highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Nothing like having a swab up your nose. Yay!:confused:
Anyway tested negative. :)
I make one of my eyes twitch to let them know it's deep enough. o_O

Might not be a bad idea to get a retest- one of mine came back 'inconclusive' and the next was negative, only a couple of days later. While I felt a bit better on the day of the negative test, I still felt very tired. The woman and her daughter behind me were far worse to experience, IMO.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
when the argument over who should make the choice, parents or officials when it comes to kids wearing masks in school, here is but one reason why some parents should never have been ............

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
There have been numerous news reports about three studies that just came out (see, e.g., AP link below). The first looked at hospitalization and death rates, the second looked at Emergency Department/Urgent Care/hospitalizations, and the third looked at infection rates. There's a lot of data in the three studies and I have not read them completely.

From the AP article:

>>>The first study looked at hospitalizations and emergency room and urgent care center visits in 10 states, from August to this month. . . . Officials have stressed the goal of preventing not just infection but severe disease. On that count, some good news: A third dose was at least 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations for COVID-19, both during the delta and omicron periods, the study also found. The second study focused on COVID-19 case and death rates in 25 states from the beginning of April through Christmas. People who were boosted had the highest protection against coronavirus infection, both during the time delta was dominant and also when omicron was taking over. . . . [according to the third study] Three shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were about 67% effective against omicron-related symptomatic disease compared with unvaccinated people. Two doses, however, offered no significant protection against omicron when measured several months after completion of the original series, the researchers found. <<<

One thing I have been curious about is how accurate the PCR "no S gene = omicron" result is with regards to detecting omicron. Based on the third study, it appears to be reasonably accurate, although it might undercount omicron relative to delta somewhat:

>>>For this analysis, an Omicron case was defined as presence of S-gene target failure (SGTF) in the test sample and a Delta case as absence of SGTF in the test sample. All samples that were determined by the processing laboratory to be SARS-CoV-2 positive had Ct values for at least 2 of the N, ORF1ab, and S genes. SARS-CoV-2–positive samples were considered to have SGTF if they had Ct values for the N and ORF1ab genes but not for the S gene; otherwise, samples were considered not to have SGTF.

SGTF may serve as a proxy for the presence of the Omicron variant in samples tested with the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit assay because of the presence of deletions in the S-gene region for Omicron that are not present in Delta2,21; the deletions lead to S-gene–negative results in Omicron lineages BA.1 and B.1.1.529 but not the majority of Delta samples. While levels of non-Delta circulating variants other than Omicron remain low, samples with SGTF may be presumed to be Omicron.22 At the time of this analysis 99.9% of sequenced samples in the US prior to the emergence of Omicron were Delta.4 To validate the use of SGTF as a proxy for Omicron in the ICATT data, the frequency of SGTF was examined in a randomly selected subset of tests with positive results that were sequenced during the same period as the analysis. The sequenced subset was drawn from the complete database of test results from the laboratory, including tests not eligible for the main analysis. Sequencing data were not available for most cases included in the main analysis, which is why SGTF was used as a proxy. The sensitivity of SGTF for detecting Omicron (B.1.1.529 or BA.1 lineage) was 83.4% and the specificity was 99.2% (eTable 1 in the Supplement).<<<

Based on my super quick initial scan, it appears to me that the the first two studies included data from December when omicron started to become dominant, but these studies didn't look at actual omicron vs delta rates in the subjects of the studies (i.e. based on my initial scan, the third study is the only one that did). The third study showed that there was a mix of delta and omicron in the samples they looked at between 12/10/21 and 1/1/22:

>>>A total of 70 155 tests from 4666 sites on samples collected between December 10 and January 1 across 49 states met inclusion criteria (Figure 1), including 23 391 cases (13 098 Omicron; 10 293 Delta) and 46 764 controls (Table 1)<<<

Also based on a brief initial scan, I didn't see a lot of information in the studies concerning possible prior infection. The third study excluded people who had tested positive during the previous 90 days, but I didn't see anything in the results that took into account positive tests more than 90 days prior to the samples.


 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
I’ve often noticed people saying this. Considering all the rapidly appearing SARS-CoV-2 mutations we've seen, it's easy to think this. But it's not quite correct. It's enough to make me launch into yet another virology lecture.

...
Yes, please.
Thanks you. ;) :)
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
I've had three tests at clinics. During the first two it felt like the person was trying to gather brain cells (it also felt like they may have succeeded)(that's a joke). For the third one they handed me the swab and said it only needed to go in about an inch (that was not much of an issue).

...
:D :D:D:D
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Isn't this similar to one of the religious groups that don't want any lifesaving procedures, blood transfusions, etc with their children and are overruled time and time in courts?
But that might change now.
No, it's about the state allowing kids to do something in the event that their parents are against it- would you want that for your kids, if you have any? What if the kid(s) have medical conditions that should preclude them from getting the vaccine and they get it anyway, because they made the decision without understanding the risks and/or they did it because they were following their friends?
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
No, it's about the state allowing kids to do something in the event that their parents are against it- would you want that for your kids, if you have any? What if the kid(s) have medical conditions that should preclude them from getting the vaccine and they get it anyway, because they made the decision without understanding the risks and/or they did it because they were following their friends?
Interesting considerations.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Isn't this similar to one of the religious groups that don't want any lifesaving procedures, blood transfusions, etc with their children and are overruled time and time in courts?
But that might change now.
In some ways it is somewhat similar, but most of the court cases I have seen involved parents who did not want their child to receive a life saving treatment, typically for religious reasons. The general rule is that adults who are of sound mind can refuse medical treatments if it only impacts their own health (vaccines are a bit different).

With children it’s different. The basic idea is that parents don’t have a right to allow their children to die for religious (or other reasons) and the government has the right to step in as a parent of sorts to protect the child.

There are big gray areas depending on the facts of the case. If crystal clear the child will die absent a treatment that is undoubtedly effective, courts will almost always allow the government to step in and treat the child.

If it’s unclear whether or not a child is in grave danger or if it’s unclear how effective or safe a proposed treatment is, a court might not order treatment. I’m not an expert in this area of the law, but my general impression is that most courts will not order treatment unless it’s quite clear that the child is in danger and the proposed treatment is clearly effective

I’m speaking in very general terms of course. State governments generally have some inherent authority to take some actions but this power may be limited if the state has passed laws or if the appeals courts in a particular state have issued decisions limiting the power of the state.

I believe some states already allow minors to get vaccinated without parental consent. This is of course not the same thing as mandating vaccines over the objections of parents. In general I’d be surprised if a court struck down a state law permitting a minor to get vaccinated. It appears to be almost purely a policy issue (I realize that when it comes to almost any issue there are almost always some people who will declare that a particular law is unconstitutional, but just because someone says this doesn’t mean it’s true)(ie some people who oppose a law for policy reasons will assert that the law is unconstitutional even if there’s almost no doubt the law would survive a constitutional challenge in court)
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja

>>>
Protests in Brussels against coronavirus restrictions spiralled into violence on Sunday as protesters clashed with police officers and vandalized the offices of the European External Action Service, the EU’s diplomatic arm.

In one of the largest demonstrations against COVID-19 measures in the city, an estimated 50,000 people poured onto the streets, including groups traveling from outside Belgium, according to a police spokesperson. The demonstration was organized by the EU-wide network Europeans United for Freedom and other groups that oppose health restrictions.

Police used teargas and water cannons to clear the Cinquantenaire park near the EU institutions after groups of protesters threw objects at officers and charged at them. Live footage showed protesters at street level hurling metal fences and a burning dustbin at policemen below them in the entrance to a metro station. An escalator was later shown burning.

Hooded and masked demonstrators shattered the glass exterior of the EEAS office while police were inside.

“The side entrance was vandalized,” said a Commission spokesperson, adding that nobody was in danger. Top diplomat Josep Borrell visited the offices to inspect the damage and tweeted his condemnation of “the senseless destruction and violence.”

The police said on Sunday evening that three officers and 12 protesters were taken to hospital, but none with life-threatening injuries. About 70 people were detained, they added.
<<<
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
In some ways it is somewhat similar, but most of the court cases I have seen involved parents who did not want their child to receive a life saving treatment, typically for religious reasons. The general rule is that adults who are of sound mind can refuse medical treatments if it only impacts their own health (vaccines are a bit different).

With children it’s different. The basic idea is that parents don’t have a right to allow their children to die for religious (or other reasons) and the government has the right to step in as a parent of sorts to protect the child.

There are big gray areas depending on the facts of the case. If crystal clear the child will die absent a treatment that is undoubtedly effective, courts will almost always allow the government to step in and treat the child.

If it’s unclear whether or not a child is in grave danger or if it’s unclear how effective or safe a proposed treatment is, a court might not order treatment. I’m not an expert in this area of the law, but my general impression is that most courts will not order treatment unless it’s quite clear that the child is in danger and the proposed treatment is clearly effective

I’m speaking in very general terms of course. State governments generally have some inherent authority to take some actions but this power may be limited if the state has passed laws or if the appeals courts in a particular state have issued decisions limiting the power of the state.

I believe some states already allow minors to get vaccinated without parental consent. This is of course not the same thing as mandating vaccines over the objections of parents. In general I’d be surprised if a court struck down a state law permitting a minor to get vaccinated. It appears to be almost purely a policy issue (I realize that when it comes to almost any issue there are almost always some people who will declare that a particular law is unconstitutional, but just because someone says this doesn’t mean it’s true)(ie some people who oppose a law for policy reasons will assert that the law is unconstitutional even if there’s almost no doubt the law would survive a constitutional challenge in court)
I would think children are in danger, perhaps not in grave danger. Children are dying from Covid.
Interesting experiment but will be too late for the ones who died.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
I would think children are in danger, perhaps not in grave danger. Children are dying from Covid.
Interesting experiment but will be too late for the ones who died.
I think that most children dying from the Omicron variant now are the ones with other conditions, or infants whose immune system is not as yet fully developed.
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Ninja
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
I've started seeing more news reports about omicron subvariants. My initial impression is that the three subvariants aren't that much of an issue, but it is curious that BA.2 seems to be increasing in Denmark.

>>>Now, an Omicron variant, BA.2, accounts for almost half of all Danish Omicron-cases

So far, three subvariants of Omicron have been described: BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3. Worldwide, BA.1 account for most of Omicron-cases. However, in Denmark BA.2 is gaining ground. The subvariant BA.2 accounted for 20% of all covid-19-cases in Denmark in week 52 increasing to approximately 45% in week 2. During the same period, the relative frequency of BA.1 has dropped. Other countries also experience an increase in BA.2 cases: E.g. Great Britain, Norway and Sweden – but seemingly their increase in numbers are so far not on the same level as in Denmark. . . . Initial analysis shows no differences in hospitalisations for BA.2 compared to BA.1. Analyses regarding infectiousness and vaccine efficiency etc. are ongoing, including attempts to cultivate BA.2 in order to perform antibody neutralization studies. It is expected that vaccines also have an effect against severe illness upon BA.2 infection.<<<

 
newsletter

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