Jump to content


Copper Account
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jason last won the day on January 26

Jason had the most liked content!

Community Reputation



About Jason

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold
  • Birthday November 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Toronto, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

3,687 profile views
  1. Oh wow, glad to hear that the Cinesphere is re-opening. It's been closed since the start of the pandemic.
  2. That article obscures what the app is being used for. It's an alternative to being quarantined in a quarantine facility. I'd prefer the app because I would rather be at home, and I wouldn't break the rules. I also understand that you need to do random checks because of the selfish assholes that DO break the rules.
  3. No, the case counts could be different by 2-3, I'm very sure of that (without actually running the numbers). That would not be enough though, for Covishield to perform at a similar rate there would need to be about 15 more hospitalizations. However, on closer inspection the P<0.001 is not for Covishield vs. Pfizer - the P-values were calculated for only the following pairwise comparisons: I'm fairly sure the P-value would still be significant (P<0.05) for the Pfizer vs Covishield comparison, but definitely not P<0.001 either. (The paper itself does not try to assert that
  4. My family and friends here (very biased sample I'm sure) have also all said we're only going back to the theatre when a vaccine passport system is in place, and case counts are reasonably low.
  5. I'm aware the absolute total of hospitalizations was small in some categories. But the rate differences, combined with the total sample size (which also matters!) leads to a P<0.001. Which means a less than one in one thousand chance that the rate difference is because of random chance instead of a real effect. The sample size is more than adequate. (Late edit: the P<0.001 does not apply to a Pfizer vs Covishield comparison, which was not calculated.) It's the sample size for everything other than Pfizer, which was the only vaccine received by under-18s, and therefore were
  6. No. The totals appear small because of how effective the vaccines are at reducing hospitalization, but the sample itself is not small. Those numbers are waaaay bigger than what you would see in a clinical trial, and the comparisons between the different groups, even with the low absolute number of hospitalizations, are waaaay above the threshold for statistical significance. (The paper states the odd ratios were significant at P<0.001, meaning that is a less than 1 in 1 thousand chance that the differences could be because of random chance.) There are factors other tha
  7. There's already been at least one study indicating that one shot of each produces better results. There's a theoretical basis for the AZ vaccine performing better in the long-term, the fact that it contains an actual (non-infectious) virus means it results in a greater degree of T-cell activation, which is the group of immune cells that specifically responds to viruses, and can kill viruses even when they are inside cells (unlike antibodies, which are only effective against the virus when it leaves cells). There's also a theoretical basis for mixed doses performing better as well, the si
  8. My understanding is that the positivity rate tends to act as a leading indicator relative to daily cases when the number of tests being done is changing - when testing is being decreased (while cases are low), the positivity rate will go up before the daily cases will; similarly when testing is increasing (while cases are high), the positivity rate will go down before daily cases will. It's almost certainly because people spend more time indoors during cold weather. Risk of transmission of COVID and other respiratory illnesses goes up by roughly a factor of 10 in enclosed enviro
  9. Ivermectin?!!! For anyone who doesn't know, this is a drug that targets a certain type of ion channel in nerve cells. There is absolutely no reason why this would do ANYTHING to help treat or prevent COVID. In fact, it's likely to be counterproductive as humans have nerve cells and COVID virus does not! (Ivermectin does preferentially targets the nerve cells of invertebrates relative to vertebrates, but its side effect profile is...not great.)
  10. Nearly all Canadians got Pfizer/Moderna at well. I'm pretty sure the surge in the US in a combination of the lower vaccination rate, and a much larger portion of the population that is anti-mask.
  11. I was one of the top 5's and next time we do an animation list I am quoting the second paragraph from this post in my FYC.
  12. I've seen both for this and definitely prefer the sub. It's not vastly different but in the places where it is, the dub makes some...strange choices, to put it mildly.
  13. New Zealand has spent nearly all of the past year and a half living completely without restrictions and more importantly, without risk. I envy their approach and I completely disagree that it could not have been implemented elsewhere. Vietnam shares a land border with China (and Cambodia and Laos), and was able to nearly completely keep out the virus last year. Eventually their approach failed (this summer), but it's worth nothing that Vietnam has a GDP of $2700 USD, and a lot of the measures required to make the approach work (especially extensive COVID testing) are a significantly greater
  14. Usually I put more effort into my rebuttals, so I apologize to everyone else
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.