CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Captainant 27638]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You allude to anti-vaxxers as acting like children multiple times. By and large, I agree. But in this particular case, this is like the parent yelling at their kid to brush their teeth cause they will get cavities otherwise, and threatening them to take away all their toys if they don't. Except they already brushed their teeth and are asking why they need to do it again, and the parent just keeps screaming "Cause I said so, damnit". I myself haven't found that to be a productive parenting style, but your mileage may vary. 

I disagree - to borrow your metaphor, the people who have a prior COVID infection haven't brushed their teeth. They just got back from a more unpleasant trip to the dentist and cleaning (naturally fighting COVID) and now don't want to brush their teeth (get vaccinated) because their teeth already got cleaned. Brushing their their teeth (getting vaxxed) will help to prevent future trips to the dentist (reinfection), and will definitely lower their risk of disease even further. I don't buy this "I might choke on the toothpaste!" excuse

[Brisketexan 105077]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When @Anastasis and others refer to "seroconversion", is that shorthand for "presence of IgG and/or IgM antibodies in the blood"?  Assuming this to be true, do those markers decline as immunity wanes?  Is there a known, quantitative threshold that could be implemented as "passing" a test?

Short answers as I understand them -- yes, it means you have antibodies.  We don't know about COVID-19, but I seem to recall a study of people infected in the SARS outbreak 20 years ago that found that they still have antibodies, which is a positive sign?

I am not against a policy that requires either 1) proof of vaccination, 2) proof of antibodies from a previous case, or 3) weekly testing.  But....wanna bet whether the "MUH FREEDUMBS!" crowd will go for that?  The people pushing the "why should I get vaccinated, I already had COVID!" bullshit will immediately shift to "why should I have to show anyone PROOF that I had COVID, because MUH FREEDUMBS!"

We are a loathsome species.  I used to think that the various scenarios of how "we aren't long for this planet" were ridiculously pessimistic.  I now want to go back and slap my past self for being so naive.  We're going to find a way to kill ourselves.  Maybe several, all at once.  The planet will be fine.  We just won't be players on it.

[Sawbonz 27542]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When @Anastasis and others refer to "seroconversion", is that shorthand for "presence of IgG and/or IgM antibodies in the blood"?  Assuming this to be true, do those markers decline as immunity wanes?  Is there a known, quantitative threshold that could be implemented as "passing" a test?

I think y’all are getting way too in the weeds on this. Is someone arguing we need to be checking titers on everyone to see who needs a booster? 

[Sawbonz 27542]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I disagree - to borrow your metaphor, the people who have a prior COVID infection haven't brushed their teeth. They just got back from a more unpleasant trip to the dentist and cleaning (naturally fighting COVID) and now don't want to brush their teeth (get vaccinated) because their teeth already got cleaned. Brushing their their teeth (getting vaxxed) will help to prevent future trips to the dentist (reinfection), and will definitely lower their risk of disease even further. I don't buy this "I might choke on the toothpaste!" excuse

This is a terrible analogy, since most prospective studies show no benefit to twice yearly dental cleanings over regular brushing at home in terms of cavity prevention and prevention of gum disease

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

We are a loathsome species.  I used to think that the various scenarios of how "we aren't long for this planet" were ridiculously pessimistic.  I now want to go back and slap my past self for being so naive.  We're going to find a way to kill ourselves.  Maybe several, all at once.  The planet will be fine.  We just won't be players on it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimmyjazz 45891]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I think y’all are getting way too in the weeds on this. Is someone arguing we need to be checking titers on everyone to see who needs a booster? 

I am simply trying to understand the science.  Can you clarify what "periodic testing" would be testing for?  Beyond that, is there a non-zero threshold on that measurement that would indicate a reasonably robust level of immunity?

I mean, this whole discussion is centered around the option to test instead of prove vax status.  I just want to understand the test.

[Anastasis 23463]

36 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When @Anastasis and others refer to "seroconversion", is that shorthand for "presence of IgG and/or IgM antibodies in the blood"?  Assuming this to be true, do those markers decline as immunity wanes?  Is there a known, quantitative threshold that could be implemented as "passing" a test?

Yes, presence of antibodies. AB titers naturally wane over time; however, the immune system retains memory of how to mount an effective immune response via a variety of mechanisms. The immunological correlates of protection (AB or other marker thresholds) are not established for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

[jimmyjazz 45891]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, presence of antibodies. AB titers naturally wane over time; however, the immune system retains memory of how to mount an effective immune response via a variety of mechanisms. 

Is this where T-cell activity comes in?

What is the means by which immune response fades; e.g., the 120 day efficacy data we've seen for the various vaccines?

[NAVY 6740]

Yesterday I was volunteering/working a mobile vaccine clinic visiting an organization that had a newish vaccine mandate in place. Their deadline is coming up so we were on site to be as convenient as possible. We ended up doing lots of boosters but not a single first/second dose was administered. 
 

Really disappointing but not surprising at this point. I’ll keep trying. Glad the sentient are getting boosted doe 

[Anastasis 23463]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I just want to understand the test.

I think that a qualitative S or N serological AB test would suffice for establishing seroconversion (past infection triggering an immune response). 

If and when the correlates of protection are established, quantitative tests may be informative; however, as sawbonz points out, this opens a whole other can of worms. 

 

 

In the long run, while the mRNA vaccines are great and exceptional, what we need is a vaccine that delivers a robust sterilizing immunity.  Probably going to have to come from a nasally administered vaccine to elicit the "right" type of immune response. And durability would be unknown. 

 

[Anastasis 23463]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is this where T-cell activity comes in?

Both B and T cells. 

[DDD Dad 14326]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

AB titers naturally wane over time.

Not all antibodies wane to zero, though, correct?  I say this as I once had a case that involved Hep A exposures.  A positive IgG Hep A AB test reflected a prior exposure or vaccination, and from what I recall, would show up basically forever for someone.

Apparently for COVID-19 (and perhaps other COVIDs), antibody levels drop relatively quickly, based on what I've read over the last year.  No one really knows about how effective the T cell and B cell responses are for COVID-19 vaxxed or COVID-19 previously infected individuals, at least based on what I've read.

[Anastasis 23463]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Not all antibodies wane to zero, though, correct?  I say this as I once had a case that involved Hep A exposures.  A positive IgG Hep A AB test reflected a prior exposure or vaccination, and from what I recall, would show up basically forever for someone.

Right, some people still have circulating ABs from SARS1 and MERS over decade ago.  I recall some study vaguely that measured Spanish Flu AB levels like 80 years late and still showed detectable ABs.  The immune system is fucking fascinating. Awesome when it's working right.  Not so much if it goes off the rails.  

[Sawbonz 27542]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am simply trying to understand the science.  Can you clarify what "periodic testing" would be testing for?  Beyond that, is there a non-zero threshold on that measurement that would indicate a reasonably robust level of immunity?

I mean, this whole discussion is centered around the option to test instead of prove vax status.  I just want to understand the test.

I wouldn’t test. If you have documented covid infection or if you have documented covid vaccination you are exempt

 

testing doesn’t help, mainly because we know antibodies, whether from infection or vaccination, wane over several months, and we have no objective threshold for protection from infection. Also T cell immunity is most likely the main form of protection given what we know about other human coronaviruses and antibody titers tell you nothing about that 

[jimmyjazz 45891]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I wouldn’t test. If you have documented covid infection or if you have documented covid vaccination you are exempt

Within a certain timeframe, or any proof at all, regardless of when the infection or vaccination occurred?

We know that vaccine efficacy drops to some degree, at 3-4 months out, brand dependent.  I wouldn't be shocked if acquired immunity from infection shows a similar reduction.  Shouldn't this be accounted for?

[Sawbonz 27542]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Within a certain timeframe, or any proof at all, regardless of when the infection or vaccination occurred?

We know that vaccine efficacy drops to some degree, at 3-4 months out, brand dependent.  I wouldn't be shocked if acquired immunity from infection shows a similar reduction.  Shouldn't this be accounted for?

From an objective standpoint how would you account for it? From a public health standpoint by far the biggest issue is covid naive unvaccinated. The rest is just background noise

[jimmyjazz 45891]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

From an objective standpoint how would you account for it? From a public health standpoint by far the biggest issue is covid naive unvaccinated. The rest is just background noise

So it's your position that simply identifying those who can't prove prior covid infection or the vax status and regularly testing them should be the first step?

I'm not arguing the point.  There's a certain beauty in the simplicity, although as an employer I don't think I'd be all that comfortable with giving someone a pass just because they were sick or vaccinated a few years back.  (I'm time-traveling to the future here.)  Maybe the science would allow a sharper knife by then.

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

13 hours ago, brakeman said:

Will commercial air travel get more convenient and cheaper in the future? 

They really took it in the ass. Will they change?

 

Not sure if I am more triggered by lack of legend for the three lines or by lack of @Anastasis pointing it out before me.

[Sawbonz 27542]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So it's your position that simply identifying those who can't prove prior covid infection or the vax status and regularly testing them should be the first step?

I'm not arguing the point.  There's a certain beauty in the simplicity, although as an employer I don't think I'd be all that comfortable with giving someone a pass just because they were sick or vaccinated a few years back.  (I'm time-traveling to the future here.)  Maybe the science would allow a sharper knife by then.

Objectively why wouldn’t you? We are one and a half years into this. We know that the hospitals are not full of previously infected patients or vaccinated/unboosted people. Our goal has never been no infections or even no deaths or hospitalizations from infections. A reasonable goal would be levels of disease and healthcare utilization similar to influenza. Nothing I have seen so far indicates we are not headed that way among the vaccinated/ non booster and recovered infections groups
 

If you are really talking about mandatory boosters every 7 to 8 months then you are going to need titers on everybody and that makes absolutely no sense.

[jimmyjazz 45891]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If you are really talking about mandatory boosters every 7 to 8 months then you are going to need titers on everybody and that makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating mandatory anything.  Again, the current choice is vax or test, right?  Would you not be in favor of a slightly expanded version -- proof of infection or vax, or test?

[DDD Dad 14326]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Objectively why wouldn’t you? We are one and a half years into this. We know that the hospitals are not full of previously infected patients or vaccinated/unboosted people. Our goal has never been no infections or even no deaths or hospitalizations from infections. A reasonable goal would be levels of disease and healthcare utilization similar to influenza. Nothing I have seen so far indicates we are not headed that way among the vaccinated/ non booster and recovered infections groups
 

If you are really talking about mandatory boosters every 7 to 8 months then you are going to need titers on everybody and that makes absolutely no sense.

Or you just require proof of a vaccine within the last 8 months.  We require current driver licenses as a condition of driving; we require proof of current vaccines for travel to certain countries, and we require current vaccines to enroll in schools, etc.  Private companies should be able to require proof of current vaccines as a condition of continued employment.  Governmental entities should be able to require the same as a condition of contracting with the government or receiving benefits.

The whole idea of doing titers as an alternative is a fool's errand, one that IMO only coddles selfish toddlers. 

Keep it simple.  Absent some valid medical exemption, there is no indication of significant risk to the vaccine.  I've got no problem being required to show proof of current vaccine until such time as this thing gets down to an annual flu-type risk of outbreak.  To me it's not punishing the non-compliant, it's using the most efficient means to ensure the safety of the greater public at large.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by DDD Dad

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating mandatory anything.  Again, the current choice is vax or test, right?  Would you not be in favor of a slightly expanded version -- proof of infection or vax, or test?

This is how the European Green Passes work. You either show you are fully vaccinated, have recovered from an infection in the last 6 months (official documentation from a doctor, not just I think I had it and I am fine now), or have a negative test that isn't too old (usually 72 hours for PCR and 48 hours for an AntiGen).  However, once it has been longer than 6 months from your COVID recover, you either have to get vaccinated OR test.  And the testing SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO GET VACCINATED unless they are medically unable to.  Time to stop coddling idiots.

[Sawbonz 27542]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating mandatory anything.  Again, the current choice is vax or test, right?  Would you not be in favor of a slightly expanded version -- proof of infection or vax, or test?

I’m on the fence about testing in lieu of being vaccinated or having documented prior infection. Other than for those with legitimate exemptions. Rapid tests still have an unacceptably high false negative rate and asymptomatic spread is a problem 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Anastasis 23463]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m on the fence about testing in lieu of being vaccinated or having documented prior infection. Other than for those with legitimate exemptions. Rapid tests still have an unacceptably high false negative rate and a symptomatic spread is a problem 

This just speaks to the layered incoherence of the OSHA policy. 

[Sawbonz 27542]

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Or you just require proof of a vaccine within the last 8 months.  We require current driver licenses as a condition of driving; we require proof of current vaccines for travel to certain countries, and we require current vaccines to enroll in schools, etc.  Private companies should be able to require proof of current vaccines as a condition of continued employment.  Governmental entities should be able to require the same as a condition of contracting with the government or receiving benefits.

The whole idea of doing titers as an alternative is a fool's errand, one that IMO only coddles selfish toddlers. 

Keep it simple.  Absent some valid medical exemption, there is no indication of significant risk to the vaccine.  I've got no problem being required to show proof of current vaccine until such time as this thing gets down to an annual flu-type risk of outbreak.  To me it's not punishing the non-compliant, it's using the most efficient means to ensure the safety of the greater public at large.

 

We don’t even have required boosters at eight months at this point. We don’t have data that shows they are going to be clinically significant. I don’t see how you can start mandating vaccinations more than once a year. That’s never been done

[DDD Dad 14326]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We don’t even have required boosters at eight months at this point. We don’t have data that shows they are going to be clinically significant. I don’t see how you can start mandating vaccinations more than once a year. That’s never been done

My commentary was presupposing that boosters at eight months would be clinically significant.  I'm not mandating anything.  People smarter than me can figure out the appropriate rubric of timing and whether to include some means to show recent infection and recovery as an alternative if it's cost effective. 

I'm just saying I don't have a problem being required to show proof of a current vaccination (assuming they are made readily available at little or no cost), whatever that may ultimately mean.

Edited October 21, 2021 by DDD Dad

[Don Johnson 4752]

28 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

This is how the European Green Passes work. You either show you are fully vaccinated, have recovered from an infection in the last 6 months (official documentation from a doctor, not just I think I had it and I am fine now), or have a negative test that isn't too old (usually 72 hours for PCR and 48 hours for an AntiGen).  However, once it has been longer than 6 months from your COVID recover, you either have to get vaccinated OR test.  And the testing SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO GET VACCINATED unless they are medically unable to.  Time to stop coddling idiots.

I would think most of the "anti-mandate" crowd would gladly agree to something like this.  However, from reading the past 100 pages or so of this thread, I wouldn't think the CR would agree to any part of this.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

I would think most of the "anti-mandate" crowd would gladly agree to something like this.  However, from reading the past 100 pages or so of this thread, I wouldn't think the CR would agree to any part of this.  

I think the CR would be ok with this, but the "Proof of Recover" would have to be from a Doctor (not a titer test), and the recovery would have had to have been in the last 6 months.  So you would have had to have the record of the positive test and the subsequent negative tests to prove recovery.  A lot of folks do not have that.  

Also, on testing, you have to fucking pay for it.  Every time.  Basically, you are getting tested once every 3 days.  That is going to add up.  But hey, if that is what you want to do....

[Foosters 17842]

6 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I would think most of the "anti-mandate" crowd would gladly agree to something like this.  However, from reading the past 100 pages or so of this thread, I wouldn't think the CR would agree to any part of this.  

I think you've got it backwards. You think the anti-mandate crowd will be "ok" with having to provide paperwork from a doctor attesting to a positive Covid test in order to access businesses and services? Have you been following their arguments at all? And I'd have no problem with the above being the norm here. Sure as shit beats the current landscape.

[jimmyjazz 45891]

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I think the CR would be ok with this, but the "Proof of Recover" would have to be from a Doctor (not a titer test),

Why?  It's my understanding that the IgG and IgM antibodies aren't measurable until one is past the contagious period.  Essentially, if you show those antibodies, you have "recovered".

[Don Johnson 4752]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I think the CR would be ok with this, but the "Proof of Recover" would have to be from a Doctor (not a titer test), and the recovery would have had to have been in the last 6 months.  So you would have had to have the record of the positive test and the subsequent negative tests to prove recovery.  A lot of folks do not have that.  

Also, on testing, you have to fucking pay for it.  Every time.  Basically, you are getting tested once every 3 days.  That is going to add up.  But hey, if that is what you want to do....

Getting the negative "recovery" test would be easy.  You can get that at any time.

[wildcat09 29347]

9 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I would think most of the "anti-mandate" crowd would gladly agree to something like this.  However, from reading the past 100 pages or so of this thread, I wouldn't think the CR would agree to any part of this.  

Lol, the anti-mandate crowd isn't agreeing to shit.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Why?  It's my understanding that the IgG and IgM antibodies aren't measurable until one is past the contagious period.  Essentially, if you show those antibodies, you have "recovered".

Because, if you are ok with Titer tests, then you would have to continue getting those.  Hey, I am ok with that, but they have to pay for it.  Sorry, but none of that shit is free.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33867]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, the anti-mandate crowd isn't agreeing to shit.

yup, they're terrorists holding normalcy hostage. fuck them

[Don Johnson 4752]

7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I think you've got it backwards. You think the anti-mandate crowd will be "ok" with having to provide paperwork from a doctor attesting to a positive Covid test in order to access businesses and services? Have you been following their arguments at all? And I'd have no problem with the above being the norm here. Sure as shit beats the current landscape.

To access businesses and services?  No.  But then again, I've been vaccinated 8 months and have only shown my card once - to get into my kids summer camp.

To keep their employment?  To have infection put on equal footing as vaccination.  Yes.  I think many would see it as a big "victory."  

[956 Worldwide 34703]

27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, the anti-mandate crowd isn't agreeing to shit.

Exactly. Incidentally the EU COVID pass as described by @PenelopeWitherspoon (and so helpfully framed as a red herring by @Anastasis, even though it most certainly exists for 400 some odd million people and seems to be an example of what he wants in practice) was not intended as a sop to antivaxxers. Here in Europe, they did not allow or recommend vaccination for people recently recovered and this allows those people to travel and move freely while waiting for that period to expire.

And I’m fine with a system like that and with focusing on “COVID naive” people first. Most rational people who recovered from COVID will or have gone to get their shot anyway. The ones screaming the loudest about their natural immunity now were screaming about masks and social distancing earlier. I’m not fine with the constant goal post moving when what people are really doing is looking for an open door to undermine any real effort to get this under control. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

This just speaks to the layered incoherence of the OSHA policy. 

Well sure it does.  I'm a paper electron pusher in an office environment.  Yet I still had to take 5 hours of slip, trip and fall and forklift safety-type training this year, because some of our facilities do manufacturing and line work.  One size fits all apparently.

[Captainant 27638]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not fine with the constant goal post moving when what people are really doing is looking for an open door to undermine any real effort to get this under control. 

What would big brain contrarians shitpost about then?

[956 Worldwide 34703]

Also the testing option for COVID naive people needs to be phased out. A test confirms you don’t have COVID at the moment you take the test. If and when you do catch it, you’re more contagious and orders of magnitude more likely to end up on a vent sucking our health resources up. It’s by far a distant third best option, one that was needed only when there was no vax or the vax wasn’t available.

[Brisketexan 105077]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

This just speaks to the layered incoherence of the OSHA policy. 

....all of which could be obviated by one, simple step: 20% of our population should stop practicing olympic-level toddler-like oppositional defiance disorder, and get a vaccine that has been administered hundreds of millions of times with fewer dangerous side effects than fucking Tylenol.  That's it.  That's the easiest motherfucking answer.  Occam's motherfucking razor.  Instead, we are governed by idiots and Slocum's razor.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, the anti-mandate crowd isn't agreeing to shit.

Correct.  Because it is not about ANYTHING but oppositional defiance disorder.  We could implement a mandate that "thou shalt not pour gasoline all over yourself and then light yourself on fire," and within an hour, our streets would be full of FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS doing this:

Edited October 21, 2021 by Brisketexan

[Anastasis 23463]

21 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

and so helpfully framed as a red herring by @Anastasis, even though it most certainly exists for 400 some odd million people and seems to be an example of what he wants in practice

I think you are confused. The implementation of a testing program in the EU (which based on what I understand from the descriptions here involves serial diagnostic testing and is not what I am suggesting which is even easier to implement) in 400MM people precisely undermines the "tHe LogIstiCs aRe ToO HaRd" red herring. 

[956 Worldwide 34703]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think you are confused. The implementation of a testing program in the EU (which based on what I understand from the descriptions here involves serial diagnostic testing and is not what I am suggesting which is even easier to implement) in 400MM people precisely undermines the "tHe LogIstiCs aRe ToO HaRd" red herring. 

There’s no serial diagnostic testing. If at any time you test positive for COVID, an MD from the nationalized health system uploads a certificate into the nationalized digital COVID pass system, which talks to the EU system, after he signs off on your recovery. No “I think I had it” testing is part of it. And as mentioned…..we can’t have that here because we don’t have a national health system and we don’t have digital passes. And I don’t trust our network of private health providers.

[Anastasis 23463]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

"Proof of Recover" would have to be from a Doctor (not a titer test), and the recovery would have had to have been in the last 6 months.  So you would have had to have the record of the positive test and the subsequent negative tests to prove recovery. 

I interpreted the above as requiring serial diagnostic testing, but maybe that is not the requirement. Either way, the point stands. 

 

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 No “I think I had it” testing is part of it. 

Nobody here has suggested that it should be.  What has been suggested is proof of seroconversion via lab test. 

It doesn't need to be any harder than that.

[Don Johnson 4752]

10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There’s no serial diagnostic testing. If at any time you test positive for COVID, an MD from the nationalized health system uploads a certificate into the nationalized digital COVID pass system, which talks to the EU system, after he signs off on your recovery. No “I think I had it” testing is part of it. And as mentioned…..we can’t have that here because we don’t have a national health system and we don’t have digital passes. And I don’t trust our network of private health providers.

If we can trust hand written vaccination cards from Kroger, we can trust a note from a doctor.

[956 Worldwide 34703]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I interpreted the above as requiring serial diagnostic testing, but maybe that is not the requirement. Either way, the point stands. 

 

Nobody here has suggested that it should be.  What has been suggested is proof of seroconversion via lab test. 

It doesn't need to be any harder than that.

You’re also ignoring the third part— which is that it is a stop-gap for people who got infected before they could get the vaccine and NOT a long-term substitute for vaccination. 

[Sawbonz 27542]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not fine with the constant goal post moving when what people are really doing is looking for an open door to undermine any real effort to get this under control

No one on this thread is goalpost moving. There are arguments backed by facts you do not seem to agree with and you are going tu quoque instead of refuting those facts.  
 

Many of us are not OK with authoritarianism regardless of whether we are in agreement with the majority of a given authoritarian’s tenets

Edited October 21, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Sawbonz 27542]

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And I don’t trust our network of private health providers.

No offense but get the fuck out with this shit

[Sawbonz 27542]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

NOT a long-term substitute for vaccination. 

This is not known at this time to be true and the preliminary data we have suggest it is not

[956 Worldwide 34703]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No offense but get the fuck out with this shit

[Anastasis 23463]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

You’re also ignoring the third part— which is that it is a stop-gap for people who got infected before they could get the vaccine and NOT a long-term substitute for vaccination. 

Not really ignoring it.  I think that that justification makes sense given the underlying assumptions (which may or may not be true); however, I don't think that we are bound in this country to adopt that justification and the underlying assumptions as a constraint in our policy making. If there is a strong justification related to durability that is driven by clinical data, I am not dogmatic in my position and would reassess. But that would also open the can of worms that has been noted previously wrt the durability of the immune response to the vaccines as well.