Why on Earth would anyone go to a movie theater in the middle of a pandemic?????
There is no interaction between the people other than that they are all breathing the same air.
If there is anything that could be done online just as well as in person, it's watching a damn movie!
#COVID #COVID19 #vax #vaccine #mask #masks #movie #movies #social #distance #remote
🇳🇱
@Pat I go to movie theaters mostly just for the popcorn to be honest. That said I havent went to one during the pandemic. I probably would though now that we moved onto the delta variant and deaths have been consistently reasonable even during infection spikes. I'm kinda over covid as a result and just pretend it doesnt even exist at this point. Back before Delta though no way would I have went to a theater.
(we posted simultaneously)
The delta variant is more contagious. Now is not a good time to be around a bunch of other people.
The main difference is that the media are not talking about the thousands of people who are dying every day. They want people to go out and spend money and burn gas, even if it kills thousands of more people.
I thought mankind was making progress, but this is reprehensible.
@Pat recent data is suggesting delta isnt more contagious, it is just that the vaccine has no effect on preventing its spread. So it appears more contagious since people are vaccinated. The data is new like everything covid so we cant say for certain either way, but this seems to be the case.
That said even if it is mroe contagious, the death toll even when cases spike has been minimal. As such I'm not really worried about it spreading.
Here in the US it's terrible. It's over a thousand people a day for a very long time. It was over 3000/day a few weeks back. All preventable.
This week, over 10,000 people were buried by their loved ones.
I'm unaware of that recent research on delta. The R0 for delta has been ~150% of alpha, which has been ~150% of the original. But it's entirely possible that the difference is due to behavior and public policy.
@Pat In the USA before delta the morbidity rate was well over 4x higher than it is now with delta. Yes a lot of people are still dying sadly, but it is far less lethal than the old variant even in the USA. It is still more lethal than the flu but the margin is much closer as a result, the new variant is getting pretty close to flu levels of morbidity.
Attached is an example from the USA, specifically massachusits. As you can see the mortality during Delta has gone down to nearly 0, its just not a very lethal virus anymore.
That said I am more than happy to put it behind us and not take social measures anymore given where its at.
All that said its been almost 2 years now, even if the virus was just as deadly as it was we cant remain in lock down forever. A new vaccine is not even close to being ready and we are looking at it being well over a year away if one ever comes that fights delta at all... Its time to be done with it, and accept the deaths until we can cure it. Lock down nursing homes, wear a mask around the elderly, but other its time to go back to normal IMO and has been that time for a while.
You may be done with covid, but covid is not done with us. The virus continues to kill massive numbers of people and many times that amount are left with chronic illness. Millions of people can no longer work because they are dead or disabled from the virus. Millions more are justifiably afraid to go back to work. And millions more are so disgusted with the way that the politician have handled this that they've joined the general strike.
You may be done with it, but it's not done with you.
@Pat It may not be done with me, but living in fear for 2 years is my limit. I am willing to accept the very real death toll if that means going back to a normal life. People living the way we have for 2 years extended into the future forever is not a solution or acceptable, the deaths are preferable.
I have only really looked at the effectiveness of the vaccines available to me WRT delta variant, and none of them are effective to any degree on viral load. If novavax is somehow the exception then id be all for it if it was available.
There isnt enough data to make any hard assertions. But from what I can tell from the recent data this isnt related to the diminishing effectiveness vaccines present over time. That is true too, but that applies to the alpha variants and others.
In the case of delta varriant the vaccine is completely ineffective to reducing transmission even right after the vaccine is administered. No number of boosters will cause it to be effective. It has no effectiveness at reducing viral load of delta at any point.
See the attached image showing viral load of people 14 days after second dose vaccination when they get infected. Viral load is almost identical (in fact a bit higher) than unvaccinated.
@Pat I doubt that, but with the delta variant and covid as a whole being such a new disease I'm willing to accept the facts about it may change considerably from what the evidence appears to suggest at the moment.
I can say that infection patterns in highly vaccinated countries seems highly suggestive that the vaccine is ineffective showing the hallmark pattern of first reducing cases significantly and then seeing a surge of cases that follow where an extreme majority is delta varient.
All the evidence, at least for now, strongly suggests the vaccine presents absolutely no attenuation to the spread of the virus. In fact the current data suggests it may increase the spread of the virus slightly.
Except these arent COVID survivors. These are people who showed they didnt have COVID on earlier PCR tests and only contracted covid after being vaccinated.
Huh? I will look when im at my computer but that doesnt look like the study I got the image from (nor does it contain the image). Let me find it again so we can pick it apart, give me a bit as im watching a movie right now and only on my phone.
1. The study is a preprint, it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet. But it's from reputable institutions.
2. The virus used in the study came from covid patients, not vaxed individuals.
The study is unrelated to the image I posted, so moot point anyway. I'll find the osurce study when im back.
There's a lot of crap out there, even the peer-reviewed studies.
E.g., look for Vitamin-D studies related to COVID-19. Most show a reverse correlation of Vitamin-D levels to symptomatic COVID-19, but they all have flaws. But they still get published anyway. So you really need to be careful, read them carefully, check the rep of the publications, etc.
What sort of flaws? Not that I disagree but its important to understand peer-review is not replication, nor is it an assertion that the study is complete enough to draw conclusions from. That is left to the reader (And thus simply sharing a peer reviewed study is not enough). This doesnt represent a problem with the publisher or peer-review process. This is how it is supposed to be. It is up to the scientist reading it to be educated enough to know what weight to give it.
if there are particularized issues with the science i may be willing to strike the paper from my notebook.
The peer review process must at least check to see if the conclusions stated in the paper are consistent with the data from the study.
Re the Vitamin-D studies, they basically see a correlation between the amount of Vitamin-D in a patient's blood and how sick they are. (over-simplification). Well, if someone has a serious pre-existing condition, they aren't going to be outside much and will be deficient in Vitamin-D, and those are the ones who will be the sickest from COVID-19. None of the studies even consider that. I found one study that set aside people who had diabetes-II, like they were trying to make the study more credible, but it turns out that D is a fat soluble vitamin, so those fat diabetics likely had more D remaining in their blood anyway, even if they were recently sick, which of course skews the results in favor of reverse correlation.
I don't know why researchers keep trying to show that correlation, but the bias is obvious.
Actually peer review does **not** verify the conclusions directly. What it will verify is any objectively stated figures in the conclusion. For example if they mention confidence intervals they will insure the CI stated matches the data. What they wont generally do is decide if the others opinion WRT how to interprit the data is correct or not. They cant as conclusions from data are opinion, it is only the data that is objective.
Well, they certainly chose which papers they are going to publish, so if they publish a bunch of crap it reflects poorly on their journal.
Yes, but crap usually means if the data is objective, and transparent, not if the conclusion is correct. For example a paper with a small sample size to the point that any data extrapolated would be within the margin of error is going to get rejected not for its conclusion but due to having poor data that makes it impossible to draw conclusions from at all.
>For example a paper with a small sample size to the point that any data extrapolated would be within the margin of error...
Then they just publish it as a "case study".
I think the more credible journals reject studies that are poorly designed in the first place, irrespective of the results.
Case studies are individual peoples or groups of people (not randomly selected usually).. I'm talking about sampling (random selectrion from a large group) where the sample size is biased tot he point of not being able to do statistical analysis on it. A case study wont do statistical analysis at all, so thats fine, as opposed to doing statistical analysis on a group that is too small, thats not fine.
>Case studies are individual peoples...
I understand that and I know the difference. I just threw that out there, saying if someone had a study that was flawed due to a too-low sample, they might try to get the work published as case studies instead. And actually, if someone else is paying for the study, they won't fund it if it's designed with too small of a sample. That's why you see studies fail that can't recruit enough subjects.
Sure. My point is simply that peer-review is not intended to decide if the authors conclusion is correct, only if the data they assert and the way they analyze it is correct. In other words, their job is to identify logical/mathematical errors from a purely objective standpoint. The commentary from the author is usually not too highly scrutinized.
What you cant do as a reader is go "Oh look the author concluded the color red is bad, and it passed peer review, therefore the color red is bad"
But the decision as to whether to publish a study is more than just making sure the numbers add up. A credible journal will select studies that actually have merit, that are designed in a way to provide meaningful results.
And besides, you shouldn't be going to the movies no matter what color the seats are.
Yes there are other reasons, but journals make it a point not to try to reject papers based on their conclusions, because then it isnt science anymore. Good journals are considered ones that dont try to dictate the narrative. As long as the data is good and the science accurate and up to date, they will usually accept conclusions that might disagree with the opinion of most scientists. Thats how we get new science.
Here is a good article explaining some of the reasons papers get rejected:
> sterilizing vaccines
i posted before about being dissatisfied with the testing methodology of the 💉 industry. i'll tl;dr it
ivermectin and hcq must prove active infection empirically (PCR) followed by intervention followed by active sterilization empirically (PCR)
vaccines have no requirement to demonstrate similar effectiveness. novavax's papers declare efficacy by declaring reduction of symptoms. i don't think mRNA and adrenovirus models have been required to prove sterility either.
@freemo @icedquinn
This is based on PCR cycles, so I wonder if delta DNA reacts differently to the polymerase or the reactants in the PCR soup.