The coronavirus
Comments
-
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.oftenreading said:
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.PJNB said:
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.HughFreakingDillon said:I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics0 -
This, plus efficacy appears high in the elderly population as well. Cause for optimism.PJNB said:
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.oftenreading said:
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.PJNB said:
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.HughFreakingDillon said:I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethicsmy small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.PJNB said:
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.oftenreading said:
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.PJNB said:
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.HughFreakingDillon said:I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethicsBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
It will be ok . Im very sure . I will end up with the oxford vaccine simply because its what we will have many more of by the time all the vulnerable have had the mrna vaccines and are used up
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -0 -
It does seem small on paper but I am no expert on this just as I am sure you are not either. The people that are are saying that this is excellent news. They are not saying to be cautious since the sample size is so small. Also you really could be doubling your positive tests number if there was no vaccine.mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
170 people got the virus. 8 people had the vaccine. You could look at that as 331 people would have gotten the virus if there was no vaccine. Times that by a 10 million and you get the idea if the settings are all the same. We will be getting more and more info in the coming months and by early March we should have a great idea where we are heading.0 -
I think plenty get those diseases anyway. It will be a feeling of a leap of faith but science is so fast like technology. Its moving before our eyes. When we listen to science and not hearsay it is very clearHughFreakingDillon said:
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.PJNB said:
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.oftenreading said:
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.PJNB said:
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.HughFreakingDillon said:I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics
To me anyway
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -0 -
for sure. i'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch. just had the flu vaccine last week. but usually vaccines take years to look at possible long term issues. the simple fact is, we don't have the time to know. we can't live like this for a decade. i'm just really hoping there's no adverse effects that we'll find out in 2030.lastexitlondon said:
I think plenty get those diseases anyway. It will be a feeling of a leap of faith but science is so fast like technology. Its moving before our eyes. When we listen to science and not hearsay it is very clearHughFreakingDillon said:
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.PJNB said:
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.oftenreading said:
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.PJNB said:
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.HughFreakingDillon said:I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics
To me anywayBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
No, that’s not how the analysis works.mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
The love he receives is the love that is saved0 -
Anyone see I Am Legend?0
-
Not sure what is confusing about that. And when I just googled it, according to NPR that is exactly how they do it.F Me In The Brain said:mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909548897/how-volunteers-and-scientists-help-determine-if-a-vaccine-works
Only those exposed to the virus are counted in terms of determining effectiveness. So you take a large group, 30,000. Give half the vaccine, have a placebo. You compare the number of positive tests in each group. Vaccine gets 5 and placebo gets 90. So 5 out of 95 had the vaccine, therefore 95% effective.
Thats what happened here. You can't make claims based on people who were never exposed to the virus, that's why they use the infected numbers to determine effectiveness. Otherwise Kool-Aide would be a great vaccine. Half my school drank kool-aide last year and we had exactly zero test positive.
The others are still studied for side effects and safety. But as far as determining effectiveness, you can only look at those exposed to the virus. If everyone was given the covid virus, you could do this study with a much smaller sample.
How do you think they do it, count everyone, even those never exposed?
Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
That is how it works, They compare positive rates. Here's another source.oftenreading said:
No, that’s not how the analysis works.mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm
You cant give a vaccine to 39,000 people and say only so many got sick. You compare how many got sick with the vaccine to how many got sick without the vaccine (placebo). So in terms of effectiveness, the study is only as big as the number of infected people. For safety and sideeffects they would study the entire group.
0 -
This week, Pfizer and Biontech announced that the Phase 3 study of their vaccine shows 90 percent protection against covid-19.Johan Giesecke visited Godmorgon worldwide in P1 on Sunday, and said that it will be a while before a vaccine could be fully tested and before large quantities of doses can be manufactured.- To hang up their epidemic fight on the arrival of a vaccine, it is a bit early, I think, says the former state epidemiologist.Pfizer's CEO has called their results "a great day for humanity", and Giesecke also has a certain understanding that people rejoice.- It's a light in the tunnel in some way, isn 't it? But as I said, in the short or medium term it will not help much in the fight against pandemics.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I'm not saying it isn't excellent news, it obviously is. I just think the sample is too small to be arguing and claiming 90 vs 95% at this point.PJNB said:
It does seem small on paper but I am no expert on this just as I am sure you are not either. The people that are are saying that this is excellent news. They are not saying to be cautious since the sample size is so small. Also you really could be doubling your positive tests number if there was no vaccine.mace1229 said:
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name.oftenreading said:
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.mace1229 said:
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lolmace1229 said:
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.HughFreakingDillon said:it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
170 people got the virus. 8 people had the vaccine. You could look at that as 331 people would have gotten the virus if there was no vaccine. Times that by a 10 million and you get the idea if the settings are all the same. We will be getting more and more info in the coming months and by early March we should have a great idea where we are heading.
0 -
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
-
our chief public health officer says we might start getting vaccine rollout in january.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
yep...I've been telling people to watch out for untested vaccine.elvistheking44 said:Anyone see I Am Legend?Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Good news for us canucks. I hope my parents can get it sooner than later because they are extremely high risk.HughFreakingDillon said:our chief public health officer says we might start getting vaccine rollout in january.0 -
my mom is too, and both parents are quite nervous about it. they can't snowbird this year, which really sucks for them, but at least if they can resume some semblance of normal life, maybe that's a light at the end of the tunneldignin said:
Good news for us canucks. I hope my parents can get it sooner than later because they are extremely high risk.HughFreakingDillon said:our chief public health officer says we might start getting vaccine rollout in january.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help