ones nearest to me are using a rather light touch, but there are capacity limitations imposed on businesses in my city.

    There are no emergency rooms overflowing
     
    Again, federalism, for 150 miles in all directions, in my Red state region, ER staff are spending hours on the phone finding beds to admit their COVID-19 patient into, and giving them inferior care in meantime, their not being really set up or specializing in that sort of thing. That counts as "overflowing" to me.

    And to quote the late Jerry Pournelle about your general theme, despair is a sin.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Nico, @Nico

    The “stay at home; save lives” or “wear masks; save lives” talking points have obfuscate the hospital flow issue and this is one of several problems poisoning the political discourse around the issues. First and most importantly, the hospital overflow is the ONLY justification for masks, curfews and lockdowns as the number of disability-adjusted life-years lost for these measures has to be the equivalent of hundreds of millions*. (And yes, it is justified, because people need hospital resources for conditions other than COVID-19.) Meanwhile the OECD average age of death from COVID is startlingly close to the average life expectency for these countries and about half of the victims are said to be obese, well above the 25% obesity rate for OECD: obesity decreases life expectancy by somewhere between five and eight years depending on sex and smoker status.

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn’t look this promising several months ago and the “rinse-lather-repeat” approach of our Dear Leaders with seemingly indefinite renewals, restarts and extensions of social distancing measures was always going to prompt paranoia and lose them trust. No one even wanted to think about a plan B, about a paradigm shift in triage logistics in case neither a vaccine nor herd immunity was forthcoming by a certain date. That they seemed willing and in some cases even enthusiastic to allow this to go on forever is admittedly very, very scary.

    *For those interested in how I came to this conclusion, I crunched some rough numbers this afternoon assuming that full-on mask mandates such as we have in France decrease quality of life by 30% and varying degrees of lockdowns ranging from curfews to firebreak decrease it by about 65%, meaning that during the time in which they are imposed life is about 25% as good as it should be. This would amount to a loss of four and a half months in a straight six-month period: if such mandates are imposed uniformly across an about 1.3 billion OECD population that would make for nearly half a billion disability-adjusted life years lost.

  180. @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    https://twitter.com/gaitanalyst/status/1338165153662177280?s=20

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    take a vaccine to protect other people with whom they have no common bonds of community

    That’s an interesting point, unfortunately so in too much of the West, but what does “community” mean in terms of herd immunity against a respiratory virus? It’s the people who’s interactions are so close physically you share the same air, pretty much literally. If you’re in some sort of long distance people mover, you may indeed have no common bonds with all or almost all of them.

    But day to day? Your family, your neighbors if you’ve got any sort of relationships with them, the stores you visit with other members of your physical community geographically, and maybe the workers as well? Your church, schools if you’ve got children or are attending one? If you have no bonds with any of these people, the problem is with you, at best only because of your choice of where to learn, or live for external reasons like your career. At worst, sociopathic “rugged individualism” of the sort that’s dooming the Right today, which will kill you if our cold civil war turns hot.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @That Would Be Telling

    With me?

    My community is fine, because I sought one out which still values those ancestral ties and traditions and more or less ignores the guidance of our morons in charge and manages our own affairs a la Sweden.

    We wear our masks indoors away from home but take care to spend as little time there as possible as that’s where the danger is, while the morons want to force everyone to spend as much time as possible inside and alone decimating their mental, physical, and spiritual health.

    He’s talking about people who don’t have that luxury but instead made the mistake of trusting the morons.

  181. @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling

    The "stay at home; save lives" or "wear masks; save lives" talking points have obfuscate the hospital flow issue and this is one of several problems poisoning the political discourse around the issues. First and most importantly, the hospital overflow is the ONLY justification for masks, curfews and lockdowns as the number of disability-adjusted life-years lost for these measures has to be the equivalent of hundreds of millions*. (And yes, it is justified, because people need hospital resources for conditions other than COVID-19.) Meanwhile the OECD average age of death from COVID is startlingly close to the average life expectency for these countries and about half of the victims are said to be obese, well above the 25% obesity rate for OECD: obesity decreases life expectancy by somewhere between five and eight years depending on sex and smoker status.

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn't look this promising several months ago and the "rinse-lather-repeat" approach of our Dear Leaders with seemingly indefinite renewals, restarts and extensions of social distancing measures was always going to prompt paranoia and lose them trust. No one even wanted to think about a plan B, about a paradigm shift in triage logistics in case neither a vaccine nor herd immunity was forthcoming by a certain date. That they seemed willing and in some cases even enthusiastic to allow this to go on forever is admittedly very, very scary.

    *For those interested in how I came to this conclusion, I crunched some rough numbers this afternoon assuming that full-on mask mandates such as we have in France decrease quality of life by 30% and varying degrees of lockdowns ranging from curfews to firebreak decrease it by about 65%, meaning that during the time in which they are imposed life is about 25% as good as it should be. This would amount to a loss of four and a half months in a straight six-month period: if such mandates are imposed uniformly across an about 1.3 billion OECD population

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn’t look this promising several months ago….

    That’s utter garbage. Ignoring that we had every reason to believe we’d be able to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines after many years of work in this class of coronaviruses after SARS and then MERS started stalking the earth, Moderna’s use of new technology that allowed them to create their vaccine candidate literally over a weeken started showing convincing human serological data by late April or so. After that, it was just proving with sufficient numbers it was indeed safe and effective, although we’re only part way there for both them and Pfizer/BioNTech.

    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them, when the odds were strongly in our favor of having a vaccine solution (of sorts, if no one takes them, we’re still at square one with lockdowns etc. forever).

    • Replies: @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling


    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them
     
    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication. Perhaps the prospects for a vaccine were as you say optimistic pretty early on but it wasn’t clear to the general public why we should be so optimistic and having a plan B and a timeline would in my mind have gone a long way toward quelling worries about the indefinite nature of these measures. Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  182. @That Would Be Telling
    @Desiderius


    take a vaccine to protect other people with whom they have no common bonds of community
     
    That's an interesting point, unfortunately so in too much of the West, but what does "community" mean in terms of herd immunity against a respiratory virus? It's the people who's interactions are so close physically you share the same air, pretty much literally. If you're in some sort of long distance people mover, you may indeed have no common bonds with all or almost all of them.

    But day to day? Your family, your neighbors if you've got any sort of relationships with them, the stores you visit with other members of your physical community geographically, and maybe the workers as well? Your church, schools if you've got children or are attending one? If you have no bonds with any of these people, the problem is with you, at best only because of your choice of where to learn, or live for external reasons like your career. At worst, sociopathic "rugged individualism" of the sort that's dooming the Right today, which will kill you if our cold civil war turns hot.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    With me?

    My community is fine, because I sought one out which still values those ancestral ties and traditions and more or less ignores the guidance of our morons in charge and manages our own affairs a la Sweden.

    We wear our masks indoors away from home but take care to spend as little time there as possible as that’s where the danger is, while the morons want to force everyone to spend as much time as possible inside and alone decimating their mental, physical, and spiritual health.

    He’s talking about people who don’t have that luxury but instead made the mistake of trusting the morons.

  183. @That Would Be Telling
    @Buffalo Joe


    That would, what state do you live in?
     
    Sorry, not going to dox myself. I'll just say it's in flyover country, and that our experience in the first wave wasn't horrible, from memory barely noticed if at all the second wave, but this third wave is bad, including lots more deaths, which our public health departments take some effort to conclude are either caused by COVID-19, or it was a significant contributing factor.

    And a great many of the elderly deaths are from the Silent Generation, while a lot of Boomers are also dying.

    I should look up and do some calculations on the detailed demographics of both; my parents are Silents, so I've ended up not paying much attention at all to Boomers. But that's a low order priority, especially now that there's a vaccine with FDA EUA approval, and likely another in six days.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Jack D, @utu, @Known Fact

    Not going to “dox yourself” by mentioning your state to back up your observations? How about at least a region? Really, unless you live in Wyoming or Rhode Island no info on your state is going to even remotely risk doxxing you. You have plenty to say and some of it is well worth considering but don’t play guessing games with the readers.

    I’ve been perfectly willing to “risk”stating that I live in Putnam County NY, the smallest county in the state with a mere 100,000 residents. It’s important context at times because it’s a red county on the shores of the blue blue sea. So come and get me, coppers! Top of the world, ma!

  184. Anyway, let’s very briefly sum up where we are after 9 months of COVID

    — There’s serious disagreement over the accuracy of “positive” tests, and what “positive” even means.

    — There’s serious disagreement over how well masks work and if they might even harm more than help.

    — There’s serious debate over whether lockdowns work and if they might even harm more than help.

    — There’s serious debate over whether COVID kills by the hundreds of thousands or most often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased, as the CDC itself hinted at.

    — There’s serious debate or at least regional variability over whether hospitals and health workers “are stretched to the breaking point.”

    — There’s serious concern that the media is unwilling or unable to accurately report on the situation. Or any situation.

    — There’s serious suspicion that perverse financial incentives, political motivations or pure lust for power are driving policy decisions, not to mention tainting the statistics that well-meaning people such as Steve earnestly parse in search of truth

    And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Known Fact


    — There’s serious disagreement over the accuracy of “positive” tests, and what “positive” even means.
     
    I've not come across anyone who wasn't at best grossly ignorant arguing this point. At worse, the people who started this meme were knowing lying about for example what one of the developers of the PRC lab technique said about how it can be used in testing.

    — There’s serious disagreement over how well masks work and if they might even harm more than help.
     
    I'm not sure about the latter point, in fact that's a Citation Needed. But there is one hypothesis that's consistent with surgical grade plus or minus masks making things worse, for the claimed benefit of moderating transmission from the infectious. There's also a lot of bogus studies out there that don't consider the claimed benefit, and far too many people who are simply unable to read and digest scientific papers.

    — There’s serious debate over whether lockdowns work and if they might even harm more than help.
     
    Of course, but "lockdown" is not a binary thing.

    — There’s serious debate over whether COVID kills by the hundreds of thousands or most often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased, as the CDC itself hinted at.
     
    Ah, another selfish sociopath. Too much of the Right has picked a particularly stupid hill to die on, in the process revealing that the Left was right about a great deal they claimed about the Right.

    — There’s serious debate or at least regional variability over whether hospitals and health workers “are stretched to the breaking point.”
     
    The regional variability is real, and should be looked into.

    — There’s serious concern that the media is unwilling or unable to accurately report on the situation. Or any situation.
     
    Anyone getting their information from the MSM is axiomatically too stupid to live by this point. Fortunately, we can go directly to the primary sources, from all the science and medical journals that have made all their COVID-19 papers free to view, to ClinicalTrials.gov, to the companies publishing their detailed Phase III trial protocols, to the FDA advisory committee publishing their briefing materials and live streaming their debates. If the topic is vaccines, it is an extremely open process.

    — There’s serious suspicion that perverse financial incentives, political motivations or pure lust for power are driving policy decisions, not to mention tainting the statistics that well-meaning people such as Steve earnestly parse in search of truth
     
    Yes, political motivations, COVID-19 instantly became part of our cold civil war. And the vast majority of vocal members of Tribe Red pick positions that get people killed; see above, they just don't care.

    And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?
     
    Not even relevant if you're not in a high priority group, and prior to FDA licensure for general populations, see for example the disclaimers in the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) materials for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. But America does need a solution sooner or later to its selfish sociopaths before they get people killed by the millions or more. America being America, we'll probably wait until after that point.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  185. @Hhsiii
    @Peterike

    Yeah, I was wrong. But that’s NYC. Was most of the country locked down?

    I’ve been able to go to my office since late March, if I want. But you need to answer Covid questions, and everyone can’t go at once. I go in one or two days a week now. I was in Wednesday,only person in my area. People could go. They are choosing not to.

    And yes, a lot of restaurants have closed. Damn, 21 just closed. My mistake. I do know folks still working. But a lot of carnage.

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    lol.

    • LOL: Hhsiii
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @anon

    Yeah, that’s me on 9th Avenue.

    My sister lives in Texas with her family and my understanding early on was that there wasn’t much of a lockdown.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I gotta go have a bagel with lox.

  186. @Known Fact
    Anyway, let's very briefly sum up where we are after 9 months of COVID

    -- There's serious disagreement over the accuracy of "positive" tests, and what "positive" even means.

    -- There's serious disagreement over how well masks work and if they might even harm more than help.

    -- There's serious debate over whether lockdowns work and if they might even harm more than help.

    -- There's serious debate over whether COVID kills by the hundreds of thousands or most often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased, as the CDC itself hinted at.

    -- There's serious debate or at least regional variability over whether hospitals and health workers "are stretched to the breaking point."

    -- There's serious concern that the media is unwilling or unable to accurately report on the situation. Or any situation.

    -- There's serious suspicion that perverse financial incentives, political motivations or pure lust for power are driving policy decisions, not to mention tainting the statistics that well-meaning people such as Steve earnestly parse in search of truth

    And I'm supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    — There’s serious disagreement over the accuracy of “positive” tests, and what “positive” even means.

    I’ve not come across anyone who wasn’t at best grossly ignorant arguing this point. At worse, the people who started this meme were knowing lying about for example what one of the developers of the PRC lab technique said about how it can be used in testing.

    — There’s serious disagreement over how well masks work and if they might even harm more than help.

    I’m not sure about the latter point, in fact that’s a Citation Needed. But there is one hypothesis that’s consistent with surgical grade plus or minus masks making things worse, for the claimed benefit of moderating transmission from the infectious. There’s also a lot of bogus studies out there that don’t consider the claimed benefit, and far too many people who are simply unable to read and digest scientific papers.

    — There’s serious debate over whether lockdowns work and if they might even harm more than help.

    Of course, but “lockdown” is not a binary thing.

    — There’s serious debate over whether COVID kills by the hundreds of thousands or most often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased, as the CDC itself hinted at.

    Ah, another selfish sociopath. Too much of the Right has picked a particularly stupid hill to die on, in the process revealing that the Left was right about a great deal they claimed about the Right.

    — There’s serious debate or at least regional variability over whether hospitals and health workers “are stretched to the breaking point.”

    The regional variability is real, and should be looked into.

    — There’s serious concern that the media is unwilling or unable to accurately report on the situation. Or any situation.

    Anyone getting their information from the MSM is axiomatically too stupid to live by this point. Fortunately, we can go directly to the primary sources, from all the science and medical journals that have made all their COVID-19 papers free to view, to ClinicalTrials.gov, to the companies publishing their detailed Phase III trial protocols, to the FDA advisory committee publishing their briefing materials and live streaming their debates. If the topic is vaccines, it is an extremely open process.

    — There’s serious suspicion that perverse financial incentives, political motivations or pure lust for power are driving policy decisions, not to mention tainting the statistics that well-meaning people such as Steve earnestly parse in search of truth

    Yes, political motivations, COVID-19 instantly became part of our cold civil war. And the vast majority of vocal members of Tribe Red pick positions that get people killed; see above, they just don’t care.

    And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?

    Not even relevant if you’re not in a high priority group, and prior to FDA licensure for general populations, see for example the disclaimers in the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) materials for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. But America does need a solution sooner or later to its selfish sociopaths before they get people killed by the millions or more. America being America, we’ll probably wait until after that point.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @That Would Be Telling

    Fine but you're not disputing my point -- that there is deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more. I'm just noting that there is deep skepticism, and wondering why this would be. So just handwaving it all away by saying anyone who might be skeptical is a grossly ignorant sociopath does not address this. I may be ignorant but not grossly. As far as sociopathic, well ...

    I didn't even take a side on any of these issues, so you seem to take it rather personally and defensively that they would be raised at all.

    Replies: @Nico, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

  187. @Chrisnonymous
    @utu


    implications of masks reducing the viral load studies:
     
    As I've pointed out to you before, the two papers putting forward the hypothesis of masks contributing to decreased severity are not studies per se, in the sense that people usually associate that word with actual research. The pre-print is a new one, but still is mathematical modeling.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen is wrong, but it is true that the research on masks is wide and contradictory--more than the citations you show suggest. Plus, as I mentioned before, that study on aerosol filtration is, I think, suspect in that its conclusions run counter to other research done on the topic, but it was produced in the midst of a pandemic. As with the hanster study scientist who believed in his conclusion before finding it, I wonder about these authors. A quick review of the paper, looking at the pressure differentials is strange. They are finding similar pressure differentials both with and without gaps. I know why you keep citing this paper, however--the use of cloth masks is so widespread in Asia (not to mentiin masks worn improperly!) that you need cotton to be highlybeffective in order to support the rest of your belief system.

    Replies: @utu, @utu

    Another Japanese study in school setting:

    Effectiveness of vaccination and wearing masks on seasonal influenza in Matsumoto City, Japan, in the 2014/2015 season: An observational study among all elementary schoolchildren
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335516301553

    The overall effectiveness of vaccination and mask wearing was 9.9% and 8.6%, respectively. After dividing children into higher (grades 4–6) and lower (grade 1–3) grade groups, the effectiveness of vaccination became greater in the lower grade group, and the effectiveness of wearing masks became greater in the higher grade group.

    The effectiveness of 9% is not too impressive but not worse than that of vaccine. The article did not state what was the percentage wearing masks in the classroom. If masked and not-masked kids were mixed then obviously the effect will be much smaller than when comparing everybody masked vs. nobody masked.

    Other studies cited by the paper that I haven’t read.

    A.E. Aiello, R.M. Coulborn, T.J. Aragon, et al.
    Research findings from nonpharmaceutical intervention studies for pandemic influenza and current gaps in the research

    A.E. Aiello, G.F. Murray, V. Perez, et al.
    Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial
    J. Infect. Dis., 201 (2010), pp. 491-498

    A.E. Aiello, V. Perez, R.M. Coulborn, B.M. Davis, M. Uddin, A.S. Monto
    Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial
    PLoS One, 7 (2012), Article e29744

    C.R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T.C. Dung, et al.
    A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
    BMJ Open, 5 (2015), Article e006577

  188. @That Would Be Telling
    @Known Fact


    — There’s serious disagreement over the accuracy of “positive” tests, and what “positive” even means.
     
    I've not come across anyone who wasn't at best grossly ignorant arguing this point. At worse, the people who started this meme were knowing lying about for example what one of the developers of the PRC lab technique said about how it can be used in testing.

    — There’s serious disagreement over how well masks work and if they might even harm more than help.
     
    I'm not sure about the latter point, in fact that's a Citation Needed. But there is one hypothesis that's consistent with surgical grade plus or minus masks making things worse, for the claimed benefit of moderating transmission from the infectious. There's also a lot of bogus studies out there that don't consider the claimed benefit, and far too many people who are simply unable to read and digest scientific papers.

    — There’s serious debate over whether lockdowns work and if they might even harm more than help.
     
    Of course, but "lockdown" is not a binary thing.

    — There’s serious debate over whether COVID kills by the hundreds of thousands or most often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased, as the CDC itself hinted at.
     
    Ah, another selfish sociopath. Too much of the Right has picked a particularly stupid hill to die on, in the process revealing that the Left was right about a great deal they claimed about the Right.

    — There’s serious debate or at least regional variability over whether hospitals and health workers “are stretched to the breaking point.”
     
    The regional variability is real, and should be looked into.

    — There’s serious concern that the media is unwilling or unable to accurately report on the situation. Or any situation.
     
    Anyone getting their information from the MSM is axiomatically too stupid to live by this point. Fortunately, we can go directly to the primary sources, from all the science and medical journals that have made all their COVID-19 papers free to view, to ClinicalTrials.gov, to the companies publishing their detailed Phase III trial protocols, to the FDA advisory committee publishing their briefing materials and live streaming their debates. If the topic is vaccines, it is an extremely open process.

    — There’s serious suspicion that perverse financial incentives, political motivations or pure lust for power are driving policy decisions, not to mention tainting the statistics that well-meaning people such as Steve earnestly parse in search of truth
     
    Yes, political motivations, COVID-19 instantly became part of our cold civil war. And the vast majority of vocal members of Tribe Red pick positions that get people killed; see above, they just don't care.

    And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?
     
    Not even relevant if you're not in a high priority group, and prior to FDA licensure for general populations, see for example the disclaimers in the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) materials for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. But America does need a solution sooner or later to its selfish sociopaths before they get people killed by the millions or more. America being America, we'll probably wait until after that point.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    Fine but you’re not disputing my point — that there is deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more. I’m just noting that there is deep skepticism, and wondering why this would be. So just handwaving it all away by saying anyone who might be skeptical is a grossly ignorant sociopath does not address this. I may be ignorant but not grossly. As far as sociopathic, well …

    I didn’t even take a side on any of these issues, so you seem to take it rather personally and defensively that they would be raised at all.

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Known Fact

    I’m willing to share the optimism of iSteve and TWBT on the prospects for a vaccine but I wasn’t always so optimistic. And I’m not an idiot on science, either, though I’m not a specialist in virology and so I’d have had a lot of catching up to do on SARS and Coronaviruses 101 in order to slog through all the doomsaying left and right. As I say in a previous post if the prospects were bright all along, the people in the know failed to communicate this effectively, whether by their own fault or not. And I maintain the apparent inexistence of a contingent plan to set expiry dates for social distancing has definitely fed mistrust of our Dear Leaders and conspiracy theories about indefinite lockdowns.

    Again, that may be the fault of the press and maybe no one would have been able to cut through the mess effectively. Maybe social non-consensus and the chaos that engenders - both on the streets and in the ideas we throw back and forth - is the price we pay in the West for ethnically diverse, morally libertine and economically stratified societies. I’m inclined to think it is, and unfortunately I doubt we can trust the ministers of propaganda to communicate this as well.

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Known Fact

    A vile attempt to retreat to a motte, but to address the bailey, you are not a serious person, and are therefore incapable of having a serious discussion, let alone recognizing them as you claim to do in your original comment. Sure there's "deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more," because unserious people like you are capable of creating them out of thin air, as have for example so many anti-vaxxers who don't even know or remember the fundamental paradigm of molecular genetics (DNA->RNA->proteins, like those doctors so many have been urging me to watch in their fatuitous videos).

    And yes, your disdain for the deaths of the elderly, "[COVID-19] often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased," makes you a now unrepentant and confirmed stone cold sociopath. If you dislike that label, try cultivating a little compassion for people other than yourself.


    I didn’t even take a side on any of these issues
     
    You think our reading comprehension is so poor we can't recognize such a blatant lie? Your last line "And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?" after making so many claims you continue to say are undisputed most certainly takes a position based on the claims.

    And it's nothing personal, I just loathe with every fiber of my being people who lie about important things, in this case, literally matters of life and death for millions.
    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Known Fact

    A report from the Pfizer CEO: They are going to be able to ship 50 million doses, that's for 25 million people, by the end of this year, most of which have already been manufactured. The US gets half of those. They currently plan for 1.3 billion doses in 2021, and say they'll deliver the rest of our initial Operation Warp Speed (OWS) order of 100 million by the end of the first quarter. We'd like 100 million more, in the current manufacturing plan we wouldn't get any until the third quarter. We and Pfizer are discussing ways to produce more or change allocatations so we get doses in the second quarter.

    Since Pfizer is currently supply chain constrained and only going to be able to meet half its early shipping commitments, OWS just might be able to speed up their production, Pfizer up to now having avoided anything to do with OWS except signing an initial purchase agreement for 100 millions doses if their and BioNTech's vaccine was approved by the end of this year (Emergency Use Authorization "approval," which very clearly states it's not actually FDA "approved," that's licensure which will take time to gather more data).

  189. @vhrm
    @Mr. Anon


    What I find most shameful is that people – you for example – unreflectively use the term “lockdown”, a regime imposed by warders on prisoners, as if it was the most natural thing in the World.
     
    Ima disagree with you here. Better that instead of some Orwellian euphemism, like "the staycation" or "an invitation to remain home" or something. Surprised the MSM has stuck with it, tbh.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon

    It’s true that “lockdown” has the virtue of being direct and non-euphemistic. It just shocks me that people so casually use it to describe what is being done to them as if it were completely natural and in order.

  190. @Steve Sailer
    @Steve Sailer

    But the main point of vaccines is that they can get us to herd immunity in 2021, so we will then be DONE with the pandemic: no more lockdowns, no more masks, no more this and that.

    But, the anti-vaxers are, in effect, on the side of the lockdowners. By slowing and perhaps preventing us from getting to herd immunity, we might be still doing the same lockdown stuff in 2022 as in 2020.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @BenKenobi, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Buzz Mohawk, @anon, @Old and Grumpy, @Travis, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Mr. Anon, @J.Ross, @Thoughts, @Kyle

    I wonder how long immunity lasts for?

  191. So the point of the vaccines would be to shrink the area under the curve. The total number of deaths.

    [MORE]
    The lockdowns, pre vaccine, were ostensibly only to flatten the curve. To prevent overwhelming the hospitals. But without a vaccine flattening the curve couldn’t change the area under the curve. Is that about right or am I off base for saying that? Covid was going to kill who it was going to kill. 12 months ago they were telling us a vaccine may not even be possible. It was a bit of a shot in the dark. Now that there is a vaccine with efficacy, you might actually be able to convince me that lockdowns are a good idea until everyone is forcefully vaccinated. Of course I probably won’t be taking the vaccine, I already had it, and hopefully I’ll be immune for life right? I hope so. I’m not anti vaccine and I’m not anti mask. But I am anti lockdown, when that lockdown involves taking a shot in the dark at trying to come up with a vaccine. The precedent is set. Every time a killer respiratory virus comes around kids will be held out of school for 12-24 months, and bars gyms and barber shops will be shuttered for 12-24 months. Even my small manufacturing shop was shut down, we have maybe 5 people who work in the shop and 3 people who work in the office. Customers aren’t coming in or out, we don’t deal with them directly. If I owned a house and was a lukemia survivor id probably stay in my closet, but we all have different circumstances in life don’t we. I don’t own a house so I don’t even have a closet to lock myself in. My plan is just go to work everyday, cross my fingers and hope to die. I suppose it’s rather uncouth of me to not care about passing it onto other people and infecting them. Maybe this proves that communist China is morally superior to libertine America. I can only argue the logic and morality of lockdowns, can’t argue with the raw numbers. Say 20% of the population infected leads to 300k deaths ok. 300K multiplied by 5 = 1.5 million deaths, ok. But maybe it’s impossible for 100% of people to get infected. Is there a ceiling for that? Say 80% is the ceiling, then it’s 1.2 million to “herd immunity.” Say the virus doesn’t confer any immunity, say you can get it again 6 or 12 months after infection. In that case lockdowns forever start to actually make sense. But do lockdowns forever actually make sense? Who knows how long immunity lasts. Google has completely shut down covid skepticism. When you try googling if you can get re-infected, all you can find are articles that say something to the effect of “yes Virginia, you really can get re-infected.” Early on the CDC was modeling that 2 million people could die without the lockdowns to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Comparing that with Steve’s back of the envelope calculations makes me think the CDC knew 12 months ago that immunity lasts for a fairly long time (it’s not the flu) and that a vaccine was not only possible but probable (not the flu). They could have intimated that, but instead they hit the panic button and induced mass hysteria. Orange you glad orange man bad? A whole bunch of people didn’t save any money this year and a whole bunch of kids didn’t learn anything this year. Was it worth it? Yes. But its possible the cure was worse than the illness. Thank god for operation warp speed. Please don’t leave your closet, you’re the most astute person I’ve ever read, and I enjoy reading what you have to say.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Kyle

    In answer to your previous posting, based on serological (blood) studies of the immune system response to COVID-19, plus as I recall studies on SARS AKA SARS-CoV(-1), we have every reason to believe both natural immunity, you got it from an infection that resulted in an adaptive immune system response (the one that includes antibodies) or a response from a good vaccine will last for a very long time, for now we can reasonably assume indefinitely. But like everything else, empiricism rules, that has to be proven in the real world, and with widespread COVID-19 not being quite a year old....


    So the point of the vaccines would be to shrink the area under the curve. The total number of deaths.
     
    Yes.

    The lockdowns, pre vaccine, were ostensibly only to flatten the curve. To prevent overwhelming the hospitals. But without a vaccine flattening the curve couldn’t change the area under the curve.
     
    With two critical exceptions for that area under the curve, the one you mention playing out in my region. If you let your hospitals get overwhelmed, you get sharply higher morbidity and mortality from all causes because you can't give all your patients a normal level of medical care. And in the beginning, there was a premium on allowing the least number of serious cases while we learned the hard way how to best treat it, something that's always written in blood.

    [...] 12 months ago they were telling us a vaccine may not even be possible. It was a bit of a shot in the dark.
     
    That's scientists and doctors being careful, you don't know until you try; see my above comment, by the end of April or so we had solid signs it was possible, and before that, I believe research on vaccines for SARS and MERS were very encouraging, but I don't know if they were tested on any humans. And of course untimely you need Phase III trials to prove efficacy, and each phase including IV where you start giving it to lots of people outside of a trial gives you a better pictures of how safe they are.

    Of course I probably won’t be taking the vaccine, I already had it, and hopefully I’ll be immune for life right?
     
    If you had a RT-PCR lab confirmed test, and showed enough of the typical symptoms, put yourself at the very very end of the priority list, likely 0 priority, for your immune system response should not only handle the infamous spike protein all but the PRC killed virus vaccine is targeting, but also the nucleocapsid protein that protects the virus' RNA. We'll have more data by then if getting the vaccine will give you an even better response, and how must that's needed, at least statistically. But very possibly not at all.

    [Generally good musings, although see the above about the additional goal of bending the curve] But maybe it’s impossible for 100% of people to get infected. Is there a ceiling for that?
     
    A good question. There probably isn't short of obtaining herd immunity, which for the pathogens that have stayed with us for centuries (measles might be as little as 500 years old), requires massive use of vaccines. We're far away from contemplating an eradication campaign like for the much more lethal smallpox and rinderpest (an animal disease which was the source of measles sometime in the range of the 5th and 15th Centuries), and the one currently being attempted for polio. I suspect it'll never happen because of its low overall morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, although we're not yet sure about the morbidity.

    [...] Comparing that with Steve’s back of the envelope calculations makes me think the CDC knew 12 months ago that immunity lasts for a fairly long time (it’s not the flu) and that a vaccine was not only possible but probable (not the flu).
     
    Not so much knew, as assumed based on our experiences with SARS and MERS. And yes, it's very much not the flu; details on request, but while there is an outside chance it'll undergo a significant mutation if enough people get immunized, it's not something to worry about today, or likely through 2021.

    They could have intimated that, but instead they hit the panic button....
     
    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." There never was a chance COVID-19 wouldn't become a cudgel in our cold civil war, especially against the BAD ORANGE MAN which you mentioned, which we saw from the very beginning of our response, like the politicians who were telling people to patronize their big city's Chinatowns.
  192. @That Would Be Telling
    @Nico


    The other poison bomb in the well is the lack of a contingent plan. As optimistic as the vaccine situation looks now it certainly didn’t look this promising several months ago....
     
    That's utter garbage. Ignoring that we had every reason to believe we'd be able to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines after many years of work in this class of coronaviruses after SARS and then MERS started stalking the earth, Moderna's use of new technology that allowed them to create their vaccine candidate literally over a weeken started showing convincing human serological data by late April or so. After that, it was just proving with sufficient numbers it was indeed safe and effective, although we're only part way there for both them and Pfizer/BioNTech.

    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them, when the odds were strongly in our favor of having a vaccine solution (of sorts, if no one takes them, we're still at square one with lockdowns etc. forever).

    Replies: @Nico

    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them

    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication. Perhaps the prospects for a vaccine were as you say optimistic pretty early on but it wasn’t clear to the general public why we should be so optimistic and having a plan B and a timeline would in my mind have gone a long way toward quelling worries about the indefinite nature of these measures. Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Nico


    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication.
     
    One wrinkle, our plans for COVID-19 started from our long standing and refined plans for the next really major antigenic shift or worse flu pandemic, and those of course included a vaccine because we know we can make those, and really fast if it's a 1918-9 lethality level one (for example, Protein Science's modern biotechnology vs. using chicken eggs that can yield as few as three doses each). So I'd expect only some particularly pessimistic people in the government to make worst case and not very detailed plans, and again I claim publicizing those when the prospects of a vaccine were always quite good would have been a mistake, and:

    Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.
     
    There you have it. I haven't looked at the report beyond the headlines, but one says the COVID-19 news in the US has been vastly more negative than in every other country they studied. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” And that most certainly included getting rid of the BAD ORANGE MAN, at least to the point of avoiding a landslide that could have made blatant Plan B after the polls closed cheating in 5 or so states' big Blue cities fail.

    Replies: @Nico

  193. @Known Fact
    @That Would Be Telling

    Fine but you're not disputing my point -- that there is deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more. I'm just noting that there is deep skepticism, and wondering why this would be. So just handwaving it all away by saying anyone who might be skeptical is a grossly ignorant sociopath does not address this. I may be ignorant but not grossly. As far as sociopathic, well ...

    I didn't even take a side on any of these issues, so you seem to take it rather personally and defensively that they would be raised at all.

    Replies: @Nico, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    I’m willing to share the optimism of iSteve and TWBT on the prospects for a vaccine but I wasn’t always so optimistic. And I’m not an idiot on science, either, though I’m not a specialist in virology and so I’d have had a lot of catching up to do on SARS and Coronaviruses 101 in order to slog through all the doomsaying left and right. As I say in a previous post if the prospects were bright all along, the people in the know failed to communicate this effectively, whether by their own fault or not. And I maintain the apparent inexistence of a contingent plan to set expiry dates for social distancing has definitely fed mistrust of our Dear Leaders and conspiracy theories about indefinite lockdowns.

    Again, that may be the fault of the press and maybe no one would have been able to cut through the mess effectively. Maybe social non-consensus and the chaos that engenders – both on the streets and in the ideas we throw back and forth – is the price we pay in the West for ethnically diverse, morally libertine and economically stratified societies. I’m inclined to think it is, and unfortunately I doubt we can trust the ministers of propaganda to communicate this as well.

  194. @Kyle
    So the point of the vaccines would be to shrink the area under the curve. The total number of deaths. The lockdowns, pre vaccine, were ostensibly only to flatten the curve. To prevent overwhelming the hospitals. But without a vaccine flattening the curve couldn’t change the area under the curve. Is that about right or am I off base for saying that? Covid was going to kill who it was going to kill. 12 months ago they were telling us a vaccine may not even be possible. It was a bit of a shot in the dark. Now that there is a vaccine with efficacy, you might actually be able to convince me that lockdowns are a good idea until everyone is forcefully vaccinated. Of course I probably won’t be taking the vaccine, I already had it, and hopefully I’ll be immune for life right? I hope so. I’m not anti vaccine and I’m not anti mask. But I am anti lockdown, when that lockdown involves taking a shot in the dark at trying to come up with a vaccine. The precedent is set. Every time a killer respiratory virus comes around kids will be held out of school for 12-24 months, and bars gyms and barber shops will be shuttered for 12-24 months. Even my small manufacturing shop was shut down, we have maybe 5 people who work in the shop and 3 people who work in the office. Customers aren’t coming in or out, we don’t deal with them directly. If I owned a house and was a lukemia survivor id probably stay in my closet, but we all have different circumstances in life don’t we. I don’t own a house so I don’t even have a closet to lock myself in. My plan is just go to work everyday, cross my fingers and hope to die. I suppose it’s rather uncouth of me to not care about passing it onto other people and infecting them. Maybe this proves that communist China is morally superior to libertine America. I can only argue the logic and morality of lockdowns, can’t argue with the raw numbers. Say 20% of the population infected leads to 300k deaths ok. 300K multiplied by 5 = 1.5 million deaths, ok. But maybe it’s impossible for 100% of people to get infected. Is there a ceiling for that? Say 80% is the ceiling, then it’s 1.2 million to “herd immunity.” Say the virus doesn’t confer any immunity, say you can get it again 6 or 12 months after infection. In that case lockdowns forever start to actually make sense. But do lockdowns forever actually make sense? Who knows how long immunity lasts. Google has completely shut down covid skepticism. When you try googling if you can get re-infected, all you can find are articles that say something to the effect of “yes Virginia, you really can get re-infected.” Early on the CDC was modeling that 2 million people could die without the lockdowns to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Comparing that with Steve’s back of the envelope calculations makes me think the CDC knew 12 months ago that immunity lasts for a fairly long time (it’s not the flu) and that a vaccine was not only possible but probable (not the flu). They could have intimated that, but instead they hit the panic button and induced mass hysteria. Orange you glad orange man bad? A whole bunch of people didn’t save any money this year and a whole bunch of kids didn’t learn anything this year. Was it worth it? Yes. But its possible the cure was worse than the illness. Thank god for operation warp speed. Please don’t leave your closet, you’re the most astute person I’ve ever read, and I enjoy reading what you have to say.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    In answer to your previous posting, based on serological (blood) studies of the immune system response to COVID-19, plus as I recall studies on SARS AKA SARS-CoV(-1), we have every reason to believe both natural immunity, you got it from an infection that resulted in an adaptive immune system response (the one that includes antibodies) or a response from a good vaccine will last for a very long time, for now we can reasonably assume indefinitely. But like everything else, empiricism rules, that has to be proven in the real world, and with widespread COVID-19 not being quite a year old….

    So the point of the vaccines would be to shrink the area under the curve. The total number of deaths.

    Yes.

    The lockdowns, pre vaccine, were ostensibly only to flatten the curve. To prevent overwhelming the hospitals. But without a vaccine flattening the curve couldn’t change the area under the curve.

    With two critical exceptions for that area under the curve, the one you mention playing out in my region. If you let your hospitals get overwhelmed, you get sharply higher morbidity and mortality from all causes because you can’t give all your patients a normal level of medical care. And in the beginning, there was a premium on allowing the least number of serious cases while we learned the hard way how to best treat it, something that’s always written in blood.

    […] 12 months ago they were telling us a vaccine may not even be possible. It was a bit of a shot in the dark.

    That’s scientists and doctors being careful, you don’t know until you try; see my above comment, by the end of April or so we had solid signs it was possible, and before that, I believe research on vaccines for SARS and MERS were very encouraging, but I don’t know if they were tested on any humans. And of course untimely you need Phase III trials to prove efficacy, and each phase including IV where you start giving it to lots of people outside of a trial gives you a better pictures of how safe they are.

    Of course I probably won’t be taking the vaccine, I already had it, and hopefully I’ll be immune for life right?

    If you had a RT-PCR lab confirmed test, and showed enough of the typical symptoms, put yourself at the very very end of the priority list, likely 0 priority, for your immune system response should not only handle the infamous spike protein all but the PRC killed virus vaccine is targeting, but also the nucleocapsid protein that protects the virus’ RNA. We’ll have more data by then if getting the vaccine will give you an even better response, and how must that’s needed, at least statistically. But very possibly not at all.

    [Generally good musings, although see the above about the additional goal of bending the curve] But maybe it’s impossible for 100% of people to get infected. Is there a ceiling for that?

    A good question. There probably isn’t short of obtaining herd immunity, which for the pathogens that have stayed with us for centuries (measles might be as little as 500 years old), requires massive use of vaccines. We’re far away from contemplating an eradication campaign like for the much more lethal smallpox and rinderpest (an animal disease which was the source of measles sometime in the range of the 5th and 15th Centuries), and the one currently being attempted for polio. I suspect it’ll never happen because of its low overall morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, although we’re not yet sure about the morbidity.

    […] Comparing that with Steve’s back of the envelope calculations makes me think the CDC knew 12 months ago that immunity lasts for a fairly long time (it’s not the flu) and that a vaccine was not only possible but probable (not the flu).

    Not so much knew, as assumed based on our experiences with SARS and MERS. And yes, it’s very much not the flu; details on request, but while there is an outside chance it’ll undergo a significant mutation if enough people get immunized, it’s not something to worry about today, or likely through 2021.

    They could have intimated that, but instead they hit the panic button….

    “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” There never was a chance COVID-19 wouldn’t become a cudgel in our cold civil war, especially against the BAD ORANGE MAN which you mentioned, which we saw from the very beginning of our response, like the politicians who were telling people to patronize their big city’s Chinatowns.

  195. @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling


    And how do you know no contingent plans were created? In what world would it make sense to publicize them
     
    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication. Perhaps the prospects for a vaccine were as you say optimistic pretty early on but it wasn’t clear to the general public why we should be so optimistic and having a plan B and a timeline would in my mind have gone a long way toward quelling worries about the indefinite nature of these measures. Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication.

    One wrinkle, our plans for COVID-19 started from our long standing and refined plans for the next really major antigenic shift or worse flu pandemic, and those of course included a vaccine because we know we can make those, and really fast if it’s a 1918-9 lethality level one (for example, Protein Science’s modern biotechnology vs. using chicken eggs that can yield as few as three doses each). So I’d expect only some particularly pessimistic people in the government to make worst case and not very detailed plans, and again I claim publicizing those when the prospects of a vaccine were always quite good would have been a mistake, and:

    Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.

    There you have it. I haven’t looked at the report beyond the headlines, but one says the COVID-19 news in the US has been vastly more negative than in every other country they studied. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” And that most certainly included getting rid of the BAD ORANGE MAN, at least to the point of avoiding a landslide that could have made blatant Plan B after the polls closed cheating in 5 or so states’ big Blue cities fail.

    • Replies: @Nico
    @That Would Be Telling

    In France news coverage has been fairly negative, but the real problem has been that the culture of pursuing unemployment (benefits are generous, easy to get and relatively hard to get off of) has incentivized the population to go along with some of the most extreme lockdowns in Europe since they’re still paid 84% of gross and can now watch Netflix all day. And these measures (which aren’t violated as flagrantly as some self-hating anti-French self-racist French people think) have not stopped nor very effectively stalled one of the worst pandemic scenarios in Europe by almost any metric.

  196. @That Would Be Telling
    @Nico


    If they were created and weren’t publicized that would be a failure of communication.
     
    One wrinkle, our plans for COVID-19 started from our long standing and refined plans for the next really major antigenic shift or worse flu pandemic, and those of course included a vaccine because we know we can make those, and really fast if it's a 1918-9 lethality level one (for example, Protein Science's modern biotechnology vs. using chicken eggs that can yield as few as three doses each). So I'd expect only some particularly pessimistic people in the government to make worst case and not very detailed plans, and again I claim publicizing those when the prospects of a vaccine were always quite good would have been a mistake, and:

    Then again, maybe the autistic presstitute corps would have sabotaged those efforts, too.
     
    There you have it. I haven't looked at the report beyond the headlines, but one says the COVID-19 news in the US has been vastly more negative than in every other country they studied. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” And that most certainly included getting rid of the BAD ORANGE MAN, at least to the point of avoiding a landslide that could have made blatant Plan B after the polls closed cheating in 5 or so states' big Blue cities fail.

    Replies: @Nico

    In France news coverage has been fairly negative, but the real problem has been that the culture of pursuing unemployment (benefits are generous, easy to get and relatively hard to get off of) has incentivized the population to go along with some of the most extreme lockdowns in Europe since they’re still paid 84% of gross and can now watch Netflix all day. And these measures (which aren’t violated as flagrantly as some self-hating anti-French self-racist French people think) have not stopped nor very effectively stalled one of the worst pandemic scenarios in Europe by almost any metric.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  197. @Known Fact
    @That Would Be Telling

    Fine but you're not disputing my point -- that there is deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more. I'm just noting that there is deep skepticism, and wondering why this would be. So just handwaving it all away by saying anyone who might be skeptical is a grossly ignorant sociopath does not address this. I may be ignorant but not grossly. As far as sociopathic, well ...

    I didn't even take a side on any of these issues, so you seem to take it rather personally and defensively that they would be raised at all.

    Replies: @Nico, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    A vile attempt to retreat to a motte, but to address the bailey, you are not a serious person, and are therefore incapable of having a serious discussion, let alone recognizing them as you claim to do in your original comment. Sure there’s “deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more,” because unserious people like you are capable of creating them out of thin air, as have for example so many anti-vaxxers who don’t even know or remember the fundamental paradigm of molecular genetics (DNA->RNA->proteins, like those doctors so many have been urging me to watch in their fatuitous videos).

    And yes, your disdain for the deaths of the elderly, “[COVID-19] often simply helps usher out the soon-to-be-deceased,” makes you a now unrepentant and confirmed stone cold sociopath. If you dislike that label, try cultivating a little compassion for people other than yourself.

    I didn’t even take a side on any of these issues

    You think our reading comprehension is so poor we can’t recognize such a blatant lie? Your last line “And I’m supposed to step right up and take this vaccine?” after making so many claims you continue to say are undisputed most certainly takes a position based on the claims.

    And it’s nothing personal, I just loathe with every fiber of my being people who lie about important things, in this case, literally matters of life and death for millions.

  198. @Known Fact
    @That Would Be Telling

    Fine but you're not disputing my point -- that there is deep national division or disagreement over these questions and many more. I'm just noting that there is deep skepticism, and wondering why this would be. So just handwaving it all away by saying anyone who might be skeptical is a grossly ignorant sociopath does not address this. I may be ignorant but not grossly. As far as sociopathic, well ...

    I didn't even take a side on any of these issues, so you seem to take it rather personally and defensively that they would be raised at all.

    Replies: @Nico, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    A report from the Pfizer CEO: They are going to be able to ship 50 million doses, that’s for 25 million people, by the end of this year, most of which have already been manufactured. The US gets half of those. They currently plan for 1.3 billion doses in 2021, and say they’ll deliver the rest of our initial Operation Warp Speed (OWS) order of 100 million by the end of the first quarter. We’d like 100 million more, in the current manufacturing plan we wouldn’t get any until the third quarter. We and Pfizer are discussing ways to produce more or change allocatations so we get doses in the second quarter.

    Since Pfizer is currently supply chain constrained and only going to be able to meet half its early shipping commitments, OWS just might be able to speed up their production, Pfizer up to now having avoided anything to do with OWS except signing an initial purchase agreement for 100 millions doses if their and BioNTech’s vaccine was approved by the end of this year (Emergency Use Authorization “approval,” which very clearly states it’s not actually FDA “approved,” that’s licensure which will take time to gather more data).

  199. The FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) December 17, 2020 page has been updated with the briefing submitted by Moderna and the FDA staff, here, go down to Event Materials. Second hand sources say the vaccine looks good, rather like Pfizer/BioNTech’s, which we’d expect since they use mRNA vaccine technology and both took their cues on precisely what mRNA to use based on the preceding research into how to avoid antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), adding “twist ties” as referred to them to the spike protein to stabilize it into one of its two forms.

  200. @anon
    @Hhsiii

    But did the whole country lockdown?

    https://i.imgur.com/A3JwoFr.jpg

    lol.

    Replies: @Hhsiii

    Yeah, that’s me on 9th Avenue.

    My sister lives in Texas with her family and my understanding early on was that there wasn’t much of a lockdown.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I gotta go have a bagel with lox.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS