The oddest thing about Putin's invasion is that it would have been easier to pay off some military officer to stage a coup (maybe made easier by abducting Zelensky first), implement martial law, and hold sham elections with only Putin-approved candidates. So why didn't it happen?
Meaning military coup plus sham elections is the tried-and-true method for rapid regime change without having your own soldiers killed, which is always bad press.
Plus Ukraine has a large Russian population, and it was supposed to be full of corruption. And Zelensky was walking around in public. So you'd have thought it would be easy for the KGB I mean FSB to disappear him, and organize a pro-Russian military junta to take over.
There are 2 explanations: (1) the Ukraine military has become less corrupt and more cohesive since 2014, so FSB couldn't set up an effective coup, or (2) Putin deliberately wants to punish and destroy Ukraine visibly even if it makes his stated political goals *harder* to achieve
That is, a full-scale invasion is mass murder of civilians and his own soldiers carried out on live TV. Versus a surgical coup, that's only going to motivate the Ukrainian resistance, bring on Western support in munitions and sanctions, and generate opposition at home.
So either Putin found the Ukrainian military too professional to corrupt into a coup, which means he knew the invasion was going to cause thousands of deaths, or he purposely chose death and destruction make a public statement of revenge even at risk of his own failure.
Or he's just crazy and not thinking at all. So we have evil, grand evil, or craziness.
Per @McFaul (former US ambassador to Russia) it is indeed a different kind of thinking
Sorokin sees being leader of Russia as a position that, since Ivan the Terrible, has had an indefatigable power to corrupt. He traces it to Ivan installing a tyrannical system to rule the vastness of Russia.
Since Ivan, being leader of Russia has had an indefatigable power to corrupt, like the Ring of Power in the Lord of the Rings.
Sorokin mentions that Putin seemed sensible at the beginning, even saying "I have no intention of holding onto this chair".
Finally, Sanofi and GSK announce their results. VE = 58%. Patient dosing and followup occurred during Delta and Omicron, so that seems fairly good, as best as we can resolve with the statistics (resolution not great, confidence interval 27-77%)
You'll hear 2 more numbers in the press, but these aren't real statistics: 75% protection against moderate-severe disease and 100% protection against hospitalization. Again, not real stats, no CIs, due to low numbers, e.g. 0 vs 4! You might call those figures "anecdotal"
Some people never learn though. You might have thought by now the @NYTimes would train their headline writers to not repeat just the most optimistic unsupported take from the manufacturers. Speaking of COI... why do we let the entity who will directly profit write the headlines?
When my lab set out to develop SARSCoV2 protease inhibtors based on the approved HCV drug boceprevir, we figured SARSCoV2 would persist for decades due to slow vaccination, vaccine waning/escape allowing endemicity, or reintroduction from animal reservoirs. All have become true.
We reported the first SARSCoV2 protease inhibitor based on boceprevir with very high affinity (IC50 ≤ 12nM) in 9/2020. It was our first drug candidate, tested by 4 very smart and dedicated academic scientists, and funded by $20k in FastGrants by @patrickc biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
In April 2021, Pfizer announced PF07321332 (nirmatrelvir, the active ingredient in Paxlovid) with a similar structure, the main difference being the replacement of the ketoamide reactive group of boceprevir with a nitrile group
Novavax announced their vaccine protects adolescents from Delta infection by 80% (95% CI, 47-92%) after dose 2 vs placebo. Side effects were stated as similar or milder than adults.
To compare to RNA vaccines, we can look at Pfizer results. In one study Pfizer protection was 91% at week 3 after dose 2. It appears in the high 80s at week 2 and 4. medpagetoday.com/infectiousdise…
Another study had Pfizer protection at 93% between weeks 1 and 3. So Novavax appears close, maybe the same (difference is well within the CI). Antibody levels are higher with Novavax in adults so you might have expected better VE. nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
In "The lessons of Lander", @ScienceMagazine chief editor @hholdenthorp points out WH hasn't fulfilled its pledge to revitalize our scientific agencies.
What we need: clear deadlines for NIH, FDA, and OSTP appointments, and accountability at HHS and CDC
Here's one calm sentence that is nevertheless alarming in pointing out the danger we are in. There's been a complete absence of government leadership in this epidemic; no wonder the only people in charge seem to be company CEOs.
The entire article is worth reading; it ends with a call to quickly fill our scientific leadership positions.
This shouldn't be hard, given the number of scientific/medical leaders in the US. Just search beyond 1º of separation from the WH, and make competence the only criterion
Essentially type 2 statistical errors are errors. And relying on those errors to hold back useful interventions led to deadly lack-of-recommendations by public health agencies
@DLeonhardt Good to see inaction on boosters for J&J cited as one of the examples. Seems the CDC would like to ignore #JnJers so it's good to be reminded that they have been treated badly.
Also good to mention again the FDA officials opposed to boosters (who still insist they are correct!)
Only thing I'd add: anti-intervention messages get traction citing "lack of solid data" precisely because newspapers, including (especially?) the @nytimes, publishes articles featuring them. Often these are news articles citing "experts" with a track record of being wrong.