BBO Discussion Forums: Coronavirus - BBO Discussion Forums

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-05, 03:08, said:

Good to hear. Don't squeeze it .

Today marks two weeks since my second Moderna vaccination so I should be at maximum protection

I also got my second shot two weeks ago, or a little more than that.

Yesterday I got a phone call from the county health department both to tell me that I could now get a shot if needed and to ask if I had already got one. I said that I already had my shots through the UMMS (Univ of Maryland Medical System). I also mentioned that when I got them I had tried to remove my name from the count list of people hoping for shots but couldn't do so. She said that she had heard this from others as well and would be passing this fact on to the higher-ups. It was a pleasant conversation but I doubt anything will come of it.

It is something to keep in mind when you read statistics. I see news articles discussing how many people in the county have received the vaccine. I think the correct statement is that they have no idea. Or perhaps several sources have ideas but their ideas don't match and are based on air.

I confess to being a long-time skeptic of arguments based on statistics. 73% of all statistics are made up, as the old joke goes.

I also asked her, the person who called, if my wife could have the appointment. No, she is a 1C instead of a 1B by the state's priority listing and the state is doing 1C but the county is doing only 1A and 1B. OK, Becky will get her first shot down in Baltimore at the football stadium on Tuesday so no problem, but a local shot would have been easier. And then later yesterday a friend, also a 1C, got an appointment for today through the county! They seem to be a little confused.

All of that being the case, we are looking forward to more freedom. Yes we will still take it easy, but both of us being vaccinated will be a big relief.

Some interesting podcasts from the ABC in Australia http://bit.ly/ABCcoronacast

A "Kroger" in Virginia accidentally used empty syringes instead of loading them with the vaccine.
https://edition.cnn....ts/coronavirus/

Quote

YoYo has come a long way since he was 7 years old!

A woman in Texas was asked to leave a Bank because she refused to wear a mask.
The police were called and she was arrested.
Mind you, remember the days when you couldn't enter a bank if you were wearing a mask...
She assaulted the policeman and complained that her human rights were being violated. Seriously? Some people just have a tiny amount of self-entitlement.
http://bit.ly/TxsWmnArrst

First, it wasn't a 'thing'.
Then there was endless horrifying statistics from around the world and desperate hope for a vaccine.
Then - being the sort of Forum that it is, endless Discussions about numbers, statistics, quality of data and whether or not the vaccines - when they came would be effective.
And now, to be honest - my worst fear: so much for 'trust the science'.
This comes from the USA - is there something cultural happening or are their other barriers, or is it the culmination of years of conspiracy theories.

We had something similar in the UK at the start, but reality seems to have dawned and now most of the problem communities are now showing good uptake rates.

All sorts of things were going on with claims that the vaccine contained things that various religions would find offensive, but I think there was a reaching out to religious leaders.

Here the lowest uptake was among BAME people (particularly the south Asian communities) but this is now much closer to evening out.

Among the white communities it was the two ends of the political spectrum that were most likely to refuse it.

People choose who they will listen to. A devout Christian might take advice from a church leader, a Trump supporter might take advice from Trump, an African-American might take advice from leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement. Probably none of them would pay much attention to what White-Democratic-Non-religious me would tell them.

Yes, I realize that there are other factors in how we evaluate advice, but the leadership of various groups, whether we call them cultural groups or whatever, could do a lot of good here. Or harm.

When I was a child, I did not want to be stuck with a needle. My mother took me the get my vaccines - and I got stuck with a needle. When dealing with childish minds, there is a lot to be said for compulsion.

I think there is a difference between the situation described by Cyberyeti about initial low uptake rates in some British communities and the points made in the US media about low uptake rates.

The UK vaccination programme is entirely run by the NHS which has precise information on the progress of vaccination. The NHS is a centralised service which (hopefully) simplifies their ability to crunch the numbers across geography, ethnicity, age groups, etc. So whenever there are lower uptakes in certain communities, the NHS would be able to state is as fact using their MIS. This is how many of us had heard about lower uptake rates and had seen the Govt. use celebrities and influencers to push up those rates.

The concerns raised in the USA about lower vaccination rates are very likely to be based on opinion polls and surveys. It is not impossible to imagine a proportion of GOP supporters claim "I will not get the vaccine" to a pollster but actually go and get vaccinated when one is made available by their insurer or health authority. I also imagine that a decentralised system for vaccination exists in many parts of the US which (probably) makes it difficult to read the broader statistics.

shyams, on 2021-March-17, 14:40, said:

This is of course a danger in any poll about future actions -- we undoubtedly have a similar problem when polling about how people will vote. But pollsters know about this effect and they know how to adjust for it. Also, making the poll large enough should reduce the significance of these answers.

Furthermore, the precise numbers aren't always that important, it's the relative numbers that matter. The fact that the Republican hesitancy rate is 3x the Democratic rate is very significant, even if a large number of the Republican responders go back on their answers. It's unlikely that 2/3 of the GOP answers were wrong.

Speaking of problems that are facing the world at the moment.

I would guess that most of the people that write on this Forum have some scientific training. Certainly, the majority would have a background in one of the so-called STEM fields.

Yesterday, Australia's new Chief Scientist recently gave a speech in Canberra.
You can read the full text here: http://bit.ly/STEMaustralia
The speech itself was in the main homely and anodyne.

But the message that caught my ear as I listened to it were the four issues that Foley considers "Foundational" in science now.
Presumably, these are the headline issues that will maintain our national security, keep us safe from disease, solve world hunger and prevent climate change from destroying the world.

Before you look, try to imagine what our new Chief Scientist believes are the most critical issues facing Australia in March 2021.

Spoiler

Quote

These four foundational issues – digital capability, STEM education, diversity in the research community, and open access – are all, like the world we live in, interconnected.

Separately Foley remarked that:

Quote

Australia lags some other nations in regard to open access, with well over half of Australian academic papers requiring a payment to access.
This is a significant challenge for practitioners such as pharmacists, teachers and nurses, or people in business wanting to keep up with latest research in their field.

barmar, on 2021-March-17, 23:54, said:

I agree with your second paragraph much more than I agree with the first. Pollsters, unless they are idiots, know that answers are sometimes swayed by social expectations, true enough. In the 1950s, when I was growing into adulthood, all unmarried young women were virgins. Of course. But with the vaccine, I have not seen any polls (ok, I have not studied the issue) that describe any attempt to take account of social influence on the accuracy of the answers. And how would they? For me, it seems best to just accept that there might be a pretty substantial difference between the answers given and the actual behavior.


I think that your second point, that we should not get bogged down with the fact that not everyone tells the truth to a pollster, is very important. We can then focus on the question: What do we do about the fact that it appears that many people, never mind just how many, but it seems safe to say many, are reluctant to get the vaccine? I suggested one answer above. I read that Hank Aaron got the vaccine and did so publicly. A good start, but he is even older than I am. Prominent respected African-Americans could make a big difference in what African-Americans do Same with church leaders and with Trump supporters. I saw that Trump made some halfway supportive comment about taking the vaccine but we need more and better from leaders on the right.

A message from me to the leadership of cultural religious and political groups: There is no way around it guys. What you say and do, and make a point of saying and doing publicly, about the vaccine is going to make one hell of a difference. You can pitch in and help, or you can sit on the sidelines and watch the results. Your choice will have a substantial effect.


Yes, I already said the above but I think it is important.

Among the many reasons people lie to pollsters is just for the fun of it. I can recall when I was (muc0 younger pollsters would stop me in the mall and ask various questions and I would give answers. Sure I think the Earth is flat, doesn't everyone?
Not proper behavior I know and I would not do it now.

There are also times when I am not sure what the right answer is. I have agreed to answer a daily poll for a covid study. One of the questions allows for three answers about my interaction with others on the previous day. The choices are:
a. did not wear a mask.
b. wore a mask when I interacted at a distance of less than 6 feet.
c. did not interact.

Now suppose, as happens, that I am out for a walk, I encounter someone, and we converse for a bit standing 20 feet apart. Well, c doesn't seem right because I did interact. But looking at a and b, I am thinking they want to know if I wore a mask when the interaction was less than 6 feet apart. If I were to check a, it appears to me I am saying something like "Mask, no of course I don't bother with a mask". So I check c, trusting it to mean that I had no interactions at a distance of less than 6 feet. I am not sure that this is the right interpretation, but clicking a, that I did not wear a mask, seems to seriously misdescribe my approach to interactions. We need a d, always wore a mask in any interaction that is anywhere near 6 feet or less but sometimes interacted without a mask at greater distances. And usually with my head turned slightly to the side.

Polls are tough, with best of intentions all around.

A useful report on the rarity of adverse reactions.
The ABC is an (fiercely) independent government-funded news service in Australia (Australian Broadcasting Commission),
https://www.abc.net....zeneca/13252870

kenberg, on 2021-March-18, 07:28, said:

This reminds me of something that happened when I was in fourth grade. Our class took one of those standardized tests where the answers are multiple choice and we marked our choices by darkening boxes with our pencils.

One of the questions asked why Ben Franklin went out to fly a kite in a thunderstorm, and one of the choices was, "He had a pipe dream." I found that one irresistible and remember thinking when I marked it that our teacher would have a good laugh when she saw my answer. It was only later that I found out that the teacher just laid an answer key over each test and marked an error whenever the correct answer was not marked. Oh well, live and learn...

Still gives me a chuckle though.

Kudos to the UK for having the courage to push for getting one jab into as many arms as possible. Talk about out of the box thinking.

Kate Bingham, a venture capitalist who led the committee that advised the British government on vaccination said:

I am wondering whether the UK took the "1st jabs first" strategy a bit too far. Yes, it seems to help more to give a 1st shot to a 70-year old than a second shot to an 80-year old. But is it more important to give a 1st short to a 50-year old than a second shot to a 85-year old? E.g. in Scotland, over the course of the pandemic 85-year olds were 9 times as likely to need hospitalisation than 45-64-year olds, or more than 20 times the chance of 25-44 year olds; the figures for deaths are much more extreme than that. So the additional 10% protection from a second short for some might be more important than the 70-80% protection from the first shot for someone else.

"1st jabs first" does help to bring case numbers down more quickly, so it's a tricky trade-off (and depends on how long you are willing to keep up other NPIs, etc.).