Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Business, Finance, and Investing Making money, investing in markets, and running businesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2020, 06:52 AM   #6901
despacito
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: $920. Funding secured.
Posts: 1,157
Re: Coronavirus

AstraZeneca Gets $1 Billion From U.S. to Make Oxford Vaccine
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...oxford-vaccine

Quote:
The U.K. drugmaker received the money from the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and said it has secured capacity to make 1 billion doses. Although AstraZeneca has said it expects to have shots ready as soon as September, the company’s vaccine candidate is still in human trials, with no guarantee of success.

The funding for AstraZeneca is part of the Operation Warp Speed effort to secure vaccines for the U.S., according to a statement from the Health and Human Services Department. Astra can receive up to $1.2 billion under the agreement, and the U.S. expects 300 million doses to be available as early as October.
despacito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 07:29 AM   #6902
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 775
Re: Coronavirus

What happens to the money if the vaccine fails?
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 07:40 AM   #6903
despacito
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: $920. Funding secured.
Posts: 1,157
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw View Post
The oxford group now have AstraZeneca on board to scale up production quickly
.
despacito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 07:46 AM   #6904
rickroll
oddly catty
 
rickroll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: serene, serene, puissant, puissant
Posts: 6,997
Re: Coronavirus

you buy any of it before posting that? already beginning to rip, I got in at 55.16
rickroll is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 07:52 AM   #6905
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 38,661
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
A major trial to see whether the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, taken by Donald Trump to protect himself against Covid-19, can prevent health workers from getting the disease is beginning in the UK and other countries.
Quote:
“We really do not know if chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are beneficial or harmful against Covid-19. The best way to find out if they are effective in preventing Covid-19 is in a randomised clinical trial. That’s what Copcov is – and why we’re doing this study.”

His co-investigator, Prof Martin Llewelyn at Brighton and Sussex medical school, added: “Even though the lockdown has brought the rate of infection right down in the UK, healthcare workers will continue to be at risk of Covid-19, especially as measures are relaxed. A widely available, safe and effective vaccine may be a long way off. If drugs as well tolerated as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could reduce the chances of catching Covid-19 this would be incredibly valuable.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-coronavirus
chezlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 09:40 AM   #6906
rafiki
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
rafiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 37,110
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by parttimepro View Post
no u



Sure, I'd put a lot of faith in a company that is basically Theranos and has never, ever published any data in a peer-reviewed journal from any of its 8 Phase 1 trials. I'm sure they chose those 8 patients to run randomly, and not based on which patients responded most strongly on other measures. Why not run everybody??



You're just factually wrong on a very basic point here. A Grade 3 reaction is a very severe reaction. It means you couldn't take basic care of yourself and had to be hospitalized. Grade 2 is "moderate," which means you were unable to perform some of your usual activities, in this case maybe sweating through your sheets for a week. Grade 4 is life-threatening.



Their mechanism of action has never made it past Phase 2. We should expect far more surprises than with the more conventional methods. Previous Phase 1 studies showed severe side effect rates of about 1%. And those were all done on the healthiest volunteers they could find. No one with autoimmune conditions or anything like that.

Do the math: if you give 300M people a drug with a Grade 3 side effect rate of 1%, you're hospitalizing 1M people. And maybe killing 100k? I mean, frankly, once the reports of how bad the side effects are, people would just refuse to get the vaccine.

I don't know if it's 1% at the 50 mcg dose. Neither do you. No one does, because you can't infer it from a sample of 45 people. And they wouldn't disclose how many less-severe adverse events there were. If it were zero, they'd obviously brag about it. So we can conclude it's some embarrassingly high number.


The point of the question was, if you knew the literature, you'd know that there's a huge variation in the antibody titers of CV19 survivors. For Moderna to just say the vaccination titers were similar to convalescent sera (and refusing to provide more information when asked about this directly on the conference call) is a huge tell that they're putting the best face on mediocre-to-bad results.



lol "perfectly well" -- maybe if you haven't been paying attention up to this point. Older folks are notoriously difficult to vaccinate as their immune systems are simply weaker. With this brand-new technology we have no idea whether they will respond at all.

The upper respiratory tract is very hard to protect with a vaccine. We've been working on flu vaccines for decades and the best we've gotten is something that generally lessens your symptoms, but doesn't make you non-contagious. If you want to reopen society after only vaccinating 55-year-olds and below, you have to show that getting the vaccine actually stops you from spreading the disease.


Wrong again. The Oxford vaccine was immunogenic in mice, and then disappointed in monkeys. Moderna hasn't even tested in monkeys yet.

Mouse studies have very, very little bearing on human efficacy. We've cured cancer and Alzheimers in mice thousands of times.




I think I've spelled it out well enough. If you're familiar with the industry, there are like 5 different obvious tells that their results were pretty bad but they wanted to pump the stock before the secondary.



Honestly, I just read these threads where you're posting every hour of every day with your combination of dickishness and factual errors, and wanted to point out for everyone just how certain you can be while being also completely uninformed and wrong.
I've literally never seen someone school Tooth like this. It's...impressive.
rafiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 09:51 AM   #6907
thethrill009
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 775
Re: Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...213749250?s=21

Sigh. Is there anything coming out from a respected university we can trust anymore? Truly disappointed.
thethrill009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 09:58 AM   #6908
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki View Post
I've literally never seen someone school Tooth like this. It's...impressive.
lol? Parttimepro is the one who got schooled, he thought the grade 3 effects were hospitalization rather than mild flu symptoms completely self resolving in a day, as described by the lead doctor in the New York Times. Short of fraud by the lead doctor, his take is just wrong. If he wasn't comically misinformed he would have been correct. I know my facts before I post, parttimepro hadn't even read the case details. Why do you think he disappeared in shame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrill009 View Post
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...213749250?s=21

Sigh. Is there anything coming out from a respected university we can trust anymore? Truly disappointed.
Nope, universities are completely broken.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 10:12 AM   #6909
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
I had the same thing out with the jsb who claimed to be an "expert" and attacked me, guessed the IFR comically wrong, then fell for a terrible Stanford antibody study.
The IFR issue has not been decided anywhere but in your head. I also didn't fall for any study.
It's been decided, you're just simply wrong on IFR, have been the whole time, and can't accept it.

ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 10:23 AM   #6910
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Here's the Sweden data by the way:

Quote:
Across the whole country, antibodies were most common among adults aged between 20 and 64, with 6.7 percent of tests in this age group coming back positive, compared to 4.7 percent positive for the age group 0-19 and just 2.7 for the age group 65-70.
They have a death rate of 0.04% (officially, lower bound) while 97% of the high death age group and 95% of the population hasn't been infected. This lines up with the results in Belgium too.

Eradication remains the only sane strategy. Countries that have attempted it have crushed the virus and are on zero, or close enough. Those that haven't have 5x-100x the dead and zero benefit in immunity. Their citizens have another 8-12 months of limited economic activity and fear and death and isolating the old before it goes through enough of the population to be immune
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:01 AM   #6911
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,241
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
It's been decided, you're just simply wrong on IFR, have been the whole time, and can't accept it.

The guy that you quote literally says in the thread that you shouldn't take the results as final, that they are only preliminary. And yet you take them as concrete proof.

Incredible.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:11 AM   #6912
Best Buddy
journeyman
 
Best Buddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Rioting
Posts: 341
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor View Post
You're overstating the saturated fat argument. Fats are necessary but they are still to be taken only in moderation, saturated or otherwise.

People are fat and unhealthy because this, not because science.
What, no one in here is touting calorie restriction diets and intermittent fasting?

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/researc...ealth-benefits

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0227144259.htm

TS could have written this:
https://undark.org/2019/07/18/science-of-eggs/

I wondered what billionaires are eating.
Bill Gates-Diet Coke
Warren Buffet-Coke
lol
Best Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:14 AM   #6913
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Shuffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,303
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki View Post
I've literally never seen someone school Tooth like this. It's...impressive.
Everyone gets schooled sometimes.

Tooth, you gotta learn to take the L man. PTPro ripped you a new one, can't believe you fell for that Moderna pump and dump.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:18 AM   #6914
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Shuffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,303
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
This breaks it down by country. If you click on the US it breaks it down by state.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Thanks. So this is what Johns Hopkins is using, right?
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:23 AM   #6915
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
Everyone gets schooled sometimes.

Tooth, you gotta learn to take the L man. PTPro ripped you a new one, can't believe you fell for that Moderna pump and dump.
I didn't fall for anything. The key data was the immune response in humans proven, with low side effects. That's a big step and moves the odds (whether Moderna is the winner of the hundreds trying or not). And for sure I get schooled sometimes. It wasn't by this idiot though, he was completely wrong on the facts, came out swinging for no good reason and ended up with egg on his face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
The guy that you quote literally says in the thread that you shouldn't take the results as final, that they are only preliminary. And yet you take them as concrete proof.

Incredible.
Of course they're preliminary. Preliminary results across 5 countries. Very unlikely to change substantially. That you confuse "prelminary" (meaning not finalized/reviewed fully) with "not certain yet in what they prove" is hilarious. Do you not know what preliminary means?

They data is now concrete proof, combined all the other data we have, that IFR is >1%. What's incredible is that your mind is so unable to reason rationally that you a) thought a 0.5% IFR was probable against the mountain of pre-antibody-testing b) thought the Stanford was other than pure trash and c) can't data fit well enough to see what is now a certainty (that the IFR is >1%).

Something can be both preliminary AND, as the same guys says: "let's end the discussion. The data is in".

You had a clown take at odds with the data and now it's disproven. You're just making it worse for yourself by keeping your hope in what's a completely settled debate.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:27 AM   #6916
Best Buddy
journeyman
 
Best Buddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Rioting
Posts: 341
Re: Coronavirus

Can we go back to the theory that not many people have antibodies but many people do have immunity from T cells? We need that to be studied.

Also, we need everyone who tests positive on a swab PCR test to be tested for blood antibodies a month later, and then have monthly repeated antibody testing, to see how long immunity lasts, and what percentage of confirmed cases develop antibodies.
Best Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:36 AM   #6917
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,241
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post

Of course they're preliminary. Preliminary results across 5 countries. Very unlikely to change substantially. That you confuse "prelminary" (meaning not finalized/reviewed fully) with "not certain yet in what they prove" is hilarious. Do you not know what preliminary means?

They data is now concrete proof, combined all the other data we have, that IFR is >1%. What's incredible is that your mind is so unable to reason rationally that you a) thought a 0.5% IFR was probable against the mountain of pre-antibody-testing b) thought the Stanford was other than pure trash and c) can't data fit well enough to see what is now a certainty (that the IFR is >1%).

Something can be both preliminary AND, as the same guys says: "let's end the discussion. The data is in".
FYI, the IFR during pandemics always trends downward over time. So take your victory lap now, but the race isn't over. Also, I have admitted since the beginning that my estimate was a guess. I have always been open to the idea that I could be wrong. It's you who acted like you had some incredible insight into this virus. But you initially said the IFR was going to be much higher than 1 percent. And now you are clinging to that figure like it's the last lifeboat off the Titanic. Which, for you, it is.

Because the only direction the IFR number is going to go from here is down.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:39 AM   #6918
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Nice try but no cigar. There are two figures for IFR - hospitals overwhelmed = 4%ish death rate (Wuhan only really, maybe a week in Italy), and non hospital overwhelmed which is at >1%. The IFR settled at >1% months ago bar a mutation, the data was very clear. Antibody testing has confirmed for sure that nothing has change and the IFR remains crazy high >1%, far too high to reopen fully without more waves.

The IFR won't necessarily go down, it could easily go up. The young have caught it at 3x the rate of the old, it's the old that die. Do the math on that if goes through a population. We can reasonably surmise that the IFR where old people get infected as much as young people (Wuhan with multi generational homes) is >2.5%

The interest in IFR isn't something academic. It speaks to whether herd immunity is a viable stategy without lots of deaths and 6+ months of dragging economies, and whether the idiot experts who thought herd immunity was the way had a good strategy. That's settled now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Best Buddy View Post
Can we go back to the theory that not many people have antibodies but many people do have immunity from T cells? We need that to be studied.

Also, we need everyone who tests positive on a swab PCR test to be tested for blood antibodies a month later, and then have monthly repeated antibody testing, to see how long immunity lasts, and what percentage of confirmed cases develop antibodies.
This has been tested plenty of times. >90% of confirmed cases develop detectable antibodies.

I think the rapidness with which this went through the population proves that no one is naturally immune

Last edited by ToothSayer; 05-21-2020 at 11:48 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:43 AM   #6919
Best Buddy
journeyman
 
Best Buddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Rioting
Posts: 341
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
They data is now concrete proof, combined all the other data we have, that IFR is >1%.
No, it isn't concrete proof. If the antibodies don't last very long (like some other coronaviruses) then everyone who had COVID-19 in January would test negative for antibodies now.
Best Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 11:56 AM   #6920
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Exponential growth means that this is irrelevant. Maybe 10-100 people had corona in January in say Italy vs a million in April.

The antibody results are solid at this point. This has been well tested.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 12:28 PM   #6921
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,241
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Nice try but no cigar.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20089854v2

How about we split the difference? Any further argument on this matter and you will have to track down the scientists who wrote this paper and have it out with them.

My advice? Take the draw. It only gets worse for you from here.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:07 PM   #6922
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.20089854v2

How about we split the difference? Any further argument on this matter and you will have to track down the scientists who wrote this paper and have it out with them.
This is awesome and the best self ownage in this thread (and I include Brass in that, whole got everything wrong and left in shame). From what you linked:

Quote:
After exclusions, there were 13 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and April 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point-estimate of IFR of 0.75% (0.49-1.01%) with significant heterogeneity (p<0.001)
You're using as proof this isn't settled, a summary of estimates from the public literature going back to February. All you're proving is that experts are morons.

We have the data now. Do you understand that? You're using estimates from February to April with a completely unknown denominator (because it had never been measured), to wiggle out of the fact that we have powerful diverse real data now, sampling hundreds of thousands of people, that reliably gives an IFR > 1%.

That's just...incredible? You claim to be an expert so I'm taking this another data point that experts are morons.
Quote:
My advice? Take the draw. It only gets worse for you from here.
It's over man. My advice: get better at your analytical and evidence evaluation skills. You claim to work in this field, we need experts who aren't morons.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:19 PM   #6923
jsb235
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,241
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
It's over man.
Yup. You have lost and you don't even know it.

Look, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with experts who have published a paper. Go after them. Create a twitter account, post that name here, and start bombarding them with your concerns. See how that goes.

That's a challenge. Let's see if you are up to the task. We can all follow along.

Ball is in your court.
jsb235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:20 PM   #6924
Kelhus100
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,318
Re: Coronavirus

You guys should really look at Worldometer. They basically used the exact logic as Toothsayer and crunched some numbers using NYC as an example, and there really is no way the IFR could be less than 1.

There is no way to look at NYC numbers and have an IFR below 1. You would need over 100% of the population to be infected.
Kelhus100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 01:22 PM   #6925
ToothSayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: BFI Thought Leader
Posts: 11,059
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsb235 View Post
Yup. You have lost and you don't even know it.

Look, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with experts who have published a paper. Go after them. Create a twitter account, post that name here, and start bombarding them with your concerns. See how that goes.

That's a challenge. Let's see if you are up to the task. We can all follow along.

Ball is in your court.
Ladies and gentleman, an expert. To recap:

- Claims to be an expert
- Makes horrible predictions and get proven wrong
- When completely wrong, goes into total denial
- When called on it, cites a study that's completely bogus and months outdated
- Ignores all the mountains of hard data that came after the study that make the study irrelevant even it wasn't bogus.

Did I mention you can't trust experts, and that most of them are morons? Thanks for another data point.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online