capslock

Supporters
  • Content count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

200 Excellent

About capslock

Profile Information

  • Location Baden-Württemberg
  • Nationality German
  • Gender Male
  • Year of birth 1969

Recent Profile Visitors

2,459 profile views
  1. Coronavirus

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm   This is the "paper" with some updates
  2.   Seems to be a question of which state in the US your licence is from. We do business with a household name American company. Their HQ are in NY, but the have a large office in Germany, and they send folks on assignents for a couple of years in both directions. There was some trick about getting the NY licence transferred to some other state (was ist RI?) after which it could be swapped for a German licence. 
  3. Coronavirus

    Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
  4. Coronavirus

    Lost me with the Auschwitz part. Your bone with the guardian is not with content but with grammar, then? But it was not a regular article but a guest column by one of the more distinguished scientists in public health these days. Of course, she wrote in careful, scientific prose, much as Christian Drosten would. I don't think he's written opinion pieces, but he's given interviews to all kinds of publications, and you can see the same careful kind of wording with him. And you wouldn't blame whatever newspaper is publishing him for printing his words verbatim.   Back to the sentence in question, yes, it would work with just exposing children to a new virus  exposing children to a new virus complications is a major risk that should be avoided  But that sentence is odd because it doesn't say what kind of complications and why you'd be especially concerned. Once you qualify that you are concerned about long term complications, I think it is fair to put in potentially. We just don't know how long term some of these things are because nobody's been nurturing them for more than a year. What does it mean for children? Will there be some who'll go on to suffer all their lives? The argument you hear from STIKO and German pediatrists is children mostly deal with Covid very well and you don't know yet about long term effects of the mRNA vaccine. So it is potential long term harm that you have to weigh against potential long term side effects.   There are other bones one could pick with the guardian, but not based on this opinion piece.
  5. Coronavirus

      The article was an opinion piece and marked as such. What's your point?   The only place where the word potentially was used is this:  By contrast, paediatricians in the US argue that exposing children to a new virus with potentially long-term complications is a major risk that should be avoided.   Nothing wrong with that. She summarizes the argument of that group.   I mainly posted that article to show were I had found the presentation by the CDC. Devi Shridhar is an accomplished researcher, she knows where to find stuff.
  6. Coronavirus

    I found exactly what I was looking for in today's guardian opinion piece: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/26/covid-young-people-england-virus-spread-uk   There right at the beginning https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf   Presentation is about four weeks old, so update would be interesting, but this is by far more comprehensive than anything I've seen before.
  7. Coronavirus

    Yes, thanks, I know we can get the vaccination here against the STIKO recommendation and that the CDC recommends it. I was looking for an analysis of whatever data were gathered in the US after the approval, as in a review geared for medical professionals, not the drivel they serve the public.   Actually, an article in a reasonaby serious paper such as NYT reporting on a press release on an update on vaccine safety would be enough to give me an idea where to look. So far, I haven't found anything.
  8. Coronavirus

    Excuses if the answer to my question is buried in the 487 pages of this thread. Our teens would like to get vaccinated, the pediatrician says no because the STIKO is not yet recommending it. I know there is a GP in the other village who does it anyway but we want to do the right thing.   I have read the now six week old statement from STIKO that said there was too little data, referencing only the official study on less than a thousand kids that was the basis for the approval by EMA. I think it is flawed because: - it assumes a situation with low incidence and with little Delta, and we are headed towards high incidence and most of it Delta (and there is data that the first BioNTech shot brings down the immune system for a few days, so the side effects seen in Israel might be because the vaccinated in winter - low vit D - and against a backdrop of very high incidence)  - the scarcity of vaccine is no longer pressing here - it does not take into account that the US has been vaccinating teens since May and there must be a trove of data   The company doctor who gave me my second shot last week said I wasn't alone in this, he was having the same argument with his pediatrician wife.   So where exactly is that trove? I have been trying to find it, and the CDCs pages have dumbed down things to a fault (the vaccine is safe, please stop asking questions). Any ideas where to find an up to date review of the ongoing vaccination effort?
  9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/10/stuffed-how-australias-unconscionable-gamble-on-covid-vaccines-backfired
  10. I have no argument with the strategy of stretching supplies, but letting a dose go to waste in the name of alledged better protection of a young and fit individual defeats this purpose. And it is intellectually careless and professionally reckless to infer that from a study of a very particular sub-group.
  11. Yes, there is the angle of stretching the available doses to afford some protection to as many people as possible. It was even said by experts quoted in the article I linked that this strategy only worked in the UK because of the lockdown in place, because it also meant that the longer period of partial protected resulted only in moderate additional risk to these people. But to let unused vaccine spoil on the grounds that observing the eight weeks offers better protection to the young vaccinee is plain stupid. It didn't allow this particular dose to go to an older person, it exposed the poster to a longer time of partial protection, and there are no data for the claim that he will enjoy better protection if he waits out the 8 weeks.   In Germany, RKI changed its recommendation for the Biontech interval from 6 weeks (the maximum allowed by EMA) to 3-6 weeks last week. The reasoning being sufficient supply, reduced uptake and the need to head off Delta. Note that EMA recommends 19-23 days which is where the original study was done.
  12.     That must be because in the UK they have a preliminary or emergency licenced. Every kid knows this is a lot better than receiving the same vaccine in Europe where it is fully licenced.   Doesn't make a fucking difference! What might be different is the interval at which the doses were given. Did you realize there is actually no data supporting an 8 week interval in middle aged adults? All they have is a study of 80+ year olds that shows that at 120 days, they have 3.5x higher antibody counts than at a 30 day interval. At the same time, their T-cell count was lower, and this is where older people are generally in need of bolstering. But they take this study to turn away 33-year olds trying to get a second dose at earlier than 8 weeks at the end of a day and rather let Biontech doses spoil. This is organized stupidity!   https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.15.21257017v1 from its comment section The JVCI seem to be using this paper as the sole source for justifying an 8-week gap for Pfizer in younger cohorts, despite the fact that the sample for this paper is 172 people aged 80 or over. Not by any stretch a fair representation of the population. It would be hard to argue that it is even possible to get a fair representation of genders, ages and ethnicities with a sample of 172 alone. With this is mind, what response do the authors give to the fact that this paper is being used to justify the current 8-week policy for second doses of Pfizer and Moderna when this paper does not make any attempt to back up that justification for younger cohorts, especially when the manufacturer and WHO recommend a 21-28 day gap between doses? 1 • Reply • Share › Avatar smithak DainHendrix • 3 days ago The authors definitely need to clear up this distinction. I tried to get a 2nd vaccination as an end-of-day walk-in (I'm 33) at a vaccine clinic in Oxford, as I figured it would be better for me to get a 2nd vaccine, and better for the clinic to use up thawed doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I was told that, although they had doses leftover in the clinic, they would not be giving out any vaccines to anyone based on a study showing they needed to wait 8 weeks. When I pressed further, they flat-out told me the vaccines weren't effective unless there was an 8 week gap between doses, so it seems like this paper is being used to spread a false narrative among the local CCG's and clinics around the UK.
  13. People have perfected the art of wearing an FFP2 mask on the tip of their noses or even below.    We need to get people to wear proper masks properly. 
  14. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/travel/europeans-us-travel-restrictions.html?smid=url-share   Hard to justify how the Biden admistration is dragging its feet here. Mind boggling that you can travel to the US via Peru. Just look at the comment section:   One aspect of the travel ban that is overlooked by the article is that non immigrant visa holders like myself who live, work, pay taxes and got vaccinated in the US are caught in the middle of this mess. We see American friends and colleagues travel to Europe now for holidays and back, while we cannot do the same, we cannot go home to see our families and love ones, and this since Mar’20. Why? Because under this travel ban we are considered “tourists”, ie our status in the US (and our visas that allows us to work here and live here) will not allow us to reenter the US directly unless we spend 14 days outside of europe before returning to America. I think it is fair to say that us expats are starting to get exhausted by this situation. It has had its toll on many of us psychologically and emotionally, as if this pandemic was not already hard enough on people. It also unfortunately may outline a fact and carry a clear message; that if your are not American or a Green Card holder, no matter how long you have been here, working, contributing to the local economy, integrating in your local community (in my case more than 10 years), you are still nothing more than a tourist in the government eyes.   ---   From this article and the comments, I now realize that as a European I could enter the US to visit my son who lives there if I first spent 14 days in Peru or Colombia or Turkey …This is just insane. I’m a widow who wants to visit her son! Let’s say I had money to waste, how can anybody expect me to spend two weeks by myself in one of those countries where the risk is actually higher than at home in France. Before I was desperate, now I’m furious.
  15. Only in France

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/opinion/france-cnews-americanization.html?smid=url-share   Not too much PC and BLM, but a Fox news lookalike driving the national debate with perceived grievances.