February 4, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Is he referring to b1.1.7 or a new one? If the former, we already have trial data that shows vaccines protect against that variant.
February 4, 20215 yr 47 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Is he referring to b1.1.7 or a new one? If the former, we already have trial data that shows vaccines protect against that variant. I believe the new one.
February 4, 20215 yr Warning came out in Sweden today regarding this variant. Our borders are closed now as well. Given the way we've managed this thing so far I'd tend to trust the possibility of a real problem. Of course it might just be a political move here to offset some of the past negative international press (and fake news).
February 4, 20215 yr Two of my neighbors are JnJ employees. One claims that their vaccine, while its efficacy lags behind Pfizer and Moderna, extends to even the South African variant and that it was included in the trials. That BS?
February 4, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Two of my neighbors are JnJ employees. One claims that their vaccine, while its efficacy lags behind Pfizer and Moderna, extends to even the South African variant and that it was included in the trials. That BS? S.A. was included in the trials but the efficacy was significantly lower. It still provided decent protection against severe disease, though.
February 4, 20215 yr 19 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Two of my neighbors are JnJ employees. One claims that their vaccine, while its efficacy lags behind Pfizer and Moderna, extends to even the South African variant and that it was included in the trials. That BS? As far as I know, there have been two trials in SA where b1.351 is predominant, J&J's and Novavax's. Both had reduced efficacy of ~60% in their trials there. No other trials have been run where b1.351 was predominant. I'd be curious to see how either of the mRNA candidates fare against it.
February 4, 20215 yr 4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: S.A. was included in the trials but the efficacy was significantly lower. It still provided decent protection against severe disease, though. Yeah 95% protection is what I SAW
February 4, 20215 yr 8 hours ago, Gannan said: Domestic terrorists engaged in attempted mass murder is a major news story. Yeah not quite, irresponsible ok, domestic terrorists? no that is absurd
February 4, 20215 yr 23 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: Yeah 95% protection is what I SAW I think it was actually somewhere it the mid-80s for severe disease.
February 4, 20215 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I think it was actually somewhere it the mid-80s for severe disease. Yes but "85% Effective Overall in Preventing Severe Disease and Demonstrated Complete Protection Against COVID-19 related Hospitalization and Death as of Day 28"
February 5, 20215 yr My wife’s coworker lost her brother (60s) and his son/her nephew (mid 40s) to covid within 2 days of each other this week. Both were relatively healthy no known underlying conditions.
February 5, 20215 yr https://news.yahoo.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-house-cotes-to-strip-committee-234457090.html House removes GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from committeesThe resolution to strip Greene from her seats on the budget and the education and labor committees passed 230-199, with 11 House Republicans joining Democrats in voting for Greene’s removal.
February 5, 20215 yr Man, was just reading about this new Canadian strain of covid now. They say people are showing up to the hospital eh-symptomatic
February 6, 20215 yr Oy vey ! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9229519/It-SEVEN-YEARS-end-coronavirus-pandemic-vaccination-calculator-suggests.html
February 6, 20215 yr This is the DailyMail. Can we agree it's among the media outlets we should be basically ignoring? Its only value is entertainment, not informational. If you want pics of scantily clad celebrities and stories of royal intrigue with dubious attachment to reality, DailyMail is your rag. As a source for COVID news? No.
February 6, 20215 yr 8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: This is the DailyMail. Can we agree it's among the media outlets we should be basically ignoring? Its only value is entertainment, not informational. If you want pics of scantily clad celebrities and stories of royal intrigue with dubious attachment to reality, DailyMail is your rag. As a source for COVID news? No. Sure we can agree to that. We also have to agree that the timelines continue to be pushed. That was probably inevitable.
February 6, 20215 yr 20 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: This is the DailyMail. Can we agree it's among the media outlets we should be basically ignoring? Its only value is entertainment, not informational. If you want pics of scantily clad celebrities and stories of royal intrigue with dubious attachment to reality, DailyMail is your rag. As a source for COVID news? No. It was reporting from Bloomberg article. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/when-will-covid-pandemic-end-near-me-vaccine-coverage-calculator
Create an account or sign in to comment