lbeltrame

8 ms·

61.
by lbeltrame 5y ago
Aside Chiaki Konaka from Lain, I would recommend some of the works of Sadayuki Murai (who, coincidentally, co-worked with Konaka in Bubblegum Crisis 2040): - Moryo no Hako (not sure what's the English name, but it's a nice horror&
62.
by lbeltrame 5y ago
Biology doesn't work like that. Certainly not for replication-deficient adenoviruses used by AZ, Gamaleya and J&J.
63.
by lbeltrame 5y ago
At least one for Ebola, IIRC.
64.
by lbeltrame 5y ago
I agree if you're in the US or in any other place with abundant supply of other vaccines. If you're in a place like the EU, like myself, every single dose counts and a setback can seriously screw things up.
65.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
I would rather have policy push for interventions that have a better impact on transmission. While the latest ECDC report[1] says "use them, can't hurt", it acknowledges the lack of evidence of masks (and thus effectiveness)
66.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> But he also says vaccinated people should keep wearing masks, because they could still get infected and be infections. I wonder if, like when he "pushed" the numbers for the herd immunity threshold higher to push people to v
67.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> these same variants tend to be more contagious regardless, It may be the case for B 1.1.7 (but around 30%, not the 70% originally flaunted by the UK government and the media), but at this time there are no data on transmissibility of
68.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> The dominant strain of Covid in South Africa is different and existing vaccines are far less effective at countering due to changes in the spike protein which these vaccines target. Only Johnson&Johnson data may say something about
69.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> in the US it is not playing much of a role That's because the FDA is waiting for the completion of AZ's trial in the US. This should be definitely better run than the meta-trials done elsewhere and give clearer numbers. A lik
70.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
The data the EMA (at least, the public stuff) is from the first "lock" of the data for analysis - November 4th. The current preprint from Oxford is from about one month later.
71.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
It is a constant in any vaccine, including the "lowest" performers from Sinovac and Sinopharm. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that any resonably effective vaccine will have this effect.
72.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
It is a reduction of the risk of symptomatic disease by 76% once vaccinated. But more importantly, there were no hospitalizations or deaths in the vaccinated people. This is a point the media often overlooks.
73.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time What is a "severe chest X-ray"? This story was debated on Twitter[1]. I agree with the (unforgiving) statements put there. [1] https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1
74.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
That's ridiculous. The elimination ship has long sailed: it is much better to vaccinate the health care workers and the population at risk, then reopen and walk through the vaccination of other people, relying on a combination of vacci
75.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
One thought: do we need herd immunity at all? Wait, hold off pushing the downvote button. Why is this virus a problem? Not strictly because of deaths, although one would want to avoid unnecessary ones. It's due to the pressure on the h
76.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Interesting. Did anyone make a similar checklist for passwords and what not? I have something in a binder which is meant to be used in case of emergency, but it's a bit out of date and I wanted to revamp it.
77.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Flagged. Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding is the exact opposite of the "skeptics" but with the same lack of rigour: only promotes doom and gloom without much evidence. For an example, see this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com&#x2
78.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Except it's a meager 1M vaccinated and nowhere close the efforts of the UK, for example. As someone with the "feet on the ground", I can say that there has been no information on the vaccines to the general population (at lea
79.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> Unlike other vaccines being trialled, the Oxford team had been taking weekly swabs from all volunteers to check whether they were infected but showing no symptoms. FTR, this only happened for one of the trials (the AZ results are actua
80.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
There are some indications in animal studies for Moderna and Pfizer, and some preliminary data given by Moderna at the FDA meeting about reduction of transmission, but it's nothing definitive.
81.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Also J&J's Ebola vaccine, which is IIRC approved in Europe.
82.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
They gave more data to MHRA. Let's not forget that the data used for the Lancet publication was from November 4th. And the Jenner Institute in Oxford doesn't do preprints or press releases for data, they go for publications (so th
83.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
N501Y itself has already appeared around the world. By itself, it does look that it is not more transmissible (see Prof. Francois Balloux's Twitter for some explanations). The deletion, again by itself is not new, and also in this ca
84.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
I realized I made a mistake here but can't correct now: the sera used were 5, not 4.
85.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
The confidence intervals go as low as 37% and as high as ~120%. That's a load of uncertainty. Also the latest document by PHE highlights also the limitations of the current data behind modeling (PCR negative for the S gene, but positiv
86.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Reading the latest document out, I can't rule out sampling bias, and the methodology used to gather data is also vulnerable to bias (get samples which are PCR-negative for the S gene, but positive to other genes, which is, by their own
87.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
N501Y is properly neutralized by vaccination (there's a paper in Science with these data, but I don't have a link handy right now). The deletion seems to reduce antibody neutralization, but: - In the preprint where this was show
88.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
Is this also taking out potential confounders out of the equation? I believe the currently available data (as opposed to the SAGE minutes, which has the conclusions) is not sufficient to rule that out.
89.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
That doesn't rule out a combination of slightly increased infectiousness and a founder effect, which is equally possible at this stage.
90.
by lbeltrame 6y ago
> I think most people seem to be underestimating just how bad this is. No, there is no reason to panic yet. Concern, perhaps, but not panic. There are a truckload of confounding factors in the middle, including potential "founder ef

More ›