Jump to content

PsychMike

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PsychMike

  1. LOL, the stupid is strong as ever in MG. Drumpf never took covid seriously enough to attack it. covid will live beyond his presidency. it pains me to state that, would've rather that dotard coulda gotten a victory against this virus by early summer.
  2. I had the same thought when I heard him say that live.
  3. Hope none of you lost money betting that the MAGAts would start taking the virus more seriously now.
  4. Here is a better picture of Scott Adams.
  5. If you happen to visit Rhodes College, be sure to stop by Alex's Tavern, just up the road a click. Ask if they have ribs that day. They're the best in Memphis, which I find to be an overrated city for ribs.
  6. OUCH, that is going to leave a mark! Thanks Anastasis. That some who claim to understand science still cling to their beliefs in spite of mountains of high quality evidence is utterly beyond my comprehension.
  7. isn't D Hold an automatic 1st?
  8. obligatory
  9. https://www.modernatx.com/cove-study
  10. You have to be at least 18 years old for the Moderna study and I couldn't find an upper limit. The AstraZeneca study allows subjects as young as 5 yrs old. Randomization will be stratified based on age and, if they are < 65 years of age, based on the presence or absence of risk factors for severe illness from COVID-19 based on CDC recommendation as of Mar 2020. There will be 3 strata for randomization: ≥ 65 years, < 65 years and categorized to be at increased risk (“at risk”) for the complications of COVID-19, and < 65 years “not at risk”. Risk will be defined based on the study participants’ relevant past and current medical history. At least 25% of enrolled participants, but not more than 40%, will be either ≥ 65 years of age or < 65 years of age and “at risk” at Screening. Participants who are < 65 years old will be categorized as at risk for severe COVID-19 illness if they have at least 1 of the following risk factors at Screening: Chronic lung disease (eg, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis) or moderate to severe asthma Significant cardiac disease (eg, heart failure, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathies, and pulmonary hypertension) Severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m2) Diabetes (Type 1, Type 2 or gestational) Liver disease Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection
  11. You are correct, sir. At least with respect to the Moderna trial. From the protocol: So in the first interim analyses which takes place when 53 cases are recorded (NOTE: cases don't count for subjects unless they take place > 14 days after the 2nd injection), if the criteria are met for efficacy (60% reduction in hazard rate). So you are correct that they don't need many cases...they are planning that the final analysis (should the 2 interim analyses fail to demonstrate efficacy) will be done at 106 cases. You make an excellent point about long-term safety. The study is to follow subjects out 2 years, but if the vaccine(s) is (are) approved, we citizens will have to decide whether to wait it out or just accept the risks and take a step towards returning to normal. I will do my best to examine the entirety of the data and make the decision, and I lean towards doing so unless there are surprises. BTW, as of last Friday at 5 pm, the status of the trial was: 25,976 participants enrolled in the COVE Phase 3 Study as of Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm ET. 11,879 participants have received their second vaccination.
  12. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency depends on the threshold used to define vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It varies based on latitude and season (both relate to sun exposure). Around 10% whites in the US below the highest threshold, whereas up to half are below lower thresholds. The black population are closer to 50% at each definition, which is one of the hypothesized reasons they suffered Covid to a higher extent. Fauci was not completely wrong in the characterization I quoted, but he could use an update on the incidence from his internal medicine colleagues and should craft a better message accordingly. JJ, you are well within reason to take supplements. I do not. I have no idea how much sunshine exposure is appropriate, but I almost certainly get plenty.
  13. Thanks for posting that article. Your awareness of the "adherents" is notable and appropriate. As to whether it is "clear cut," I merely point out the actual quote you included. He used the words "conceivable" (which means what he thinks it means) and "could have." Such is the way science works. The public sometimes takes the wrong message from his words (yes, this includes the media, who are usually not trained in science and health). Also, a quick answer to a question might not allow him the appropriate context that he would supply if he were lecturing or publishing. I'm very sensitive about how Fauci is perceived (not that I think you've done anything wrong here, in fact I think you are one of the more rational posters on this topic). Remember when "you-know-who" was bashing him about Vitamin D? Not only was the trial he cited less then impressive about the potential benefits of Vit D (and, incidentally, in that study all patients were receiving HCQ and many did poorly despite that -- I know, big surprise, right?), but the implication was that Fauci withheld this important information all along until Jennifer Garner coaxed it out of him recently (and she could coax me into saying just about anything). But he hadn't hidden anything: making sure you aren't deficient in immune-boosting nutrients has been touted by everyone this whole time, and he focused his attention to the things that make the biggest difference, such as social distancing and benefits of wearing masks. Here's the blurb in the JAMA network back in June: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2767208 Push back on anyone who bashes Fauci. They either have their own agenda, are ill-informed, or both.
  14. IKR? Well, I know that you know this, but it's not just isolated to your examples. We sports fans writ large tend to apply false logic even when we know better (because it's fun): The transitive property slang/meme misapplies the transitive property to non-numerical things to reach illogical conclusions or false equivalencies. For example, humans eat cows and cows eat grass, so by the transitive property, humans eat grass. Unlike in math, just because the first two statements are true does not make the final “conclusion” true. The humor in the meme relies on the absurdity of attempting to use the transitive property outside of math. [DISCLOSURE: I lifted this from dictionary.com] But it is an interesting phenomenon that perplexes us all to eternity.
  15. Is #5 Devin Nunes? Because I like the list especially with him
  16. I mean, why even bother having a chyron anyway? Nobody is looking down that far...
  17. But those guys are Swiss! (I only know this because I love watching Eurotrip). And yes, they do have cooler uniforms than we do. Why the fuck can't we get cooler uniforms if our military budget is so massif?
  18. And sometimes they ask someone for help with it.
  19. Shockingly nice replies below it from Wolverine fans. Not that I think they are specifically a bad fan base, but well it's Twitter, dude.
  20. fucKKentucKy
  21. Not to mention the baseless Fauci bashers.
  22. NSIAP I keep watching over and over to remind myself what we're up against I'd like to be up against.
  23. I would guess it is the Data Safety Monitoring Board (a group of independent experts who follow procedures specified in the protocol). That would be consistent with the pr language "standard review process." It is almost certainly not a regulatory agency, since they won't have access to data until it is submitted by the sponsor. Also, I don't think this has anything to do with the pledge. In my 20+ years experience in the industry I can say that the people involved in this take the integrity very seriously. The people you gotta watch out for are the people who take the results and spin them later (commercial leaders, occasional medical directors). Oh, and more companies are fairly ethical than those that are not.
  24. Is that list generated by our SID? Couldn't spell Atascocita correctly, eh?
×
×
  • Create New...