MR.MAGOO

MR.MAGOO

Audioholic Field Marshall
There's a graphic floating around, a picture of Speaker Pelosi with a big chart comparing US Covid deaths (290,000) with US battle deaths of World War 2 (291,557). It's obvious her staff read the paperback edition of the 2020 World Almanac, page 128 "Casualties in principle wars of the U.S.". It's also obvious it's all politics. I tried to post the picture but got an error , "picture too big, can't upload extensions, etc" . I found it on the OC Register (Orange County, CA local news website).
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
There's a graphic floating around, a picture of Speaker Pelosi with a big chart comparing US Covid deaths (290,000) with US battle deaths of World War 2 (291,557). It's obvious her staff read the paperback edition of the 2020 World Almanac, page 128 "Casualties in principle wars of the U.S.". It's also obvious it's all politics. I tried to post the picture but got an error , "picture too big, can't upload extensions, etc" . I found it on the OC Register (Orange County, CA local news website).
The point being? As to resizing photos, if using Windows10 just right click on the file you want to adjust, go to edit, which will put it in paint with a resize option.....depends on file size as to percentage, with camera photos I'm usually good at 25-30% but something online probably could go higher. It is a shame our chickenshit drumphy really blew it on covid.....
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
The point being? As to resizing photos, if using Windows10 just right click on the file you want to adjust, go to edit, which will put it in paint with a resize option.....depends on file size as to percentage, with camera photos I'm usually good at 25-30% but something online probably could go higher. It is a shame our chickenshit drumphy really blew it on covid.....
Some entities are just behind their expiration date....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
There are obviously plenty of websites tracking the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk levels dashboard at globalepidemics (link below) provides a fairly decent quick overview of the situation in the U.S. (I prefer the "counties" geolocation option).

It provides some information that is not readily apparent from many mainstream news reports. For example, Alaska and Rhode Island are the top 2 states right now in terms of having the highest number of new cases per 100K population (North and South Dakota had been "leading" for quite some time).

A couple months ago there were almost no red zones, but the red has gradually moved down and out from the Dakotas over the past few weeks. (red is anything over 25 new cases per 100K population (7 day moving average)).

It provides a consistent metric over time that is free from spin in either direction.

 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Look who was too dumb to figure out how to post a pic but thanks for the thought @MR.MAGOO . I feel if the insane drumph clown posse is still not happy with me, who gives a crap.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
It's now Friday evening, the day after the Advisory Committee voted to endorse the emergency use application for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. I was hoping and waiting to hear the FDA's response today… until the Looser-In-Chief commanded the FDA Commissioner to do so today or resign. The Orange Peril thinks he can take credit for the vaccine development the same as he would command the sun to set in the west. As a result, I'm waiting for FDA's response tomorrow.

In the meantime, I read the FDA's report https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

It summarizes all the results, for 2 months post-vaccination, in many tables and one figure. I think the figure says it best. It plots the Cumulative Incidence of COVID-19 Occurence (vertical axis) vs. Days After Dose 1 (horizontal axis). The blue trace is the vaccine group and the red trace is the placebo group. It sidesteps statistical significance and other such impotant considerations like safety, but I think it clearly makes an unavoidable conclusion – the vaccine works!

1607734700446.png
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
It's now Friday evening, the day after the Advisory Committee voted to endorse the emergency use application for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. I was hoping and waiting to hear the FDA's response today… until the Looser-In-Chief commanded the FDA Commissioner to do so today or resign. The Orange Peril thinks he can take credit for the vaccine development the same as he would command the sun to set in the west. As a result, I'm waiting for FDA's response tomorrow.

...
FDA approved tonight. Now people wonder if it was by coercion or in spite of it.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
It summarizes all the results, for 2 months post-vaccination, in many tables and one figure. I think the figure says it best. It plots the Cumulative Incidence of COVID-19 Occurence (vertical axis) vs. Days After Dose 1 (horizontal axis). The blue trace is the vaccine group and the red trace is the placebo group. It sidesteps statistical significance and other such impotant considerations like safety, but I think it clearly makes an unavoidable conclusion – the vaccine works!

View attachment 42583
In my estimation, the odds of that graph being the result of a statistical fluke are zero.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
In my estimation, the odds of that graph being the result of a statistical fluke are zero.
Exactly.

The red and blue lines coincide, rising at the same slope, until about day 10. After that day, they diverge. It's as if those people on the vaccine arm who got Covid-19 before day 10 were exposed to the virus before the 1st immunization took hold. Once the vaccine took hold, the blue line became nearly flat, and the red line continued rising with the same slope, without varying. That lack of variation for over 100 days is a good demonstration of the statistical power you get when you test more than 20,000 people in each arm of the trial.

Good for the people at Pfizer and at the FDA. They made such a large & complex clinical trial look simple. This trial's results showed their forethought and competence. They really knew what they're doing.
FDA approved tonight. Now people wonder if it was by coercion or in spite of it.
It was neither. It was the only possible choice considering those remarkable results.

According to the Governor of Maryland, there are 155,000 doses of this vaccine, delivered and ready to be given starting Monday, 14 December.
 
NINaudio

NINaudio

Audioholic Samurai
People who complain about discomfort from getting a Covid test have obviously never had an endoscopic camera shoved up their nose, into their sinuses, then pulled from those sinuses, and sent into the back of their throat and it shows....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
This is good news. The bad news is that we now have catastrophic spread and we have to change people's behavior. It will be three months before vaccines have a major impact.

Here is an update in a interview with Anthony Fauci from JAMA.

Here is a very good video explaining mRNA and mDNA vaccine platforms.

They are both well worth taking the time to watch, so you are informed.
If I understand the video correctly, efficacy in the Oxford trial was determined based on the number of positive antibody tests, whereas efficacy in the Pfizer trial was determined based on symptoms.

If one assumes that some people without symptoms in the Pfizer trial would have tested positive, and that none of the people with symptoms in the Pfizer trial would have tested negative, it seems as if the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine might be significantly greater (i.e. closer to the Pfizer vaccine) if the same efficacy standard were to applied to both.

Basically, it's unclear to me how the efficacy of the two vaccines would compare if the same criteria were to be applied to both.


>>>The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reports 90% efficacy, which means that – of the 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – their vaccine prevented COVID-19 symptoms for 90% of those who received the vaccine compared with placebo.<<<


>>>The Oxford–AstraZeneca team is the only one of the three leading vaccine developers that monitored for asymptomatic infections, by collecting weekly swabs from some participants to determine whether they had the coronavirus but did not become ill. The data show that the low-dose vaccine regimen was about 60% effective at reducing asymptomatic infections, but it is unclear whether the standard dose significantly reduced them at all. . . .

Trials of the two leading RNA vaccines have not gathered data on asymptomatic infections, but the vaccines have been more than 90% effective in preventing symptoms of COVID-19.<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
People who complain about discomfort from getting a Covid test have obviously never had an endoscopic camera shoved up their nose, into their sinuses, then pulled from those sinuses, and sent into the back of their throat and it shows....
I agree, they are complaining a bit too much. There is much worse – pick any orifice.

FWIW, I've now had 2 Corona virus tests by the swab-up-the-nose method. The first one was done by someone else, while I sat in my car and briefly suffered. The second time, I was handed the swab, told how to do it, while a nurse watched. There is a mark on the stick about an inch away from the swab. If you grip the stick between your thumb and finger at the mark, you can put the swab in far enough to get a sample without inflicting pain. At least, it worked for my nose. Your nose may vary.
 
Last edited:
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
I agree, they are complaining a bit too much. There is much worse – pick any orifice.

FWIW, I've now had 2 Corona virus test by the swab up the nose method. The first one was done by someone else, while I sat in my car and briefly suffered. The second time, I was handed the swab, told how to do it, while a nurse watched. There is a mark on the stick about an inch away from the swab. If you grip the stick between your thumb and finger at the mark, you can put the swab in far enough to get a sample without inflicting pain. Your nose may vary.
LOL, how true ! Those of us old enough remember what it was like to get a tooth drilled the old way........ with a rope drill, now that was discomfort !
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
If I understand the video correctly, efficacy in the Oxford trial was determined based on the number of positive antibody tests, whereas efficacy in the Pfizer trial was determined based on symptoms.

If one assumes that some people without symptoms in the Pfizer trial would have tested positive, and that none of the people with symptoms in the Pfizer trial would have tested negative, it seems as if the efficacy of the Oxford vaccine might be significantly greater (i.e. closer to the Pfizer vaccine) if the same efficacy standard were to applied to both.

Basically, it's unclear to me how the efficacy of the two vaccines would compare if the same criteria were to be applied to both.

>>>The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reports 90% efficacy, which means that – of the 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – their vaccine prevented COVID-19 symptoms for 90% of those who received the vaccine compared with placebo.<<<


>>>The Oxford–AstraZeneca team is the only one of the three leading vaccine developers that monitored for asymptomatic infections, by collecting weekly swabs from some participants to determine whether they had the coronavirus but did not become ill. The data show that the low-dose vaccine regimen was about 60% effective at reducing asymptomatic infections, but it is unclear whether the standard dose significantly reduced them at all. . . .

Trials of the two leading RNA vaccines have not gathered data on asymptomatic infections, but the vaccines have been more than 90% effective in preventing symptoms of COVID-19.<<<

Good point. I've been struggling with press reports that the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective while no definition was provided about how that efficacy number was determined. That's the main reason why I read that FDA report on the Pfizer clinical trial. Pfizer did evaluate trial subjects regularly for disease. See the FDA report on the Pfizer trial, https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download.

Page 13:
5.2.3.3. Vaccine Efficacy Analyses
Study C4591001 is the pivotal (and only) efficacy study. Efficacy was assessed based on confirmed cases of COVID-19, for which the case onset date was the date that symptoms were first experienced by the participant and the cases met evaluable criteria. For participants with multiple confirmed cases, only the first case contributed to the VE calculations. Evaluable cases consisted of a positive virological test plus at least one COVID-19 symptom as defined below.

Only the first primary endpoint was analyzed in the planned interim analysis. All primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were planned to be analyzed in the final analysis of at least 164 cases.

Primary Efficacy Endpoints
Study C4591001 has two primary endpoints:
  • First primary endpoint: COVID-19 incidence per 1000 person-years of follow-up in participants without serological or virological evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection before and during vaccination regimen – cases confirmed ≥7 days after Dose 2
  • Second primary endpoint: COVID-19 incidence per 1000 person-years of follow-up in participants with and without evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection before and during vaccination regimen – cases confirmed ≥7 days after Dose 2.
Page 14
For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period:
• Fever;
• New or increased cough;
• New or increased shortness of breath;
• Chills;
• New or increased muscle pain;
• New loss of taste or smell;
• Sore throat;
• Diarrhea;
• Vomiting.

For a secondary efficacy endpoint, a second definition, which may be updated as more is learned about COVID-19, included the following additional symptoms defined by CDC (listed at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html):
• Fatigue;
• Headache;
• Nasal congestion or runny nose;
• Nausea.
For another secondary endpoint, the case definition for a severe COVID-19 case was a confirmed COVID-19 case with at least one of the following:
• Clinical signs at rest indicative of severe systemic illness (RR ≥30 breaths per minute, HR ≥125 beats per minute, SpO2 ≤93% on room air at sea level, or PaO2/FiO2 <300 mm Hg);
• Respiratory failure (defined as needing high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, or ECMO);
• Evidence of shock (SBP <90 mm Hg, DBP <60 mm Hg, or requiring vasopressors)
• Significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction;
• Admission to an ICU;
• Death.

The actual method used to calculate the percent efficacy is not directly presented, and would seem obscure to someone not acquainted with clinical trials. It involves statistical analysis of survival, often called Kaplan-Meier analysis. This is far from a straightforward division of the number of people in the vaccine arm who did not get Covid-19, divided by the total number of people in that arm.

If you are not familiar with Kaplan-Meier analysis and survival curves, and you love statistics, or can't sleep at night, check these links out:

Most survival curves show each death of a patient on the trial, as a single event, or step, on the curve.The graph I posted (post #3966 above) of the two arms of the Pfizer vaccine trial is basically an inverted survival curve, where each event is someone getting sick with Covid-19. It climbs up, instead of dropping like a survival curve. That graph clearly shows the difference between the vaccine and the placebo groups, and you don't need statistical analysis for that. But you can also crunch the numbers to come up with percent efficacy estimates for the vaccine at a given time point. The example above shows a time frame of 2 months. This trial may eventually get efficacy numbers for as long as 2 years.

This is a long complex answer, but I hope it helps. If I understood statistics better, I could give a much shorter answer.
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
....
It was neither. It was the only possible choice considering those remarkable results.

According to the Governor of Maryland, there are 155,000 doses of this vaccine, delivered and ready to be given starting Monday, 14 December.
Yes, exactly. Unfortunate that the white house had to open their ugly mouth about it and issue a threat.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
People who complain about discomfort from getting a Covid test have obviously never had an endoscopic camera shoved up their nose, into their sinuses, then pulled from those sinuses, and sent into the back of their throat and it shows....
Really? ;)
Legalized torture? :D
 
MidnightSensi

MidnightSensi

Audioholic Samurai
People who complain about discomfort from getting a Covid test have obviously never had an endoscopic camera shoved up their nose, into their sinuses, then pulled from those sinuses, and sent into the back of their throat and it shows....
Or a urethral swab test.... not that I've had one ha ha :( In all seriousness I've had a number of covid tests and the nurses for sure got better as time went on. A trick is to gently inhale when they go up and swab, and exhale as they release. Not sure why it helps, but, it does.
 
NINaudio

NINaudio

Audioholic Samurai
Or a urethral swab test.... not that I've had one ha ha :( In all seriousness I've had a number of covid tests and the nurses for sure got better as time went on. A trick is to gently inhale when they go up and swab, and exhale as they release. Not sure why it helps, but, it does.
When I got tested I was like "That was it?" From everything I'd heard from people I was expecting it to be a much worse experience than it was
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
When I got tested I was like "That was it?" From everything I'd heard from people I was expecting it to be a much worse experience than it was
Well, if you've had everything but the kitchen sink shoved into your sinus cavity before, it'll certainly feel like it's no big deal. I found the swab butting into the back of my sinus cavity uncomfortable, for sure, but it wasn't even remotely close to other painful experiences I've had over the years. It may come down to the technique of the person handling the swab. If anyone avoids getting tested because of the discomfort, I'd say that would be silly and irresponsible.

Many years ago, I had surgery for a deviated septum. A couple of days after, the surgeon came into my room:

Surgeon: "Time to remove the splints from your nostrils."
Me: "Is this going to hurt?"
Surgeon: "What do you think?"
Me: "Well...now I think it's going to hurt".
Surgeon: *Has me lay on my side, puts a drip try under my nose, grabs one of the splints with his forceps and yanks.*
Me: "HOLY $HIT!!!":eek:
It was pretty intense, but subsided within a few seconds, thankfully. So, yeah, the swab is nothing compared to that.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top