Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

MC Fresh Breath

MC Fresh Breath 4074

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Dammit, now I have to go look.

Its not worth it.  @Celery Man posted a pretty sane response and the dimwits think they have some kind of point because Lobo asked about the thread being "CR'd."

They're too stupid to argue with, so I just dished out some middle fingers to Treynumbersdummy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Its not worth it.  @Celery Man posted a pretty sane response and the dimwits think they have some kind of point because Lobo asked about the thread being "CR'd."

They're too stupid to argue with, so I just dished out some middle fingers to Treynumbersdummy.

Yeah, I made it about halfway through page 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Good lord the DT is a cesspool.  Nominate changing it to FoxNewsDaily or something.

Dumbass one posts a news story about happiness in the USA.  Story itself directly points to the pandemic.  Then all the chimps start crying "CR" the moment anyone discusses exactly what the article is about.  

I only went in there to see how the ice storm stuff was affecting ya'll.   So my fault for clicking on any other thread I guess.  

Interesting. I read the whole thread just now and only saw that from one guy. It seemed a pretty reasonable discussion to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Fresh Breath

MC Fresh Breath 4074

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Interesting. I read the whole thread just now and only saw that from one guy. It seemed a pretty reasonable discussion to me.

If you only saw that from one guy, then we'll just agree to disagree.  I'm not going to quote all the posts here.  It was an admitted mistake on my part to even enter the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

If you only saw that from one guy, then we'll just agree to disagree.  I'm not going to quote all the posts here.  It was an admitted mistake on my part to even enter the thread.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to incite any sort of debate about it. I literally found that interesting in terms of how threads can be read differently.

I will add that the one guy I was alluding to was "Treynumbersdummy," as you put it, so we aren't on completely different pages.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

"U.S. Has Far Higher Covid Death Rate Than Other Wealthy Countries"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/01/science/covid-deaths-united-states.html

 

If you need to bypass the paywall:

https://archive.is/i7CX2

 

 

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywalls-clean/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

MSM and Surly Leftists- That seems reasonable.

Pretty much everyone you describe as a surly leftist is going to agree this is hypocritical. News flash, politicians of all stripes suck. That doesn't mean the underlying policy is bad. That said, I do think strict mask mandates are pointless given vaccination. I would encourage masks and mandate vaccination. But that's just me. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted (edited)

Cross posting from DT to the place where the [serious] discussions take place. 

In politicized regulatory environment, this move and the timing has to be viewed within the context of the recent departures at FDA in response to the booster push.  I am not sure that this approach moves forward outside that context. Contrast to the needless sandbagging of the initial EUAs for use in adults and it is all a bit schizophrenic appearing.  When we needed to move quickly to protect the most vulnerable to COVID, slow play. When we need to arguably be the most conservative to protect the least vulnerable, the FDA takes a totally unprecedented move. 

 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/02/worry-vaccinating-under-5-could-backfire/ 

The Food and Drug Administration’s willingness to consider authorizing a Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech for children under the age of 5 — without evidence yet that it would be protective — is raising concerns among some vaccine experts who fear the plan could backfire and undermine vaccine uptake in this group.

Pfizer and BioNTech confirmed Tuesday that they had been asked by the FDA to submit an application for the use of a two-dose vaccine in children 6 months to 4 years old. Data on a third shot would be submitted to regulators once they became available in the spring — ostensibly clearing the way for the agency to authorize a three-shot regimen for the youngest children who can get vaccinated. 

If the two-dose series is authorized by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, potentially sometime this month, parents who want to vaccinate children under 5 could begin to do so before Pfizer has proven that the vaccine is protective for this entire age group — something that doesn’t normally happen.

“It’s certainly a creative approach to trying to address the urgency that FDA and the White House is hearing from parents … for making these vaccines available for this younger age group,” said Jason Schwartz, an assistant professor of health policy at the Yale School of Public Health.

“But … the stakes are high and they’re never higher than for vaccines in this youngest age group, both for their effects on this vaccine and the effects on childhood vaccination and vaccine confidence generally.”

Pfizer announced before Christmas that in a clinical trial of children aged 2 to 4 years old, two doses of vaccine failed to generate antibody levels on par with those seen in people aged 16 to 25 after two shots. Paradoxically, two doses given to infants aged 6 months to 23 months did generate antibody levels similar to those seen in the 16- to 25-year-olds, levels that are deemed to equate with protection.

In both groups of little kids, the vaccines appeared to be safe and the side effect profile was tolerable. Side effects included fever and chills, which are not uncommon reactions to vaccines in early childhood. 

The companies decided to test whether adding a third dose would raise antibody levels to required levels. But the data from the modified trial aren’t expected until late March and the FDA appears to be unwilling to wait until then. A source told STAT that the agency’s independent vaccine expert panel, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, will meet Feb. 15 to review the data Pfizer is submitting with this application.

The idea of authorizing use of the first two doses while the third-dose data are pending is being framed as a way to allow parents eager to vaccinate children 4 and under to get a head start on the process, with a third dose to follow after review of the results of that part of the study.

None of the experts STAT spoke to for this article could recall a precedent for this approach. And several worried going down this path could erode willingness on the part of parents of young children to get them vaccinated. To date only about 20% of children aged 5 to 11 have received two doses of vaccine, according to CDC data.

“I don’t think authorizing two doses in children ages 2 to 4 years of age where effectiveness in this age group hasn’t been confirmed is going to convince the majority of parents to vaccinate their children,” said Norman Baylor, president and CEO of Biologics Consulting and a former head of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines. “If the vaccine in this age cohort is a three-dose vaccine, FDA should review the data from the three-dose series before authorizing the vaccine.”

In a poll released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 31% of parents of young children said they intend to have them vaccinated as soon as they are able. But 26% said they would not vaccinate children under the age of 5. A further 12% said they would only vaccinate their children if they were required to and 29% said they would take a “wait and see” approach.

Baylor said those results suggest following normal procedures would make more sense here. “The question is, where’s the fire?” he asked. “I think we can take a little time. If that third dose data is available in March, that’s not that long now.”

Schwartz has a vaccinated 8-year-old and a 2-year-old who was home from day care on Tuesday because a teacher tested positive for Covid. He suggested expediting the process for children 4 and younger will be welcomed by some parents, but won’t lead to a flood of vaccinated kids.

“To the extent that this is moving the clock ahead just by a few months, I think we should recognize that it will be a pretty limited number of families who will jump at this opportunity in the way that I have and in the way I probably would, depending on what the data look like,” he said.

Saad Omer, director of Yale University’s Institute for Global Health, said he understands concerns about what pursuing this plan could do to vaccine hesitancy among parents who aren’t convinced of the need to vaccinate children against Covid or the safety of the vaccines. But at this point, his expectations for vaccine uptake rates in children are not high.

“Childhood immunization coverage [for Covid] isn’t stellar anyway,” Omer said. “I don’t think this will particularly dent it.” 

Likewise, he wasn’t too concerned that this approach will provide ammunition to the burgeoning anti-vaccination movement. “The bottom line is contrarians will do what they do. That’s their schtick,” Omer said. “And anti-vaccine people will do what they always do.”

Malia Jones, an epidemiologist who teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and who specializes in vaccine hesitancy, said it has been clear for a while that getting children vaccinated against Covid is going to be an uphill battle. She worries that the low level of confidence in Covid vaccines for children will erode parental support for other vaccines. “This is the thing that keeps me up at night,” she said.

“I think already it’s kind of a disaster for vaccine uptake in kids,” Jones said of the prospects for persuading parents to vaccinate their children against Covid and whether the FDA’s approach here will influence them. “Is it throwing gasoline on a dumpster fire? Maybe. But it was already a dumpster fire.”

Edited by Anastasis
too much context.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Cross posting from DT to the place where the [serious] discussions take place. 

In politicized regulatory environment, this move and the timing has to be viewed within the context of the recent departures at FDA in response to the booster push.  I am not sure that this approach moves forward outside that context. Contrast to the needless sandbagging of the initial EUAs for use in adults and it is all a bit schizophrenic appearing.  When we needed to move quickly to protect the most vulnerable to COVID, slow play. When we need to arguably be the most conservative to protect the least vulnerable, the FDA takes a totally unprecedented move. 

 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/02/worry-vaccinating-under-5-could-backfire/ 

The Food and Drug Administration’s willingness to consider authorizing a Covid-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech for children under the age of 5 — without evidence yet that it would be protective — is raising concerns among some vaccine experts who fear the plan could backfire and undermine vaccine uptake in this group.

Pfizer and BioNTech confirmed Tuesday that they had been asked by the FDA to submit an application for the use of a two-dose vaccine in children 6 months to 4 years old. Data on a third shot would be submitted to regulators once they became available in the spring — ostensibly clearing the way for the agency to authorize a three-shot regimen for the youngest children who can get vaccinated. 

If the two-dose series is authorized by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, potentially sometime this month, parents who want to vaccinate children under 5 could begin to do so before Pfizer has proven that the vaccine is protective for this entire age group — something that doesn’t normally happen.

“It’s certainly a creative approach to trying to address the urgency that FDA and the White House is hearing from parents … for making these vaccines available for this younger age group,” said Jason Schwartz, an assistant professor of health policy at the Yale School of Public Health.

“But … the stakes are high and they’re never higher than for vaccines in this youngest age group, both for their effects on this vaccine and the effects on childhood vaccination and vaccine confidence generally.”

Pfizer announced before Christmas that in a clinical trial of children aged 2 to 4 years old, two doses of vaccine failed to generate antibody levels on par with those seen in people aged 16 to 25 after two shots. Paradoxically, two doses given to infants aged 6 months to 23 months did generate antibody levels similar to those seen in the 16- to 25-year-olds, levels that are deemed to equate with protection.

In both groups of little kids, the vaccines appeared to be safe and the side effect profile was tolerable. Side effects included fever and chills, which are not uncommon reactions to vaccines in early childhood. 

The companies decided to test whether adding a third dose would raise antibody levels to required levels. But the data from the modified trial aren’t expected until late March and the FDA appears to be unwilling to wait until then. A source told STAT that the agency’s independent vaccine expert panel, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, will meet Feb. 15 to review the data Pfizer is submitting with this application.

The idea of authorizing use of the first two doses while the third-dose data are pending is being framed as a way to allow parents eager to vaccinate children 4 and under to get a head start on the process, with a third dose to follow after review of the results of that part of the study.

None of the experts STAT spoke to for this article could recall a precedent for this approach. And several worried going down this path could erode willingness on the part of parents of young children to get them vaccinated. To date only about 20% of children aged 5 to 11 have received two doses of vaccine, according to CDC data.

“I don’t think authorizing two doses in children ages 2 to 4 years of age where effectiveness in this age group hasn’t been confirmed is going to convince the majority of parents to vaccinate their children,” said Norman Baylor, president and CEO of Biologics Consulting and a former head of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines. “If the vaccine in this age cohort is a three-dose vaccine, FDA should review the data from the three-dose series before authorizing the vaccine.”

In a poll released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 31% of parents of young children said they intend to have them vaccinated as soon as they are able. But 26% said they would not vaccinate children under the age of 5. A further 12% said they would only vaccinate their children if they were required to and 29% said they would take a “wait and see” approach.

Baylor said those results suggest following normal procedures would make more sense here. “The question is, where’s the fire?” he asked. “I think we can take a little time. If that third dose data is available in March, that’s not that long now.”

Schwartz has a vaccinated 8-year-old and a 2-year-old who was home from day care on Tuesday because a teacher tested positive for Covid. He suggested expediting the process for children 4 and younger will be welcomed by some parents, but won’t lead to a flood of vaccinated kids.

“To the extent that this is moving the clock ahead just by a few months, I think we should recognize that it will be a pretty limited number of families who will jump at this opportunity in the way that I have and in the way I probably would, depending on what the data look like,” he said.

Saad Omer, director of Yale University’s Institute for Global Health, said he understands concerns about what pursuing this plan could do to vaccine hesitancy among parents who aren’t convinced of the need to vaccinate children against Covid or the safety of the vaccines. But at this point, his expectations for vaccine uptake rates in children are not high.

“Childhood immunization coverage [for Covid] isn’t stellar anyway,” Omer said. “I don’t think this will particularly dent it.” 

Likewise, he wasn’t too concerned that this approach will provide ammunition to the burgeoning anti-vaccination movement. “The bottom line is contrarians will do what they do. That’s their schtick,” Omer said. “And anti-vaccine people will do what they always do.”

Malia Jones, an epidemiologist who teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and who specializes in vaccine hesitancy, said it has been clear for a while that getting children vaccinated against Covid is going to be an uphill battle. She worries that the low level of confidence in Covid vaccines for children will erode parental support for other vaccines. “This is the thing that keeps me up at night,” she said.

“I think already it’s kind of a disaster for vaccine uptake in kids,” Jones said of the prospects for persuading parents to vaccinate their children against Covid and whether the FDA’s approach here will influence them. “Is it throwing gasoline on a dumpster fire? Maybe. But it was already a dumpster fire.”

This is a bizarre move. Trial fails a low bar, trial altered, approve 2 shots anyway. But like they said, people who weren’t going to vaccinate their little kids still won’t. And people that were dying to vaccinate their little kids still will even without clear benefit. 
 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted (edited)

How it started:

 

 

How it's going:

 

From Dr. Sonnenday's response, long but well worth the read:

Quote

 

COVID Vaccine Requirement for Solid Organ Transplant Candidates

We deliberated as a Center, in multidisciplinary internal discussion and in consultation with colleagues at other transplant centers, for the better part of 3 months before making our decision in early December to require COVID vaccination in order be actively listed at our Center. We reviewed published data and our own Center experience about the outcomes of solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection, the efficacy and safety records of the available vaccines, and the relative efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination both before and after solid organ transplant and the initiation of immunosuppression. We also spent an equal amount of time scrutinizing the impact such a requirement could have on our patients, particularly patients from marginalized populations or isolated areas of the state that might not have equal access to or information about the vaccine. We queried our waitlist population for the prevalence of COVID vaccination prior to our policy (85-90%) and asked patients opposed to vaccination to share with us their views. Our policy was reviewed by our health system and University leadership, Office of General Counsel, and Ethics Committee.

I think it is important to view the COVID vaccine requirement at our Center, and at other transplant centers who have such a policy, in the context of the other responsibilities and requirements we ask of all transplant patients. These include, but are not limited to, tobacco cessation, weight loss in the setting of morbid obesity, age-appropriate cancer screening, cardiac testing to screen for cardiac dysfunction and coronary artery disease, pulmonary function testing, committed caregiver support, attendance at pre-transplant education classes, substance abuse agreements stating the requirement for abstinence as a condition to listing, and CDC recommended age-appropriate vaccines. We require these things not because they necessarily have anything to do with the cause of the patient’s organ failure; we require them because they help us identify and mitigate preventable causes of patient morbidity, mortality, and graft loss among immunosuppressed patients following solid organ transplant. To address your question specifically about hepatitis B vaccination series, we do require that of our transplant candidates. I realize in the current polarized public debate, COVID vaccine requirements are seen as a solitary effort by transplant centers to adjudicate around one issue. However, in fact, COVID vaccination requirements are completely in line with other transplant policies and requirements. Furthermore, the risk of severe illness and death that COVID vaccination mitigates among immunosuppressed transplant patients is far greater than the risk of events that are the subject of long existing requirements (such as the risk of major cardiac events, missed occult cancers, the impact of obesity, or tobacco-related morbidities).

Your question about previous infection, and the potential impact of natural immunity, is valid and I have appreciated the scrutiny you and others have brought to this issue. There are limited studies on the impact of previous COVID infection on the humoral and cellular immunity against SARS-CoV2 among immunosuppressed solid organ transplant recipients. There are data that suggest neutralizing antibody and cellular immunity persists past 6 months in up to 80% of patients (Transplantation 2021;105 p e52-e53; Kidney Int 2021; 99: 484-49; Kidney Int 2021; 100:238-242; total N = 95 patients). However, there are no data describing what happens to humoral and cellular immunity among unvaccinated transplant candidates with prior COVID-19 infection who then undergo solid organ transplant, with associated induction immunosuppression. One might reasonably assume it is less than the 80% protection reported in the studies above, which largely included stable transplant recipients who were years posttransplant. One other practical challenge, as you are aware, is that we cannot predict with any certainty the amount of immunosuppression that a given recipient might require, and the impact of events such as acute rejection that can necessitate a sudden and substantial increase in immunosuppression. I do hope that we learn more about the impact of prior infection in the end-organ failure population, and develop assays that provide a better sense of functional immunity rather than quantitative estimates of humoral and cellular responses.

Before giving my personal opinion on this issue, I would clarify a few additional points that we believe provide sound medical justification for our COVID vaccine policy. First, the risk of severe illness and death among unvaccinated solid organ transplant recipients is real and horrific. Initial reports from Wuhan, Europe, and New York reported death rates among solid organ transplant recipients as high as 30-50%. Even in the era of better antiviral therapies, improved critical care strategies, and monoclonal antibodies (which we have been using aggressively in transplant recipients), the death rate is still somewhere between 3 and 10% in published studies. In addition, the morbidity of COVID infection in these patients in terms of graft injury, secondary infection, chronic lung injury, and debilitation is substantial and intolerable.

Second, vaccination prior to transplant is clearly superior to vaccination after transplant and initiation of immunosuppression. Even with a “control” group of chronically ill end organ failure patients like the dialysis population, humoral and cellular responses appear much more robust and durable than in the post-transplant population.

Third, we believe the vaccines are exceedingly safe, particularly when compared to the many other interventions and medications that patients will require after transplant.

Finally, we offer exceptions to the vaccine requirement to patients who present to us critically ill in need of immediate transplant such that time to complete a vaccine series is not possible. Examples include patients with acute liver failure or severe cardiogenic shock in immediate need of transplant. We view these patients differently, as they did not have the time to consider the vaccine requirement or other usual pre-transplant required activities (for example, we don’t require such patients to attend required education classes or document tobacco cessation). These fulminant organ failure patients are rare, constituting less than 3-4% of patients transplanted nationally in the US.

In closing, I want to offer my personal thoughts about this topic. These are my own opinions but I think represent that of the vast majority of the transplant community and are in line with recommendations published by most of the major transplant societies.

We are humbled to work in what I believe is the most transformative field in medicine. We are committed to helping patients with end-organ failure regain their health and quality of life, when they have no other options. This is a solemn responsibility to which we commit our careers and much of our lives. But we carry one even greater responsibility, and that is to be the steward of the most precious resource in medicine – an organ donated by a living or deceased individual to save the live of another person. Without organ donation, none of this exists.

Furthermore, we have a profound mismatch in the supply of donor organs relative to supply. The consequences of that disparity are not annoying or inconvenient, they are deadly. To give a specific example, in recent years we have performed 8500-9000 liver transplants annually in the US. Each year, nearly 2000 people die on the waiting list or are removed because they have become too ill for transplant. Thus, for every 4-5 patients we transplant, one person dies who didn’t get their chance. In that context, any preventable post-transplant death or graft loss is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the patients on the list who could have potentially had that chance at transplant, and it is unacceptable use of the gift provided by the organ donor. I suspect if we in fact had the shortage of ventilators we feared in early 2020, and for every 4-5 patients we placed on ventilator, one person died without one, we would think much differently about who we placed on ventilators. These are not theoretical arguments or political debates, these are real lives that we witness saved and lost in our work every day. It is our duty to provide transplant patients the best possible outcome – for themselves first and foremost, for the other individuals who are still waiting and haven’t had their chance, and most of all to be good stewards for the gift of organ donation.

 

Compare that eloquent, passionate, and heartful defense to Dr. Attia's lukewarm mea culpa for calling his medical colleagues murders (its one of the last paragraphs of a many page newsletter addressing all the things that Dr. Attia definitely feels he is still right about and why criticism of him is unfair):

Quote

 

Chris’s attached response, which he literally wrote to me while sitting in the OR between cases, can be seen here. If you read this response, you can probably tell why I refer to Chris as, perhaps, the greatest doctor I’ve ever met.

After reading his letter, and speaking with Chris over the phone, I can honestly say I see his point of view with more clarity now. While there are inconsistencies in the requirements for vaccination to be a transplant recipient (e.g., it is not required to receive an annual flu vaccine), vaccine requirements (e.g., Hepatitis B vaccination) have been in place long before the arrival of COVID. More importantly, I now see how the best outcome for a transplant patient–someone who will spend the rest of their life immunocompromised–is likely better if they are vaccinated than if they are not. To that end, I will reverse my position on this particular mandate and I can only hope that everyone on an organ waiting list has the luxury of speaking with someone like Chris, if they are vaccine hesitant.

 

You'd think, after using his influence and audience to call the "greatest doctor" he ever met a murder in a very public way, it may deserve an equally public apology. But you will not find one here. At first, I thought @Skipper had pointed us to a good source for a slightly different take on some of the science. Now I just think he is an asshole and an egotist. It is amazing to me how he doesn't see that his off the cuff and ignorant comment will fuel distrust in medical science and vaccination, the very thing he says he is trying to protect with his "honest" conversations. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6103

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 At first, I thought @Skipper had pointed us to a good source for a slightly different take on some of the science. Now I just think he is an asshole and an egotist. It is amazing to me how he doesn't see that his off the cuff and ignorant comment will fuel distrust in medical science and vaccination, the very thing he says he is trying to protect with his "honest" conversations. 

He's definitely an egotist.   I'll say this.  He's had 2 tweets (tweet you reference and one asking for opinions on Djokovich Australia controversy) that made me think (i) the politics of all this is getting to him and (ii) he's guilty of firing off the cuff statements on social media without much thought just like most people.  He actually talked about it on his last Covid podcast and indicated his blood pressure had been raised lately while focusing on COVID and the logical inconsistencies from a policy perspective and then getting on social media.   I thought that was actually a really good follow up Covid podcast (finished it yesterday). Monica Ghandi was good.  It's worth a listen and does a good job separating what are the "facts" vs. what their opinions are.  There was a pretty good takedown of that Doctor on the Rogan show that started on the ant-vax spotify controversy and why he is full of shit.   As much as people want to throw those that question public policies as "anti-vax", if anyone actually listened it's pretty clear that's not the case.  

But Attia says he's done with Covid commentary for the foreseeable future.  Latest episode that started as I was finishing dog walk yesterday was heart rate volatility and impact of alcohol at night on sleep etc. which should be a depressing listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

He's definitely an egotist.   I'll say this.  He's had 2 tweets (tweet you reference and one asking for opinions on Djokovich Australia controversy) that made me think (i) the politics of all this is getting to him and (ii) he's guilty of firing off the cuff statements on social media without much thought just like most people.  He actually talked about it on his last Covid podcast and indicated his blood pressure had been raised lately while focusing on COVID and the logical inconsistencies from a policy perspective and then getting on social media.   I thought that was actually a really good follow up Covid podcast (finished it yesterday). Monica Ghandi was good.  It's worth a listen and does a good job separating what are the "facts" vs. what their opinions are.  There was a pretty good takedown of that Doctor on the Rogan show that started on the ant-vax spotify controversy and why he is full of shit.   As much as people want to throw those that question public policies as "anti-vax", if anyone actually listened it's pretty clear that's not the case.  

But Attia says he's done with Covid commentary for the foreseeable future.  Latest episode that started as I was finishing dog walk yesterday was heart rate volatility and impact of alcohol at night on sleep etc. which should be a depressing listen.

I don't think he is anti vax. He clearly isn't. I think he got caught up in the minor celebrity of holding a dissenting opinion (and, as I've said before I think he makes a few good points). It can be fun and exciting to challenge more mainstream thought. But, given his influence and the anti-science environment that has been forming, I think it is incredibly important that he exercise caution. I'd chalk this up to mere human error and over exuberance if wasn't for the complete lack of an actual apology. I find that incredibly distasteful. 

What really sucks is that thousands saw his tweet and will use it to reinforce their attacks on science. None of those folks are going to see the later change of heart (in part because of where he placed it in his newsletter). 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45560

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Pushing vaccines that haven't shown expected antibody response, at least for part of the under-5 YO age group, is a really bad move.  The "how can it hurt?" model has been scorned, and rightfully so, for alternative treatments like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc.  What's the difference?

Politics should not be informing public health policy.

  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pushing vaccines that haven't shown expected antibody response, at least for part of the under-5 YO age group, is a really bad move.  The "how can it hurt?" model has been scorned, and rightfully so, for alternative treatments like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc.  What's the difference?

Yeah, especially when for that an age group  that has no emergent need for vaccination. At the very least the safety data doesn't appear to show any concerns, but you still need to identify a benefit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The "how can it hurt?" model has been scorned, and rightfully so, for alternative treatments like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc.  What's the difference?

Stop being logical. 

The FDA is undermining their credibility. 

And it is not just this particular decision, nor the dysfunction on display with the prior pandemic related EUAs.

You have to bring the way that the monoclonals for AD played out into the discussion as well.

The FDA is largely comprised of very highly competent people. 

But it looks like a shit show over there right now based on the high visibility decisions being made. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Stop being logical. 

The FDA is undermining their credibility. 

And it is not just this particular decision, nor the dysfunction on display with the prior pandemic related EUAs.

You have to bring the way that the monoclonals for AD played out into the discussion as well.

The FDA is largely comprised of very highly competent people. 

But it looks like a shit show over there right now based on the high visibility decisions being made. 

Looking back the two top regulators quitting that specialized in vaccines was a huge tell. They knew what was coming. I ask, what is the emergency/urgency that causes the government to request an EUA application from Pfizer after the initial trial failed?!  Pfizer wasn’t going to and they’re like hey send it in now.  Wtf is going on?

 

Maybe it’s some of this unflagged disinformation that is causing government types to demand their toddlers get vaxxed?
 

false false false 


I thought that someone like this that is pushing falsehoods that are likely negatively influencing public health policy is supposed to be sanctioned or tagged somehow?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28691

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Looking back the two top regulators quitting that specialized in vaccines was a huge tell. They knew what was coming. I ask, what is the emergency/urgency that causes the government to request an EUA application from Pfizer after the initial trial failed?!  Pfizer wasn’t going to and they’re like hey send it in now.  Wtf is going on?

 

Maybe it’s some of this unflagged disinformation that is causing government types to demand their toddlers get vaxxed?
 

false false false 


I thought that someone like this that is pushing falsehoods that are likely negatively influencing public health policy is supposed to be sanctioned or tagged somehow?

side-dish-of-carrot-at.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

You know what's really telling?

Functionally every person on this thread who would be deemed a "crying lefty libtard" on this issue thinks that Dr. Emanuel's statement cited above is utter bullshit, makes no sense, and is ultimately harmful because it is false information.  And I suspect we would all very much like that statement corrected, posthaste.

Which is how responsible human beings view misinformation -- whether he just has it wrong, was careless, used shitty words, whatever, it doesn't matter, the message is false, and because it is non-credible, it harms the overall information picture.  So, we have a serious problem with it.

As opposed to many members of the purported "skeptic" crowd on here, who love the "just asking questions" Joe Rogan types, and think they should just keep on keeping on.

Honesty is believing that misinformation is misinformation.  It doesn't matter where it comes from, or what "side" it leans towards.  Dissemination of utter bullshit degrades the ability to focus on an accurate and credible message and truth, and is ultimately harmful.  So, it should fucking stop.  It would be nice if those of you "skeptics" crying about Dr. Emanuel's bullshit statement had as much concern about all the other misinformation out there.  But you don't.  And that's telling.

  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33843

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

Just mass disseminating misinformation. Like I said, waiting for the warning label on the tweet.

 

 Vaccinating your kids Is a no brainer, says the expert grossly misstating one side of the risk/benefit. 

so when can we expect your white paper showing us how we have erred and how you can save humanity?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17447

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Wtf

Actually listening to it, it seems like he just misspoke a bit. It didn't come across as dramatic live as in does in text. He agreed that the FDA's course of action for 2-5 is odd and said he'd understand parents being hesitant about vaccination for that age group right now. I wish he was asked follow up questions and given the opportunity to explain his statement. Given some of his other statements, I do know that he is concerned about the higher hospitalization rates for children seen with Omicron. So I suspect he was trying to summarize those concerns quickly and it just came out wrong. I do think he believes vaccination for kids 5 and over is a no brainer. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...