D&D and the rising pandemic

[Ryujin]

Some people just don't believe this is a big deal. I can't count how often the discussion instead turns to how damaging the lockdowns are to people compared to the disease. There is no real talk about how really, both are terrible.

I also often hear people, either sarcastically or not, talk about how funny it is that no one has died of old age this year. So essentially doubts that what we see as COVID deaths are actually accurate, but instead inflated.

It is difficult to address those positions or thoughts without others seeing it as an attack of what they believe though as well. Of course people have died of old age or heart attacks this year. Maybe it would help if it is explained that COVID was the reason the body got to that state that the person died, or break it down in some way about how a person may have died due to internal bleeding, but it was that bus that smacked them that 'killed' them. Once you start down that road though, you can see some people just shutdown, and no longer wish to listen. They have their ideas on the matter, and they are concrete.

One of the things that was floating around social media, a few months back, was a claim that only something like 7,500 people had "actually" died of Covid-19, because the people pushing that agenda discounted anyone with ANY sort of co-morbidity at all. If I have high blood pressure and could live for the next 20 years with medication, but get taken down by Covid, then it's Covid that killed me. If I'm 80 years old and generally healthy, but get Covid and die, it wasn't old age that killed me. Some people refuse to accept that sort of simple logic, because it's an affront to their deeply held beliefs.

 

[billd91]

. Some people refuse to accept that sort of simple logic, because it's an affront to their deeply held beliefs.

Trouble is, many of those “deeply held beliefs” tend to flip and flop depending on the political stands of the partisan groups with which they identify. So it’s often less about deeply held beliefs as much as tightly held identities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hm. What do you get them on, though? Destruction of property? Reckless endangerment?

Wait to see if any of the 500 or so people whose vaccines are delayed by this gets covid-19, then nail him on some form of attempted manslaughter?

My Crim Law professor was a rabid bulldog. His motto was charge people with the most aggressive thing you could justify and work down from there. My guess is he’d start with a bunch of charges of attempted murder, given the context of the pandemic.

It depends on mostly on Wisconsin law, of course, but there’s also 18 U.S. Code § 670.Theft of medical products.

18 U.S. Code § 670 - Theft of medical products

www.law.cornell.edu

Note here:

(b)Aggravated Offenses.—An offense under this section is an aggravated offense if—
(1)
the defendant is employed by, or is an agent of, an organization in the supply chain for the pre-retail medical product; or
(2)the violation—
(A)
involves the use of violence, force, or a threat of violence or force;
(B)
involves the use of a deadly weapon;
(C)
results in serious bodily injury or death, including serious bodily injury or death resulting from the use of the medical product involved; or
(D)
is subsequent to a prior conviction for an offense under this section.

Max penalty of 20 years in jail and $1M fine For the aggravated offense. Not clear as to how one calculates the number of offenses, here, though. Is it per overall act? Per vial? Per DOSE?

(I could research this, but its literally someone else’s job, and we’ll find out eventually.)

 

[Mikeythorn]

I also often hear people, either sarcastically or not, talk about how funny it is that no one has died of old age this year. So essentially doubts that what we see as COVID deaths are actually accurate, but instead inflated.

No-one dies of “old age”, legally at least. The mechanism of death must be included on a death certificate - and certainly in New Zealand the law requires that this has to be a specific disease or injury (or a combination of either). I imagine most parts of the world have the same requirements.

 

[billd91]

Current developments in the vaccine destruction case:

Pharmacist Arrested, Accused Of Destroying More Than 500 Moderna Vaccine Doses

The now-fired hospital employee later said he knew "that people who received the vaccinations would think they had been vaccinated against the virus when in fact they were not," investigators said.

www.npr.org

There’ve been weirdly politicized pharmacists in the state before trying to get legal exceptions for filling prescriptions they don’t like (read as involving female fertility control and you’re on the money). I take a dim view of those shenanigans and hope they throw as big a book as they can justify at him.

 

[Umbran]

No-one dies of “old age”, legally at least.

Excellent point. "Old age" is not a disease. People die of heart failure, kidney failure, cancer, lung disease, from infections their bodies don't fight off, and so on. But no doctor writes "old age" on a death certificate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Current developments in the vaccine destruction case:

Pharmacist Arrested, Accused Of Destroying More Than 500 Moderna Vaccine Doses

The now-fired hospital employee later said he knew "that people who received the vaccinations would think they had been vaccinated against the virus when in fact they were not," investigators said.

www.npr.org

There’ve been weirdly politicized pharmacists in the state before trying to get legal exceptions for filling prescriptions they don’t like (read as involving female fertility control and you’re on the money). I take a dim view of those shenanigans and hope they throw as big a book as they can justify at him.

I note that 57 people were given injections from that batch, and that officials were charging him with adulterating a pharmaceutical among other things.

I know that past cases involving adulterated cancer meds have resulted in serious jail time and billions in fines under federal laws- others in addition to the one I cited before. His offense won’t get into those stratospheric regions, but he’s definitely facing serious state (and probably federal) jail time and fines,

And if any of the 57 die from C19? I predict ruinous wrongful death suits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the things that was floating around social media, a few months back, was a claim that only something like 7,500 people had "actually" died of Covid-19, because the people pushing that agenda discounted anyone with ANY sort of co-morbidity at all. If I have high blood pressure and could live for the next 20 years with medication, but get taken down by Covid, then it's Covid that killed me. If I'm 80 years old and generally healthy, but get Covid and die, it wasn't old age that killed me. Some people refuse to accept that sort of simple logic, because it's an affront to their deeply held beliefs.

Yeah, people really aren't clear on the idea of co-morbidities. It was instructive over the years to look at the difference between the death certificates of my parents. My father had basically one cause; if there were any other that were a factor, they were considered trivial. My mother, on the other hand, had a primary cause, and about a half dozen other things listed.

But that did not mean the primary cause was incorrect. It just meant the others contributed to the problem. That's the whole reason some people are at more risk from COVID than others.

 

[NotAYakk]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

That is interesting. Know the "52% effective after first shot" thing?

They basically measured every infection from the moment you got the shot to the time you got the 2nd shot. Almost all of those infections occurred in the first week and a half.

If you look at the actual graph there is a really clear bend at 12 days:

in both mRNA vaccine trials.

The 2nd dose was given at 21 or 28 days. If the vaccine became effective at day 10, and utterly ineffective before then (as the above suggests), and infections where pretty linear over that period, that 52% gives us:

[ (10 * K) + (21-10)*(E*K) ] / (21 * K) = 0.52

where K is the baseline infection rate and E is how effective the vaccine is (lower is better).

Solving for E we get:

(10 * K) + (21-10)*(E*K) = 0.52 * (21 * K)
10 + (21-10)*E = 10.92
(11)*E = 0.92
E = 0.08
ie, 92% effective.

To find out where the point where it is actually 90%+ effective is going to require more stats math than I know, but the point of this isn't that it is 90%+ effective after a week and a half, but rather that it is very plausible that this is true. What more, it is more than plausible that by 2 weeks it is 90%+ effective.

what more, those are the diagnosed days -- typically people don't get a positive test until 3-5 days after infection.

Which means that the mRNA vaccines might be hitting 90%+ effectiveness within a week after being injected.

There is also no apparent change in the slope (in either vaccine trial) after 21 or 28 days. Quote plausibly the 2nd shot might not be needed, or it might be needed to extend protection.

 

[Umbran]

Quote plausibly the 2nd shot might not be needed, or it might be needed to extend protection.

So, let us be clear: there is NOTHING in that data set to suggest the second dose isn't necessary. The fact that the vaccine seem to have started working well quickly does NOT imply that at all, because our immune system is known to have a two-stage process. Early efficacy in no way suggests long-lasting efficacy in humans.

As an analogy - the human immune system typically works like a multi-stage rocket. Yes, the first stage is very effective, and gets you high up. But it doesn't get you to orbit, and you fall back down... unless you have a second stage to complete the trip.

In biology terms - after a first shot, the body typically makes antibodies, but these last a few weeks, and are often not replaced. With a second dose, the body figures out that the invader means business, and longer lasting antibodies and cell memory are engaged.

They would need to do a separate trial, with only one injection, to learn if that is effective. They very specifically didn't do that, because our immune systems have that two-stage response. Given the risks involved, they tested the way they knew was mostly likely to give highest, longest-lasting efficacy. Other regimens are not supported at this time.

Speculation that a second dose is not necessary is actually kind of dangerous. It may lead to folks not bothering to get the second shot and having their immunity fail. Or, they may start engaging in dumb@ss conspiracy theorizing about the second shot. Please don't push that speculation around.

In the future, when we are beyond the current crisis, that can be tested, and maybe that'll make the vaccine regimen for future generations simpler. But for now, don't suggest that one vaccination is okay. The science does not support that at this time.