Not ageing well . . .
A month ago, when the public health community was warning about the dangers of premature opening and our reality show President was turning mask-wearing into a culture war issue, David Henderson and Jonathan Lipow decided to use precious space on the Wall Street Journal op ed page to publish an essay titled “The Data Are In: It’s Time for Major Reopening” (ungated at the link). They argue that “populationwide lockdowns should end” and even suggest that social distancing has been harmful. OK, then, I guess there’s no need to second-guess re-opening bars in Florida or Arizona. And no need to worry about testing and contact tracing, despite the fact that one of the papers they cite to support their position recommends it. And no need to tear our hair out worrying about masks. It’s all good.
Educated people read the WSJ op eds? Who knew?
Joel:
Thanks for the laugh.
@Joel,
1. We get the WSJ delivered to our house 6 days a week.
2. We really like the reportorial part of the paper.
3. The editorials and op-ed pieces drive us crazy.
4. We are educated with 4 degrees between us.
Educated people read the comments? Who knew?
@Davebarnes,
I was (and remain) astonished that educated people read the WSJ op-eds, not that they read the repertorial part of the WSJ. I don’t read the WSJ at all because I can get the same reporting elsewhere, but à chacun son goût.
I see that you have four degrees between us (as do we) and that the editorial and op-eds drive you crazy. So I assume that means you agree with my post.
@Joel,
Of course I agree with you.
Using the fancy “français phrase” seems a bit “na vrhu” to me.
We get the WSJ because we really like having a PAPER in the morning.
dave:
Our local paper was bought up by Gannett. I liked to read it as you catch up on the local stuff. There is a couple of Detroit papers broken out by politics and I catch them on the internet. I would pass on the WSJ. There are other places I catch this type of news. Not a critique of you, just a preference.
despite the fact that one of the papers they cite to support their position recommends it
Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of that lately among conservatives. They link to something where the headline sorta, kinda sounds like it might support their position, but the actual narrative argues against their position.
Davebarnes, regardless of the personal cost, I try to avoid anything that gives money to my ex countryman Rupert Mudoch.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-07-18/America-s-compromised-state-SeaiooZfI4/index.html
July 18, 2020
America’s compromised state
By Angus Deaton
Demonstrating open contempt for scientific advice, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial mocked Harvard University as “one of the last institutions in America that haven’t learned to be wary of making radical changes based on models from public health experts.”
Angus Deaton, the 2015 Nobel laureate in economics, is professor emeritus of economics and international affairs at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and presidential professor of economics at the University of Southern California.
The Wall Street Journal has some decent business reporting, but they’ve let their ideology pollute their long form articles. Their editorials have been so bad that for the last thirty years, you could have run a successful fund just by doing the opposite of whatever they recommended.
July 19, 2020
Coronavirus
US
Cases ( 3,898,550)
Deaths ( 143,289)
India
Cases ( 1,118,107)
Deaths ( 27,503)
Mexico
Cases ( 338,913)
Deaths ( 38,888)
UK
Cases ( 294,792)
Deaths ( 45,300)
Germany
Cases ( 202,845)
Deaths ( 9,163)
Canada
Cases ( 110,338)
Deaths ( 8,852)
China
Cases ( 83,660)
Deaths ( 4,634)
July 20, 2020
Coronavirus
US
Cases ( 3,919,141)
Deaths ( 143,440)
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-07/21/c_139227319.htm
July 21, 2020
China’s phase 2 trial finds COVID-19 vaccine safe, inducing immune response — The Lancet
“The phase 2 trial adds further evidence on safety and immunogenicity in a large population than the phase 1 trial. This is an important step in evaluating this early-stage experimental vaccine and phase 3 trials are now underway.”
LONDON — A phase 2 trial of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate conducted in China has found that the vaccine is safe and induces an immune response, according to a new study * published Monday in medical journal The Lancet.
The results provide data from a wider group of participants than the phase 1 trial, which was published in May. Phase 1 trial involved 108 healthy adults and it demonstrated promising results.
“The phase 2 trial adds further evidence on safety and immunogenicity in a large population than the phase 1 trial. This is an important step in evaluating this early-stage experimental vaccine and phase 3 trials are now underway,” said Professor Fengcai Zhu from Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, China.
According to The Lancet, the trial of the Ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine candidate was conducted in the central Chinese city of Wuhan with 508 participants taking part. Approximately two thirds of participants were aged 18-44 years, with a quarter aged 45-54 years, and 13 percent aged 55 years or older.
Since elderly individuals face a high risk of serious illness and even death associated with COVID-19 infection, they are an important target population for a COVID-19 vaccine, said Professor Wei Chen from the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology in Beijing, China.
“It is possible that an additional dose may be needed in order to induce a stronger immune response in the elderly population, but further research is underway to evaluate this,” Chen said.
To battle against COVID-19, scientists around the world are racing against time to accelerate the development of new treatments and vaccines. China has pledged that its COVID-19 vaccine will be made a global public good when it’s available.
Meanwhile, Britain is also seeing progress in the development of another vaccine candidate. A separate study published Monday in The Lancet reveals the results of the phase 1/2 trial of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. It indicates no early safety concerns and produces strong immune response.
According to the Oxford University, the trial involves more than 1000 healthy adult volunteers. The vaccine provoked a T cell response (white blood cells that can attack cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus) within 14 days of vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.
Despite the promising findings, it is still too soon to know if this is enough to offer protection and larger trials are under way, scientists involved in this study said.
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31605-6/fulltext
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-07/21/c_139227319.htm
July 21, 2020
Britain is also seeing progress in the development of another vaccine candidate. A separate study ** published Monday in The Lancet reveals the results of the phase 1/2 trial of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. It indicates no early safety concerns and produces strong immune response.
According to the Oxford University, the trial involves more than 1000 healthy adult volunteers. The vaccine provoked a T cell response (white blood cells that can attack cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus) within 14 days of vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.
Despite the promising findings, it is still too soon to know if this is enough to offer protection and larger trials are under way, scientists involved in this study said.
** https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext
July 20, 2020
Coronavirus
US
Cases ( 3,934,852)
Deaths ( 143,546)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31605-6/fulltext
July 20, 2020
Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
By Feng-Cai Zhu, Prof Xu-Hua Guan, Prof Yu-Hua Li, Prof Jian-Ying Huang, Prof Tao Jiang, Prof Li-Hua Hou, et al.
Summary
Background
This is the first randomised controlled trial for assessment of the immunogenicity and safety of a candidate non-replicating adenovirus type-5 (Ad5)-vectored COVID-19 vaccine, aiming to determine an appropriate dose of the candidate vaccine for an efficacy study.
Methods
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of the Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine was done in a single centre in Wuhan, China. Healthy adults aged 18 years or older, who were HIV-negative and previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-free, were eligible to participate and were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine at a dose of 1 × 1011 viral particles per mL or 5 × 1010 viral particles per mL, or placebo. Investigators allocated participants at a ratio of 2:1:1 to receive a single injection intramuscularly in the arm. The randomisation list (block size 4) was generated by an independent statistician. Participants, investigators, and staff undertaking laboratory analyses were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoints for immunogenicity were the geometric mean titres (GMTs) of specific ELISA antibody responses to the receptor binding domain (RBD) and neutralising antibody responses at day 28. The primary endpoint for safety evaluation was the incidence of adverse reactions within 14 days. All recruited participants who received at least one dose were included in the primary and safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04341389.
Findings
603 volunteers were recruited and screened for eligibility between April 11 and 16, 2020. 508 eligible participants (50% male; mean age 39·7 years, SD 12·5) consented to participate in the trial and were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine (1 × 1011 viral particles n=253; 5 × 1010 viral particles n=129) or placebo (n=126). In the 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles dose groups, the RBD-specific ELISA antibodies peaked at 656·5 (95% CI 575·2–749·2) and 571·0 (467·6–697·3), with seroconversion rates at 96% (95% CI 93–98) and 97% (92–99), respectively, at day 28. Both doses of the vaccine induced significant neutralising antibody responses to live SARS-CoV-2, with GMTs of 19·5 (95% CI 16·8–22·7) and 18·3 (14·4–23·3) in participants receiving 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles, respectively. Specific interferon γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses post vaccination were observed in 227 (90%, 95% CI 85–93) of 253 and 113 (88%, 81–92) of 129 participants in the 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Solicited adverse reactions were reported by 183 (72%) of 253 and 96 (74%) of 129 participants in the 1 × 1011 and 5 × 1010 viral particles dose groups, respectively. Severe adverse reactions were reported by 24 (9%) participants in the 1 × 1011 viral particles dose group and one (1%) participant in the 5 × 1010 viral particles dose group. No serious adverse reactions were documented.
Interpretation
The Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine at 5 × 1010 viral particles is safe, and induced significant immune responses in the majority of recipients after a single immunisation.
July 20, 2020
Coronavirus
US
Cases ( 3,943,571)
Deaths ( 143,592)