I didn't mis-interpret what you said. You literally said "it's the old who vote R". You implied that young people don't. Well I'm hear to tell you that I know an absolute crap ton of people 50 and well, well under who most certainly vote Republican and praise and voted for Trump in particular. I know them, live near and among them So if you want to hang your hat on the population aging out of Republican voter ranks well I think you're going to be sadly surprised.
Shouldn't come as a surprise https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/04/coronavirus-overweight-global-report/ "The report, by the World Obesity Federation, found that 88 percent of deaths due to covid-19 in the first year of the pandemic were in countries where more than half of the population is classified as overweight, which it defines as having a body mass index (BMI) above 25. Obesity, generally defined as BMI above 30, is associated with particularly severe outcomes. ... The report found that in countries where less than half of the adult population is classified as overweight, the likelihood of death from covid-19 was about one-tenth of the levels in countries with higher shares of overweight adults. A higher BMI was also associated with increased risk of hospitalization, admission to intensive or critical care and the need for mechanically assisted ventilation. In Britain, overweight coronavirus patients were 67 percent more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier."
I should clarify. County and city governments in Texas do rely on property tax, but the state government relies on sales tax (and oil tax). Abbott doesn't really care about the counties and cities (heck he seems to enjoy undermining them) but needs sales tax for his own kitty.
Good new overview of where things are at: 'When will it end?': How a changing virus is reshaping scientists’ views on COVID-19
This touches indirectly on something that's been mentioned in some articles for a while. That the western/rich countries don't just have (as some would agree) a humanitarian duty to help poorer countries vaccinate their population. But should also pursue this goal with self-serving interest. More virus spread leads to more mutations. And with some likelihood a mutation will develop that will evade vaccines available at the time. Thus causing new waves of infections also in the richer countries, with the subsequent impact on life.
In the property tax, the largest amount is for the ISD (school district). A substantial portion of that (according to the ISD) goes to the State rather than to the schools. It's kind of hidden.
You need to see the context. This is what I was replying to. The people who are most at risk or belong to a group that has the most cases/deaths per capita are the ones least likely to vote for Abbott. Because multiple terms are allowed, the job of a politician is to get elected, there are ethical and unethical ways to do this. It’s also weird to suggest a political junkie like me would say “nobody young votes for R”. 18-29 is +24 D, compared to 65+ which is +5 R.
Doesn't the state spend that money on schools ? State has to fund rest of the budget with sales tax. Its the same in WA.
Just a reminder about this Helix link. Florida in the lead, followed by Texas and California. Florida looks to go 50% B.1.1.7 by mid-March. If you squint, you could probably argue that Florida seems to be struggling to bring down their cases, as compared to other states. B.1.1.7? Maybe. Texas is a bit harder to gauge due to recent irregularities in the data from the storm. New York and New Jersey also are showing trends in the wrong direction. (Not sure whether it has anything to do with that local variant there that we don't know much about.) Places like North Dakota, really hard hit and hitting it hard with the vaccine, are doing very well and are probably past the point of any concern for resurgence (assuming no immune escape). Just need to keep pumping out that vaccine and getting it into arms. To put in perspective, we went from 12% of population infected to 25% in 2.5 months in a massive surge. It look a month of explosive growth (from the levels we are currently at) to hit 4% of the population. Future outbreaks will be less explosive due to increased levels of immunity. They could still be massive. But it takes time. We'll vaccinate over 10% of the population in the next month (at least 5x as many people as get infected). So: Time is (for the most part) on our side. That's what the projections are saying (Path to Herd Immunity - COVID-19 Vaccine Projections) It says that we'll probably double our case level (with lower mortality) from current levels (he's having to adjust his vaccination numbers up so this may be pessimistic). And then we'll be mostly done. Another ~23k deaths from an additional 15 million infections (assuming IFR of 0.15% going forward), not counting deaths from ongoing, current, infections and deaths not yet reported (a much higher total). Bad, but not like what we have been through. I think the magnitude of that peak is dependent on vaccinations, for the most part, with a small contribution of what restrictions are in place. And of course the worst-case scenario of rampant immune escape (still no evidence of that happening in vaccinated individuals), with no protection from death from vaccination, is not assumed here. Good news: vaccines generated for the the South African B.1.351/501Y.V2 variant likely will be quite "backwards compatible." Neutralizing titers from convalescent plasma against the original virus were only reduced a factor of 2.3x relative to the original plasma response. (A 4.1x decline relative to the 501Y.V2 response, the reason for the discrepancy being a stronger response in general to 501Y.V2) Escape of SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 from neutralization by convalescent plasma So this suggests that the future vaccine boosters might be able to have a single component, though who knows what they'll decide to actually do. More discussion: https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1367085609072939019?s=20
Personally I think this article is slightly on the pessimistic side. There's a lot of reason for hope, as Shane Crotty (also quoted in the article) said. It's definitely true that we don't know how the variant situation will play out, and whether we will be able to come up with a vaccine that is broadly effective against whatever variants arise. We don't know how much more the virus will change, and whether those changes will result in more fitness. And we don't know for sure that vaccines that act against those variants will be better overall - there appears to be some evidence that they might be, and might protect against variants in a broad class of variants of concern. Maybe we'll still have a cocktail of mRNA, but who knows. Definitely it seems like the virus will be circulating for a while, but it's unclear to me at what level, and how much of a concern it will be. (Side note: It's not clear to me whether the adenovirus-based vaccines can be effectively boosted. I've heard on a couple of occasions now that the immune system might sometimes attack the vector upon boosting, but no idea whether that is actually true. J&J is doing a two-dose trial, so apparently it's not too much of a concern? And the AZ vaccine is boosted and it is adenovirus-based. But maybe this explains the reduced efficacy? Maybe in some people the vector doesn't do as well? Anyway, maybe an immunologist could comment on this.)
Are there any reliable stats on complications from the various Covid vaccines? I've read here and on other places about people feeling sick/having a fever after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. My neighbors had their second doses a couple of days ago and had zero complications. They're in the 65-75 year old range (and healthy). PS. I'm not sure why this thread was moved to OT now ... because it certainly will become on-topic in the coming year as the effects of the lockdowns kick in. Government spending can only go so far to cover up the economic fallout of global shutdowns. It sure as hell will affect investing for years to come. There are long-term, radical changes in the basic economic structure. Commercial real estate is basically dead. Almost everyone I know in high level positions (including those in companies with single letter stock tickers) will not be going back to office buildings anytime soon. If they need in-person meetings, they rent a local structure temporarily. Lets call it the "gig real estate" market. This will crush those in the most vulnerable economic classes that depend on all the service jobs required by offices (janitorial, restaurants, deliveries, supplies, etc., etc.) which will then feed upwards. If you've read my posts, you know I'm the last person you'd call a bleeding heart ... but this was imposed on these people by government fiat, not their own actions. And, again, not a bleeding heart here ... but I believe the past year has been the largest transfer of wealth from the poor/middle to the elites in history.
Study Suggests Blood Type Could Impact Likelihood of Contracting COVID-19 The SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain preferentially recognizes blood group A | Blood Advances | American Society of Hematology
Probably better to call reactions than complications. Pfizer, fever, chills, headache, muscle ache, bone ache, in about 70-80% of people, more common in younger people (below 55). Anecdotally I have heard it is more like half of people with symptoms that rise to the level of “notable.” Seems about right since placebo group had about 40% with symptoms... Much worse after second dose (or first dose with a prior infection): Reactions and Adverse Events of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC Moderna, very similar profile, might be a bit worse, with headache more common, also worse after second dose like Pfizer. Anecdotally, I have heard that people who get Moderna struggle a lot more, often for 2-3 days. It’s not clear that this showed in the trials, though. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC We’ll see. I think there will be a healthy shift to remote work, where possible. I doubt it will be across the board, though. But remember the upside - a lot of companies can now offer remote work as a perk and may be more inclined to hire people to work remotely. Overall, for better or worse, I would guess the improvement in remote work ability is going to lead to a productivity boost. This is good. It’s good to shake things up once in a while. Certainly the people least able to afford it will likely suffer most from the changes, as usual. However, not sure it will be as bad as you say. We’ll see! Going to be interesting to see what persists and what goes back to normal!
I recall that Moderna introduces more spike proteins so could cause a stronger reaction than Pfizer? But both showed ~95% effectiveness after 2 doses, so maybe Moderna is doing more than necessary?
Yeah the Moderna dose (100µg) is about 3x Pfizer . I believe that Moderna calibrated the dose to make sure a sufficient response was elicited in elderly patients: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2028436 You can see there was some benefit to going to 100µg vs. 25µg. Don't just look at the median levels in the box plots - look at the outliers and spread. Also note the logarithmic y-axis. I think I would have gone with 100ug as well. They unfortunately didn't explore 50mg extensively (though they did test it in another (small) trial). It would be nice to be able to have data showing that 50ug would work nearly as well as 100ug and be able to double the number of doses! So there is an advantage to lower dosing! Unfortunately the dose-response is not quite linear - it looks like maybe 100ug is less than 4x better than 25ug (very hard to tell). So 50ug could be nearly as good as 100ug - or it might be somewhere in the middle. It's very hard to tell with just two points!
That 95% effectiveness was from a trial conducted last year. The 72% J&J vaccine efficacy is against any symptom in the US during a more recent study and 85% effective in preventing severe disease. Trials conducted at a different time, in different places, and different variants in the wild. It's not fair to compare those two numbers against each other. The effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against severe disease is more comparable to the J&J number, which leads to the thinking that the effectiveness of Pfizer would be similar to that of J&J if tested head-to-head right now. There is a 2-dose J&J trial (2nd dose at day 57) underway with results expected in May. I wonder whether FDA/CDC would recommend a 2nd dose to anyone receiving the J&J right now if/when a 2-dose vaccination schedule is approved and suggested. (Are any people who have received either the Pfizer or Moderna getting a second dose much later than one month after the first shot?)