Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
My previous post #4688 may have been somewhat beyond many readers' ability to understand. Sorry for that. Please let me restate the results of that paper in plain language:
  1. Immune responses were studied in people recovering from COVID-19, and in people who received the Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Immune T cells from these people are still highly effective in lab tests against four of the recently found SARS-CoV-2 mutations.

  2. People with agammaglobulinemia (a condition caused by a variety of genetic defects of the immune system, resulting in a very low antibody level), or people with pharmaceutical drug-related loss of B cells (cells which produce antibodies) generally do recover from COVID-19 without a difficult or complicated disease course.

  3. The authors conclude that immune T cells are able to recognize and react to these viruses despite their mutations. This contrasts to results seen with antibodies from immunized people or from people who recovered from COVID-19.
 
Last edited:
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
This is annoying. Just what we need, more vaccine misinformation.
Here's more today:


Really dangerous as the J&J vaccine offers good protection, but hey it's more vaccine for other cities.
 
Last edited:
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Here's more today:


Really dangerous as the J&J vaccine offers good protection, but hey it's more vaccine for other cities.
How is it the mayor's call whether to accept or decline the vaccine?
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Here's more today:


Really dangerous as the J&J vaccine offers good protection, but hey it's more vaccine for other cities.
Good grief.

From the article:

>>>"So, Johnson & Johnson is a very good vaccine. Moderna and Pfizer are the best. And I am going to do everything I can to make sure the residents of the City of Detroit get the best," Duggan said during a news conference Thursday. . . . The J&J vaccine doses "were allocated on top of the Moderna and Pfizer distribution," Wheaton said, adding that Detroit did not receive additional Moderna or Pfizer supply to replace the 6,200 forgone J&J doses.<<<

Apparently "the best" for 6,200 people in Detroit is nothing.

I suppose they can drive to other parts of the state to get vaccinated, but it has a "Let them eat cake" vibe to it.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
Good grief.

From the article:

>>>"So, Johnson & Johnson is a very good vaccine. Moderna and Pfizer are the best. And I am going to do everything I can to make sure the residents of the City of Detroit get the best," Duggan said during a news conference Thursday. . . . The J&J vaccine doses "were allocated on top of the Moderna and Pfizer distribution," Wheaton said, adding that Detroit did not receive additional Moderna or Pfizer supply to replace the 6,200 forgone J&J doses.<<<

Apparently "the best" for 6,200 people in Detroit is nothing.

I suppose they can drive to other parts of the state to get vaccinated, but it has a "Let them eat cake" vibe to it.
Mayors like this will put people in dangerous predicaments. I say get what you can get, at least you have some protection from ending up in the ER or a long hospital stay in you get Covid..
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Apologies in advance for the following mini rant, but the recent headlines about a Japanese supercomputer study are annoying. Reuters Headline: "Japan supercomputer shows doubling masks offers little help preventing viral spread."

The article says:

"Using a single surgical-type mask, made of non-woven material, had 85% effectiveness in blocking particles when worn tightly around the nose and face. Adding a polyurethane mask on top boosted the effectiveness to just 89%."

Granted, 4% is not a huge improvement by itself, but there's only 15% "left" to block because the first mask already blocked 85%. The second mask actually blocks 27% of the particles that got past the first mask. This is a more significant reduction, and it is the actual percentage reduction in particles due to the 2nd mask when compared to one mask (the whole point of the study).

Also, taking compounding into effect, if everyone wears 1 mask, the "receiving" person breaths in 15% of 15% (i.e. 2.25%). However, if everyone wears 2 masks, the receiving person breaths in 11% of 11% (i.e. 1.2%). This is almost a 50% drop (This is the "First Error: Missing the compounding effect" noted by Talub in the article, 2nd link below)


This also fails to account for nonlinearity of infection risk (Second Error in Talub's blog post).

>>>In the convex part of the curve, gains are disproportionately large: a reduction of x% of viral exposure leads to a drop of much more than x in risk of infection. And, patently we are in the convex part of the curve. For example, to use the case above, a reduction of viral load by 75% for a short exposure could reduce the probability of infection by 95% or more!<<< (I find this assertion by Talub to be less convincing because I'm not sure where we really are on the curve, or if this curve is accurate)

If we're in the convex part of the curve as Talub asserts, a 27% reduction in particles could result in a much greater reduction in the probability of infection.


I would add another effect not mentioned by Talub. Because the spread is exponential, relatively small reductions in R0 have a very large effect over time with regards to the total number of infections (third link below). This is a personal pet peeve. People seem to look at a mask effectiveness of 50% (for example) and figure it's not significant on the basis that it only reduces their risk by 50%. However, if everyone wears masks, over time the risk to any given individual is reduced by much greater than 50%

On top of that, if one lives in an area in which hospitals and supplies (e.g. oxygen) are stretched to the limit (e.g. Manaus Brazil), the infection fatality rate could be very nonlinear once hospital capacity is reached. If everyone in a geographic area wore 2 masks, it could very well save lives of people who would be turned away by the hospitals.

To my mind, once all of the factors are taken into account, a second mask probably offers significant help preventing viral spread and death.



 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Assuming the report is true, this is good news

This is consistent with that T cell study I recently commented on.

T cells from patients who recovered from Covid-19, or from people who were vaccinated by the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, were active against the P1 (Brazilian) strain as well as the B117, B1351, and CAL20C strains. Summarized here:
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/coronavirus.117055/page-236#post-1465927

Now we have clinical data, not lab data, saying the AstraZeneca vaccine also is effective against the P1 strain. Good! It seems clear that T cell immune responses against these corona viruses matters a lot more than the B cell/antibody response. It's enough to predict that any vaccine effective at preventing Covid-19 works primarily by T cell immunity.
 
Last edited:
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
Just a sidetrack , but I friend of ours flew this week and the airport was nuts on social distancing and he took these pictures. At the checkin and then on the plane. The airlines just doesn't get it.Pack them in like nothing ever happened.
ZO4CAVEK3RHS5FONWZAKBSZK5U.jpg
coronavirus-travel.jpg
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Just a sidetrack , but I friend of ours flew this week and the airport was nuts on social distancing and he took these pictures. At the checkin and then on the plane. The airlines just doesn't get it.Pack them in like nothing ever happened.
I'm still not sure what to think about airline travel. There have been some case studies that seem to show the risk is relatively low if everyone wears masks. Personally, I don't think I'll fly until after I get vaccinated.

I'd be extremely uncomfortable if I was on a flight with someone who was coughing.

>>>Early in the coronavirus pandemic, air travel looked like a risky endeavor. Some scientists even worried that airplanes could be sites of superspreading events. For example, in March a Vietnamese businesswoman with a sore throat and a cough boarded a flight in London. Ten hours later, she landed in Hanoi, Vietnam; she infected 15 people on the flight, including more than half of the passengers sitting with her in business class. . . .

"Since April, Emirates has had a very rigid masking policy," Freedman says. Not only does the airline require passengers and crew members to wear masks, but flight attendants also make sure everyone keeps on their masks, as much as possible, throughout the entire flight.

Freedman looked at all Emirates flights from Dubai to Hong Kong between June 16 and July 5. What he found is quite telling. During those three weeks, Emirates had five flights with seven or more infected passengers on each flight, for a total of 58 coronavirus-positive passengers flying on eight-hour trips. And yet, nobody else on the planes — none of the other 1,500 to 2,000 passengers — picked up the virus, Freedman and his colleague report in the Journal of Travel Medicine.

"Those were flights with higher risk, and yet there was no transmission," Freedman says. On another Emirates flight, a whopping 27 coronavirus-positive people boarded the plane in Dubai. Guess how many other passengers were infected on the eight-hour flight? "There appear to have been two in-flight transmissions," Freedman says. . . .

All together, these data suggest masks are working — and working well. "There's encouraging evidence from a number of flights that masking does help greatly, but it would be nice to study it better," he says. "The circumstantial evidence is, your risk is low on a plane, if there is rigid masking."<<<


This article says the virus can spread on long haul flights (not exactly a surprise, of course)

>>>https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2020/11/20/another-study-finds-covid-19-can-spread-on-long-airline-flights/?sh=360bb206379d
 
flyboylr45

flyboylr45

Senior Audioholic
I agree. Just so darn close in that closed cabin with all of that recirculated air.
Air is not re-circulated in an airplane. Air is always going out the outflow valves and new air from the PACKS gets pumped into the cabin. The entire cabin air is exchanged every 2-3 minutes.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Here's the Reader's Digest version (no, this is literally the Reader's Digest version)

“Though fresh air and filters help, you’ll still be sharing an indoor space with quite a few people for an extended period of time. If a sick person sitting next to you coughs, fresh air and HEPA filters aren’t great armor.”

 
flyboylr45

flyboylr45

Senior Audioholic
Right. But, with you wearing a mask, the cougher wearing a mask, and the exchange rate of air in the cabin, the risk is very minimized.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 
flyboylr45

flyboylr45

Senior Audioholic
Not an airline exec, but I am intimately familiar with how aircraft systems work.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 
newsletter

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