Changing the quarantine
-
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one in RPGs…
Duration doesn’t equal transmissibility… It can be MUCH more contagious but the amount of time it’s transmissible be much shorter…
The Brad
-
@lufins-dad said in Changing the quarantine:
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one in RPGs…
Duration doesn’t equal transmissibility… It can be MUCH more contagious but the amount of time it’s transmissible be much shorter…
Yes.
Now, where's the science behind this change in policy?
or...
Where's the science behind the original policy? Or is it like "masks make sense," or "social distancing makes sense?" So many things in science which "make sense" have been shown to be false.
I'd be happy with either.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in Changing the quarantine:
@lufins-dad said in Changing the quarantine:
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one in RPGs…
Duration doesn’t equal transmissibility… It can be MUCH more contagious but the amount of time it’s transmissible be much shorter…
Yes.
Now, where's the science behind this change in policy?
or...
Where's the science behind the original policy? Or is it like "masks make sense," or "social distancing makes sense?" So many things in science which "make sense" have been shown to be false.
I'd be happy with either.
Well, I have read about several studies indicating that incubation time is under 72 hours for Omicron. The original strain was what? 6 days? That shaves 3 days off the quarantine by itself.
-
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@george-k said in Changing the quarantine:
@lufins-dad said in Changing the quarantine:
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve played one in RPGs…
Duration doesn’t equal transmissibility… It can be MUCH more contagious but the amount of time it’s transmissible be much shorter…
Yes.
Now, where's the science behind this change in policy?
or...
Where's the science behind the original policy? Or is it like "masks make sense," or "social distancing makes sense?" So many things in science which "make sense" have been shown to be false.
I'd be happy with either.
So what do we do - just say fuck it or pretend that it’s just the flu as some would have us do? I have no idea about the quarantine period, but it’s not just the US doing this
Doing nothing because we don’t have enough data isn’t a good strategy. We just do the best we can.
It feels like there’s complaining about the policy whatever the policy is.
-
@jolly said in Changing the quarantine:
Bottom Line?
We're fucked, vaccination status irrelevant. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron looks to be only 70%, at best.
I thought 70% was supposed to be really good? The J&J vaccine was hailed as a game changer at 70% efficacy?
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@jolly said in Changing the quarantine:
J&J was around 66% at preventing COVID infection, with another 30% claimed mild symptoms. That's single shot.
Moderna and Pfizer were around 94%. They're only about 70% against Omicron.
Right, when J&J came out the general public acted disappointed that it was so low in efficacy, but a whole bunch of epidemiologists came out telling us that 66% was really good, and the facts that it only needed a single dose and no special handling meant it would have a huge global impact.
So set scoff at 70% now? Though I assume that 70% is recently boosted? Which would put the unboosted somewhere around 2%?
-
I’m only a humble engineer, but 70% sounds a lot better than 0%
I was only joking
-
@doctor-phibes said in Changing the quarantine:
I’m only a humble engineer, but 70% sounds a lot better than 0%
I was about to say, I'd take 10%. Or 70, or 90.
-
@lufins-dad said in Changing the quarantine:
I thought 70% was supposed to be really good? The J&J vaccine was hailed as a game changer at 70% efficacy?
The J&J's "game changer" moniker came not from its 70% efficacy but from it's logistical simplicity -- J&J vaccine was thought to require only "one shot" (as opposed to "two shots" like Pfizer and Moderna), and J&J vaccine can be stored/transported at higher temperatures than Pfizer/Moderna -- these two factors were expected to make the J&J vaccine's distribution, storage, and administration a lot easier, especially for poorer countries. A lot of that "game changer" talk happened before the 70% efficacy number came out, and the "game changer" talk has died down quite a bit since.
With the original SARS-CoV-2's transmissibility, "70%" is actually not that bad, especially if 100% of the population take the vaccines. But two things happened: less than 70% of the US population want to be vaccinated (so 70% x 70% = 49%; too low for herd immunity); then Delta and now Omicron came along, their increased transmissibility raised the threshold for herd immunity.
So the J&J vaccine is not longer getting much love, and the US government has since advise those who received only one shot of J&J to go get another shot.
-
@jolly said in Changing the quarantine:
I don't think herd immunity exists with COVID.
Not without a monthly shot with the current vaccines. The Walter Reed and other vaccines still in development may yet change that story. Of course, COVID may have evolved into the common cold by the time they arrive.
-
You have got to be freaking kidding me.
