Jump to content

IFG

Donating Member
  • Posts

    1,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

IFG last won the day on September 7

IFG had the most liked content!

Reputation

232 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    YAM, no longer + YHM & DXB

Recent Profile Visitors

4,891 profile views
  1. Hello again, Seeker - Ok, I'll move "for Pete's sake" to the strong response cupboard (& try to tone it down) My dilemma: the Seeker that wrote: "Look, I'm not blaming the experts - we just really underestimated the problem or overestimated our ability. Really - not blaming anyone for this. We're all in it together and it turned out to be harder than we thought" doesn't sound the same as the guy above who predicates his question with the premise vaccinations aren't working. When the manifestly are, but limited by a difficult cohort that won't take them. An earlier post outlines the confirmation of that in current ON #'s. Again I'd invite you to consider the aspirational #'s if almost everybody was vaxxed. The recent levels of infection & transmission would show about 2-400 instead of 7-900 daily new ones. But with full vaxx uptake, we'd never even have reached those levels. With community spread reduced by more than half, R#'s would be way below the expansionary range, and outbreaks could be quickly contained. You wrote: "Somewhere early in the process we were told that we (society) could throw a bunch of money and our best experts at the problem, have an expedited vaccine ready in a year or so, vaccinate 75%-80%, achieve herd immunity and then Build Back Better." We could apply the same inference to ON #'s for an 80% uptake, i.e. about 12M vaxx'd instead of current 10M, yielding about 200 or so fewer dailies. Don't know exactly where that would place R#'s, but pretty sure it's < 1. All that with the hope that an even more communicable variant doesn't mutate while we've still got these millions of determined human petri dishes. The guy that wasn't blaming the experts would be onboard, instead of talking about vaccines "not working". Quick thought about Ivermectin that just might resonate for you . Your no-harm-no-foul approach could be analogized with the power of prayer. No apparent harm (not even nausea and/or diarrhea), and far be it from us to prevent good folk from praying their hearts out if they think it "works" . BTW, of course off-label usage of prescription drugs is widespread and respectable. It's also usually conducted in relatively quiet privacy. The problem with loudly validating these off-label usages online, even as panic courses through the web, is that stupid people feel encouraged to unintentional self-harm. Whether that should matter at all or not is another type of discussion altogether. Cheers, IFG
  2. Oh for Pete's sake, Seeker, you don't "have to ask yourself" anything of the kind. The premise is patently absurd. A vaccine showing 80-90 percent effectiveness is working beyond the wildest dreams that preceded them. I'll fix it for you. If the first three vaccinations are not working as perfectly as we'd like, maybe we should try a fourth one? There. We might even arrive at the same conclusion. Hi again, UD - That reference to malpractice lawyers was nothing more than a gentle dig, born of the fact that some of the sites I hit citing that 6-figure estimate in fact belonged to that tribe. IAC, irony and subtlety just don't carry well on this medium. No worries. In fact, my own genealogy is quite polluted with lawyers (the rest much taken up with journalists - there is no hope for me) . Same with my little stake-holders comment, although I do suggest its simply true as stated, and not judgmental at all. But!! I just knew that you would respond .... the promotion of litigation as a prophylactic. Seriously, yes, litigation can play an important role, but it doesn't always. Of course, in a world without civil litigation, many good things would not have happened. We're not in that world. In our real world, the threat of sometimes opportunistic or frivolous lawsuits really does hamper good safety initiatives. Not making some no-chance case for eliminating it (in either aviation or medicine), just expressing frustration at collateral damage. re: Your paean to the good works of management in approving safety programs - of course they're not demons, but you elide the fact that many of efforts were 'approved' after strenuous advocacy from the ranks. I can testify that some in management have not let go of an almost primal need to view safety lapses through a crime-and-punishment lens. Lots of Pilots too. The FAA's reporting procedure is colloquially referred to as the get-out-of jail-free-card. Cheers, IFG
  3. Yikes! Citing alternative statistics with a lowest estimate of 22000 deaths due to error hardly seems to me to trivialize the problem, but discrepancies orders of magnitude apart aren't trivial either, and could be counter-productive. So just to be clear, even the lowest of that range of estimates absolutely warrants serious consideration and effort. FWIW, my own experience with this involved my father - fortunately he weathered it, but the Doc's brought up DNR's as he lay in hospital. I do think these testimonials do more inflaming than informing, but (again FWIW) I'm neither bamboozled by MD's, nor heartless about tragedies caused. You are of course correct that all 'trades' suffer from the group self-protection for error. Nonetheless, and imperfect as pilots may be, we can take a little pride in ongoing efforts like improving SOP's, SMS, careful investigation etc. I believe the medical profession has already learned a bit from the aviation world about techniques for adherence to procedure during surgery (checklists etc.) Perhaps another direction to go would be a change of focus on error toward recognition and correction rather than blame and retribution, encouraging more open reporting etc. Of course, as there is in the flying business, there would be some tension with the more litigious stake-holders. Cheers, IFG
  4. That was certainly a tripwire on the '27's I used to ride, but would not the PFM on the '67 calculate for the selected flap? Or does it only go off keypad entry? & if so, wonder why? That's what the paint was for! Cheers, IFG
  5. Hi, Seeker - If this was in Ontario, I have to wonder if a little was lost in translation there. I had my car towed within the last month through CAA. It was made clear when booking the tow that I'd not be able to ride in the truck, due COVID protocols (vaxx never even came up). And here's what strikes me. It never occurred to me to argue. TBH, I don't know why anybody at all, even vaxxedx2 as I am, would blithely expect the driver to unnecessarily (CAA is not taxi service) expose himself (and thereby his family) to close contact > 15 minutes with a total stranger, maybe several times a day, every workday. I was pretty much "well, that sucks, but I get it", and went about alternate arrangements. I just don't see what presents here as an intolerable encroachment. Talk about 1st world problem. On another note : Estimates of preventable hospital deaths are too high, new study shows | YaleNews "Previous estimates of preventable deaths of hospitalized patients may be two to four times too high, a new Yale School of Medicine study suggests. The meta-analysis of eight studies of inpatient deaths, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, puts the number of preventable deaths at just over 22,000 a year in the United States, instead of the oft-cited 44,000-98,000 estimate of a landmark 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine. Other frequently cited studies have placed the number of deaths as high as 250,000 deaths per year, which would make medical error the third leading cause of death, behind cancer and cardiovascular disease ...." Quarter million figure certainly piques curiosity . What percentage of total deaths is that? 1 in 3? Where people die - Harvard Health "Although more than 700,000 people die in hospitals each year in the US, the trend is toward fewer in-hospital deaths." JH study may not be limited to hospital deaths (likely as wide a net as possible was cast), but I'll bet many people read that into the study's conclusion. The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States (medicalnewstoday.com) "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2,813,503 registered deathsTrusted Source in the United States in 2017." Total death rate above suggests JH saying almost 10% of ALL deaths (guns, crashes etc. included) are medical error, which FWIW still seems high to me. IAC, Don't want to bog down with amateur statistical analysis. That quarter mill number does not seem to lie in the centre of estimates for caused-by-error (except perhaps for malpractice lawyers). One is open to be convinced, but as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . Cheers, IFG
  6. Hi, Seeker. "Right" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, but - fair enough? Hope we're all still here to keep those appointments! Cheers, IFG
  7. Hi again, UD - Admire your fearlessness in taking up the libertarian defense of leaving porn up on the internet . Apropos GDR's original comment, though, whether or not the porn "net" is cast, it has no bearing on the vax-disinfo fishing. ! 2 quibbles tho'. My Blitz analogy (not intended as comparison) was drawing out the failure of anti-vaxxers to step outside their personal concerns. Another might be booting team members who won't follow the playbook Imagination abounds. The point is again that group concerns often collide with individual ones. Anti-vaxxers (and their fellow-travelling anti-maskers) have been indulged to a considerable extent, but the patience of the overwhelming majority might be exhausted. There's an unfortunate collateral result, where worst instincts kick in, and, in the face of compelling evidence, stubbornness takes over. This phenomenon is well known and documented. It's blooming in many pathetic dying anti-vaxxers to the very end. So one should try to give hope a chance & not to be overtly judgmental, but seriously? That's hard now. The other quibble is the notion that anti-vax opinion is being censored. It's my understanding that take-downs target [mis-dis]information, upon which most (not all) anti-vax opinion rests. Far from being silenced, opinionated internet anti-vaxxers still seem to win the shouting match by volume. Cheers, Ian
  8. Hi, GDR - Healthy skepticism is always a good thing, but I think you frame many questions/objections a bit aggressively, and elide the need to reassess when there's new info (paraphrasing Keynes: when the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do? ). e.g.: Advice about not mixing vaccines reflected the abundance of caution about straying from the conditions of the trials. This noble objective collided with an urgency to reduce infections caused by delayed vacc'n. WRT the period between shots, the 4-week period was set to speed up the trials, not because it was known to be the best time-span. Generally, multi-dose vaccines are more effective longer periods, but of course that requires longer trials. Likewise, mixing vacc's generally seems to strengthen response, but testing for all that takes precious time. Hopefully, the recognitions of mixed vacc's will come fairly soon, but international travel capability if not the public health system's top concern, fewer infections is. PITA for some those that followed recommendations for sure, but little doubt that best-vacc-is-first-vacc sped up the process and lowered infections. Hopefully, recognition of multi-vacc'n comes fairly soon. BTW, some good friends of mine from UK are prevented from wintering in US because Americans won't recognize AZ (unmixed). International rules are a hodgepodge everywhere. Re: blocking some disinfo sites - Mygod, people are taking cow/horse medicine. Facebook/Youtube etc have historically been totally unedited. Editing is good. Despite free and easy slagging of 'the media', and imperfect as it might be, we're far better off with some chain of responsibility in our news providers IMHO. Re: "We were told ..." - In the early days, they made their best guesses, and mostly were pretty clear about that. People didn't want to hear "we do not know", so they got "our best guess is". I think you overstate both the degree of certainty, and the degree of error. This has dragged on far longer than we hoped, but mitigations DID reduce the spread, and putting all the opprobrium on the politicians ignores some non-compliance and forced political response to demands for opening up. It's messy, but "we" are not free of responsibility for "our" fate. Calling anybody "unclean, unclean" seems drastic, but the analogy I would suggest is London blackouts during the blitz. Anybody leaving lights on (because, don't want to bump into anything or whatever) bugger it up for everybody. Community 'rights' and individual 'rights' often collide. Some seem to assert that the latter always trumps the former. I hope that's not so here. Cheers, IFG
  9. Hi, UD - The above calculation would be misleading, but responsible reporters (& there are many of them!) would/should not circulate them. But we can take care not to confuse the denominators in these #'s. Your reference to 1% representing around 4M people does that. When efficacy is stated in %'s, we can look at it as %'s of a cohort that would otherwise be infected, not of the total population. e.g., 90% efficacy does not reflect a 10% vulnerable group, it suggests that the number of infections within a vacc'd population will be 10% of that within an unvacc'd pop. We could try a real world example. (NB: This is a rough illustration to contextualize these #'s that get thrown around; of course there are confounders and complications that epidemiologists are paid to tease out.) Yesterday in Ontario, there were 485 unvacc'd infections diagnosed, compared to 147 fully vacc'd. In ON, there are aprox 10M fully vacc'd, 4M unvacc'd. It would be reasonable to infer that were the vacc'd group not so, they would show about 1200 cases (485 x 10/4). Rough #'s, this would indicate 88% efficacy (147 = 12% of 1200). Similarly for hospitalizations, 140 to 27 for unvacc'd/vacc'd. 27 is about 7-8% of a potential 350 (again 140 x 10/4), suggesting 92-3% 'efficacy' against hospitalization. One might wonder, if we could achieve near-100% vacc, could yesterdays numbers have theoretically been a bit over 200 instead of 781 (unfortunately rising right now). Consider then the trend if an infected cohort passed on about a quarter of the infections. Now take all this as only the further ramblings of a reasonable layman who has tried to stay informed. There is responsible reporting out there, e.g. Andre Picard in the Globe', Zeynep Tufekci, Nate Silver (not epidemiologists, but very sharp observers and explainers on grokking data), lots of others ... Cheers, IFG
  10. You're way to kind Mitch, but the thought is mutual - & reciprocal! I think that lawyers have thick skin - and have behind me decades of dependence upon the goodwill of 'friendly' AME's Cheers - IFG
  11. Hi, UD - Not sure about cognoscenti , and following is just rambling of this interested layman (very much IMVHO!) I'm not quite sure what the 10% cohort is that you are asking about. It seems to be generally agreed that the mRNA vaccines are 90%ish effective (certainly against earlier variants, and against delta at least for hospitalizations/deaths, other vaccines not all that far off). As I understand it, that means that randomly 90% fewer of vaccinated population, would likely be infected. i.e. proportionately 90% fewer vacc'd oldies, 90% fewer vacc'd genZers than unvaccinated. I haven't seen anything suggesting the efficacy is variable between groups, or that the 10% breakthrough will come from a specific cohort. e.g.: (Plugging in #'s for illustration) Last year, picking a 10% infection rate, a random population of 1000 would have had 100 infections. With a 90% effective vaccine this year (this is very high in the world of vaccination BTW), and say an 80% uptake, the unvaccinated cohort show 20 infections, the vaccinated only 8 (their 'share' of 80, -90%). Two things follow.. 1- Of new infections, headlines scream that about 30% are "breakthrough"!! and 2- Almost none of the 8 show up at hospitals. The first is simple and predictable arithmetic. The second gets overrun by the first. Press coverage is frustratingly innumerate. I don't traffic in gratuitous hatred for journos (too much printers ink in my bloodstream), but lets agree that they are certainly no better than pilots or lawyers in that regard . IAC, In the real world, as new variants develop, transmissibility, severity, efficacy may all vary, fer us or agin us, but throughout, the case for high vacc uptake is compelling. I don't know if any of that nibbles at a relevant response Cheers, IFG
  12. I don't think you have, UD. Allow me to pinch-hit for Mitch. Mitch: "radical, r/w zealots", juxtaposed with "non-radical r/w tunnel-visioned dope" UD's transcription: "non-radical, tunnel-visioned, right-wing dope" For want of a comma! I think that Mitch omitted an important one - I suspect not where you supply another, but rather after and not before the lattermost "r/w" (i.e. as in 'non-radical-r/w, tunnel-visioned dope' - well, maybe a hyphen as well ). IAC, re: "synonymous" - "tunnel-visioned" modifies only the dope, & not the r/w zealots, no? & who only knows how much peripheral vision is needed to scope out radicality Cheers - IFG & p.s. .... Indeed, life is grand!
  13. er ... Kip ... isn't that a '55 Chevy tail light? Cheers, IFG
×
×
  • Create New...