CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

What exactly are you proposing going forward?

Keep in mind we are STILL losing more Americans per week to covid than we do to diabetes as well as influenza and pneumonia (combined).

[Neonmoon 38,130]

18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Your post doesn't make any sense.  First, what does herd immunity mean in your context?  Herd immunity for long term protection is done.  There basically isn't anyone left that doesn't have either vax or natural infection.  Second, it's pretty much clear (has been since Delta) that herd immunity from transmission is never going to be a thing.  It mutates too quickly.  It's unfortunate but that's been clear for well over a year now.  Finally, why in the world would you not suggest limiting discussion/suggestions to specific populations.  The risk profile of a 75 year old vs. a 5 or 22 year old isn't  the same planet.  Treating the entire population as exactly the same is the exact opposite of 'following the science'.

I don’t think you understand the concept of herd immunity fully. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

The level and tone of antagonism directed at Skipper is a microcosm of the ability to communicate at a national level. 

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

Just now, HamsterHookah said:

The level and tone of antagonism directed at Skipper is a microcosm of the ability to communicate at a national level. 

Oh, give it a rest.  Maybe ole' Skip could stop being an obfuscating blowhard.

[elguapo 4,586]

2 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

The level and tone of antagonism directed at Skipper is a microcosm of the ability to communicate at a national level. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Just now, HamsterHookah said:

The level and tone of antagonism directed at Skipper is a microcosm of the ability to communicate at a national level. 

Listen here, you three times banned anti-vax sack of disingenuous dogshit. His questions or concerns should be directed to a medical doctor, not a message board. But they are not, he’s on a message board because he wants others to know he’s done his research and he’s right and all the doctors and scientists are wrong, he’s interpreted the studies himself. 

The only person I show antagonism towards on this entire website is shit heels like you. Get fucked. 

[TexArcher 38,006]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

I have kids and thus know dozens of kids.  Every single kid we know has had COVID.  Less than 1/2 the kids we know have been vaccinated.   It hasn't been a big deal for ANYONE we know vaccinated or not. You know why? Because statistically it's not a big deal for kids.  Period. Why are statistics and facts so hard for you?   We all know you hate kids so maybe just sit these out.

You do understand that kids can pass it on to other people, right?

Why is it so hard for you to do what the doctors tell you to do in the middle of the medical emergency of the last hundred years?

It takes about half-an-hour once or twice a year to stay up-to-date on vaccines and it takes 3 seconds to put a mask on before you enter a public place.  A lot of people have died because of the idiots who think "their freedom" is more important than the good of the group.  Fuck 100% of those people right in their stupid assholes.

[Skipper 6,190]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

he’s on a message board because he wants others to know he’s done his research and he’s right and all the doctors and scientists are wrong, he’s interpreted the studies

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

Holy shit.  "Physician", heal thyself.  

LMAO.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,142]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

And yet, you expect us to show our work, but you do not do the same.  Post them.  Show us.  

[Skipper 6,190]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

And yet, you expect us to show our work, but you do not do the same.  Post them.  Show us.  

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that posted a link to a study on this page to support a position.  See several posts up.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

29 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

I’m not a doctor. I don’t have degree in epidemiology. I don’t have time to wade into the current debate of CDC vaccine recommendations, more so, I don’t have the foundational knowledge base to understand either side of the argument with any usefulness. I’m sure there are disagreements within the field, hell, there are still some disagreements within climate science communities, the usefulness of the Oxford comma, and whether beans belong in chili. Science, like all things, isn’t perfect. There is nothing wrong with questioning science, but it should be questioned by other scientists, not by message board heroes. There nothing wrong with discussing it either, but just to be clear, everyone here can go find a link to support their argument, because again, we don’t have the knowledge base to understand what we are reading, and how it relates to the million other studies that have been performed. 

[YChang 3,461]

Seems like an appropriate video based on the recent activity in this thread. My main take away is we need to involve the social sciences more with messaging and the CDC fucked up with that big time.

 

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m sure there are disagreements within the field, hell, there are still some disagreements within climate science communities, the usefulness of the Oxford comma, and whether beans belong in chili. 

Dammit.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,114]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m not a doctor. I don’t have degree in epidemiology. I don’t have time to wade into the current debate of CDC vaccine recommendations, more so, I don’t have the foundational knowledge base to understand either side of the argument with any usefulness. I’m sure there are disagreements within the field, hell, there are still some disagreements within climate science communities, the usefulness of the Oxford comma, and whether beans belong in chili. Science, like all things, isn’t perfect. There is nothing wrong with questioning science, but it should be questioned by other scientists, not by message board heroes. There nothing wrong with discussing it either, but just to be clear, everyone here can go find a link to support their argument, because again, we don’t have the knowledge base to understand what we are reading, and how it relates to the million other studies that have been performed. 

Now you listen here motherfucker.  There is no goddamn debate to be had on whether or not beans belong in chili.  You shut your whore mouth with that nonsense.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m not a doctor. I don’t have degree in epidemiology. I don’t have time to wade into the current debate of CDC vaccine recommendations, more so, I don’t have the foundational knowledge base to understand either side of the argument with any usefulness. I’m sure there are disagreements within the field, hell, there are still some disagreements within climate science communities, the usefulness of the Oxford comma, and whether beans belong in chili. Science, like all things, isn’t perfect. There is nothing wrong with questioning science, but it should be questioned by other scientists, not by message board heroes. There nothing wrong with discussing it either, but just to be clear, everyone here can go find a link to support their argument, because again, we don’t have the knowledge base to understand what we are reading, and how it relates to the million other studies that have been performed. 

Beans don't belong in chili. It's not even a controversy.

[Anastasis 23,481]

FWIW, FDA VRBPAC will be meeting on Thursday to debate future booster strategy. Here is the briefing package: https://www.fda.gov/media/164699/download 

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

And a lay press article laying out some of the issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/health/covid-boosters-fda.html

 

 

 

F.D.A. Outlines a Plan for Annual Covid Boosters

In advance of a scientific meeting on Thursday, officials proposed offering new shots to Americans each fall, a strategy long employed against the flu.

To simplify the makeup and timing of the shots, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to retire the original vaccines and offer only the bivalent doses for primary and booster shots.Credit...Alisha Jucevic for The New York Times

 

Americans may be offered a single dose of a Covid vaccine each fall, much as they are given flu shots, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Monday.

To simplify the makeup and timing of the shots, the agency also is proposing to retire the original vaccines and to offer only bivalent doses for primary and booster shots, according to briefing documents published on Monday.

The proposal took some scientists by surprise, including a few of the F.D.A.’s own advisers. They are scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the country’s vaccine strategy, including which doses should be offered and on what schedule.

“I’m choosing to believe that they are open to advice, and that they haven’t already made up their minds as to exactly what they’re going to do,” Dr. Paul Offit, one of the advisers and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said of F.D.A. officials.

There was little research to support the suggested plan, some advisers said.

Spoiler

“I’d like to see some data on the effect of dosing interval, at least observational data,” said Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the advisers and editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. “And going forward, I’d like to see data collected to try to tell if we’re doing the right thing.”

Still, Dr. Rubin added, “I’d definitely be in favor of something simpler, as it would make it more likely that people might take it.”

Only about 40 percent of adults aged 65 and older, and only 16 percent of those 5 and older, have received the latest Covid booster shot. Many experts, including federal officials, have said that the doses are most important for Americans at high risk of severe disease and death from Covid: older adults, immunocompromised people, pregnant women and those with multiple underlying conditions.

In its briefing documents, the F.D.A. addressed the varying risks to people of different ages and health status.

“Most individuals may only need to receive one dose of an approved or authorized Covid-19 vaccine to restore protective immunity for a period of time,” the agency said. Very young children who may not already have been infected with the virus, as well as older adults and immunocompromised people, may need two shots, the documents said.

But some scientists said there was little to suggest that Americans at low risk needed even a single annual shot. The original vaccines continue to protect young and healthy people from severe disease, and the benefit of annual boosters is unclear.

Most people are “well protected against severe Covid disease with a primary series and without yearly boosters,” said Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious disease physician and senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The F.D.A. advisers said they would like to see detailed information regarding who is most vulnerable to the virus and to make decisions about future vaccination strategy based on those data.

“How old are they? What are their comorbidities? When was the last dose of vaccine they got? Did they take antiviral medicines?” Dr. Offit said. At the moment, the national strategy seems to be, “‘OK, well, let’s just dose everybody all the time,’” he said. “And that’s just not a good reason.”

According to the F.D.A.’s suggested plan, officials would choose the annual vaccine’s composition each June, targeted to fight whatever variant is circulating.

But this year, the booster was quickly outpaced by newly evolved variants. It might make more sense to develop vaccines that target parts of the coronavirus other than the so-called spike protein, which changes less frequently, some researchers said.

They also criticized the agency’s proposal to use the current “bivalent” vaccine, which was designed to counter both the original Wuhan variant and the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants that were circulating last summer, when the agency decided on the makeup of the booster doses.

Some studies have suggested that combining both variants in the booster dose has undermined their effectiveness. Because of a biological phenomenon called imprinting, preliminary research suggests the bivalent vaccine elicits a stronger immune response to the ancestral variant than to the newer variants.

A monovalent vaccine targeted only to the newer variants might have been more powerful, experts said.

“This makes no sense, based on what we’ve learned from the current bivalent vaccine and imprinting,” Dr. Gounder said of the F.D.A.’s proposal. “Why not switch to a monovalent Omicron vaccine?”

The F.D.A. advisers said they hoped the meeting on Thursday would allow for robust discussion of those questions. But others were more skeptical.

The voting questions “are framed in such a way as to force a certain outcome,” Dr. Gounder said.

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

6 hours ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

The regulators continue to undermine themselves. There have been key defections from the FDA over the booster strategy. People that pay attention to these sorts of things and understand what is being discussed recognize what is happening and the damage to the credibility of the FDA and the CDC. I strongly disagree with this condescending notion that someone is a "message board hero" for wanting to discuss and debate these topics. Analogizing to climate change debate is bullshit coded rhetoric. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,142]

6 hours ago, Skipper said:

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that posted a link to a study on this page to support a position.  See several posts up.

Lol.  Yeah, from Nature Communication.  Any other work you want to post?  Sorry, but you’ve been anti-vax from minute one here.  Maybe go back to Daily Texan and take Ana with you.

[Willfully Horn 8,046]

@Skipper, the vaccine is good at two things, reducing the chance of infecting others, and lessening the harm of infection. Given the likelihood that children will be infected repeatedly, as will adults, minimizing the effects of Covid infection is critical, for there is evidence that subsequent infection is more harmful than the first.

As you noted, the belief that herd immunity will solve the Covid problem was wrong. I suggest that your belief that Covid will negligibly affect healthy kids and college students might also be wrong. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/repeat-covid-is-riskier-than-first-infection-study-finds-2022-11-10/

Edited January 24, 2023 by Willfully Horn

[Anastasis 23,481]

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. It's wild how discussions about COVID vaccine deployment and boosting strategy have become this in-group/out-group political signal. If discussing and debating the booster strategy makes one anti-vax, there are a lot of physicians and epidemiologists and former FDA officials that are somehow now classified as anti-vax because they want data and hard endpoints. What a world. There are a lot of lurkers and objective readers of the exchange of the last few pages. It's hard to imagine any of them read P's posts and think "yeah, that's a really well thought out and considered position, the Nature portfolio of medical journals is garbage". 

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. It's wild how discussions about COVID vaccine deployment and boosting strategy have become this in-group/out-group political signal. If discussing and debating the booster strategy makes one anti-vax, there are a lot of physicians and epidemiologists and former FDA officials that are somehow now classified as anti-vax because they want data and hard endpoints. What a world. There are a lot of lurkers and objective readers of the exchange of the last few pages. It's hard to imagine any of them read P's posts and think "yeah, that's a really well thought out and considered position, the Nature portfolio of medical journals is garbage". 

Holy shit, could you be any more condescending or biased?

[Don Johnson 4,755]

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The regulators continue to undermine themselves. There have been key defections from the FDA over the booster strategy. People that pay attention to these sorts of things and understand what is being discussed recognize what is happening and the damage to the credibility of the FDA and the CDC. I strongly disagree with this condescending notion that someone is a "message board hero" for wanting to discuss and debate these topics. Analogizing to climate change debate is bullshit coded rhetoric. 

20-40 year olds are like 70-80% vaccinated. Yet, that same age group - as parents - has made the decision to vaccinate their children at the following rates:

6 months to 2 years - 5%
2-4 years - 8%
5-11 - 38%

The CDC recommends that all of the above should be vaccinated  

These are not right wing, anti vax crazies. Well, some might be, but when you are talking about 90%+ in some age groups, it’s safe to say that the public does not trust that the CDC knows what’s best for their children. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, could you be any more condescending or biased?

WRT to the former, I can certainly try.  However, I am not sure that I can exceed the condescension displayed here by the people demanding data from posters to support their position while they refuse to consider the same request to the regulators dictating public health policy. 

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

WRT to the former, I can certainly try.  However, I am not sure that I can exceed the condescension displayed here by the people demanding data from posters to support their position while they refuse to consider the same request to the regulators dictating public health policy. 

You literally missed half the posts today.  Dude.  "Show your work."

For fuck's sake.

Edited January 24, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Anastasis 23,481]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You literally missed half the posts today.  Dude.  "Show your work."

For fuck's sake.

I don't think that I missed anything.  What are you asking me to show?  Maybe you don't understand how evidence based medicine and how regulatory decision making is supposed to work?

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that I missed anything.  What are you asking me to show?  Maybe you don't understand how evidence based medicine and how regulatory decision making is supposed to work?

Maybe you missed the "show your work" missive.  Unsurprising.

[Anastasis 23,481]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe you missed the "show your work" missive.  Unsurprising.

I am still not sure what position you are asking me to prove up with evidence.

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am still not sure what position you are asking me to prove up with evidence.

Read the thread.  I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for you to suss out the basic conflict of the day, but maybe I'm overestimating things.

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Read the thread.  I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for you to suss out the basic conflict of the day, but maybe I'm overestimating things.

TBH, I find it hard to pin down exactly what point y'all were arguing. I do see that the only one that posted anything resembling data for consideration was dismissed cause they posted a peer-reviewed paper from the Nature portfolio. Which was dismissed for some reason without any actual discussion of the data. Looks like a clown show to me, so not surprised that you would be front and center. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

Is the condescension level now approaching an acceptable standard?

[jimmyjazz 46,067]

Well, I'm not interested in leading pigs through the data trough.  That's your thing.  The data are out there, in prison studies among others.  I summarized what I previously read at a high level.

We get it, you're Rand Paul, with hopefully better hair.  You certainly aren't any smarter or easier to deal with.  Yay, liberty!

[tchookem 3,905]

The level and tone of antagonism directed at Skipper is a microcosm of the ability to communicate at a national level. 

Motherfucker, how many different usernames have you used on this thread alone?

[Anastasis 23,481]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I'm not interested in leading pigs through the data trough.  That's your thing.

Like throwing pearls before swine. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

On 1/20/2023 at 10:28 AM, Skipper said:

Yep.  The vast majority of the educated people I know got the initial vaccine but have since been making their own decisions on kids, boosters etc. and don't really think a right or wrong answer.  Except for this one friend of my wife's that wears "trust the science" like a badge of honor.  Their family has had COVID at least 2X (maybe 3, who's counting) and each have gotten themselves and their kids vaxed/boosted as early as possible (as in the day available while making sure everyone knows about on social media).  I mean their recently turned 6 year old has at least 2 (maybe 3) confirmed infections (that were never a big deal) + 4 shots in the last 2 years.  That is flat out insane to me and I can't imagine any Dr. that actually has dug into the research would advise that is actually needed or should even be recommended.  But that's what the CDC, in their refusal to provide any nuanced guidance, are technically going with.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

Skipper has stated Doctors that dig into the research wouldn’t recommend Covid vaccinations for kids. I’m not a doctor. That is my point. They are the ones that should be digging into the research and they currently recommend vaccinations. (Yes, I understand there is an argument that CDC doctors are providing improper recommendations)
 

11 hours ago, Skipper said:

I have kids and thus know dozens of kids.  Every single kid we know has had COVID.  Less than 1/2 the kids we know have been vaccinated.   It hasn't been a big deal for ANYONE we know vaccinated or not. You know why? Because statistically it's not a big deal for kids.  Period. Why are statistics and facts so hard for you?   We all know you hate kids so maybe just sit these out.

10 hours ago, Skipper said:

Then what exactly is the benefit to the college population specifically or society generally by boosting healthy college students.  Show your work.  Because on an individual basis, there is actually data that net harm may be statistically more likely than net benefit (both extremely rare obviously).

The work is provided below by Willfully Horn. The study shows reinfection causes worse health outcomes. 

10 hours ago, Skipper said:

Very short term benefit for infection meaning no real population level benefit.  Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine | Nature Communications

“In conclusion, this study demonstrates significant waning of VE of the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine against infection within a few months after administration, though significance was not reached as to a milder waning effect against severe disease, probably due to limited numbers. This waning effect against infection should prompt policy discussion as to vaccine development and future dose allocation, particularly to low-risk populations. Additional information could assist to comprehensively estimate the effectiveness of the three-dose strategy.”

This study shows the vaccines efficacy wanes after a couple months agains infection, however no significance was reached to show any waning effect against severe disease. 

9 hours ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

 

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

@Skipper, the vaccine is good at two things, reducing the chance of infecting others, and lessening the harm of infection. Given the likelihood that children will be infected repeatedly, as will adults, minimizing the effects of Covid infection is critical, for there is evidence that subsequent infection is more harmful than the first.

As you noted, the belief that herd immunity will solve the Covid problem was wrong. I suggest that your belief that Covid will negligibly affect healthy kids and college students might also be wrong. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/repeat-covid-is-riskier-than-first-infection-study-finds-2022-11-10/

“Altogether, the findings show that reinfection further increases risks of all-cause mortality and adverse health outcomes in both the acute and postacute phases of reinfection. The findings highlight the clinical consequences of reinfection and emphasize the importance of preventing reinfection by SARS-CoV-2.”

 

Going through all of these posts, it’s not hyperbolic to say that Skipper is anti-vaccine, even though I didn’t say that, but nowadays I understand how even the implication may be construed. My apologies. He’s definitely not pro-vaccine for non adults. My earlier point still stands, that none of use are doctors, and while we can all google something, and find a study to support an argument, that doesn’t mean we know what we’re reading. These are just two reports. Did we all read the hundreds and thousands of other reports, and how they fit together? Did we all spend years studying statistical analysis of medical reports? 

 

[Skipper 6,190]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Skipper has stated Doctors that dig into the research wouldn’t recommend Covid vaccinations for kids. I’m not a doctor. That is my point. They are the ones that should be digging into the research and they currently recommend vaccinations. (Yes, I understand there is an argument that CDC doctors are providing improper recommendations)
 

I never said that.   I said that I don't think any PED that has dug into the data would recommend that a child that a healthy young child that is both boosted and has 2 confirmed natural infections in a 2 year window would state it's necessary to continue boosting as soon as possible.  My personal PED I discussed with recommended vax but didn't feel strongly after our kids had a natural infection that was a non-event.  Basically likely no real benefit or harm was my takeaway.

[Skipper 6,190]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. 

Vaxed and Boosted  but apparently anti-vax on this board.   Just like numerous Biden voters are "Republicans" any time any liberal positions are challenged over here. The group think is strong.  

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Then what exactly is the benefit to the college population specifically or society generally by boosting healthy college students.  Show your work.  Because on an individual basis, there is actually data that net harm may be statistically more likely than net benefit (both extremely rare obviously).

Because college students are around-

-professors
-grandparents
-staff members
-parents

And not every college student is a strapping athlete?

Young =/= perfect health

[Anastasis 23,481]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Vaxed and Boosted  but apparently anti-vax on this board.

Sorry, I was told that you were anti-vax from minute one and you should go back to another sub while someone in the background whined about condescension. 

[Foosters 17,875]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

Just like numerous Biden voters are "Republicans" any time any liberal positions are challenged over here. The group think is strong.  

Care to name one?

[Willfully Horn 8,046]

Authority is less about consent of the governed and more about a shared belief that authorities know what the hell they are doing, and that they do so under the rule of truth, to paraphrase a Michael Ventura observation. The CDC’s truth has been called into question, but what I find most telling is the implication that everyone is wrong, except for the outlier dissidents.

John Hopkin’s, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and the American Lung Organization all agree that children should be vaccinated. But, it’s all a big conspiracy. The deep state. This ongoing narrative makes Putin types happy. 
 

Color me surprised.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiy54-Fx9_8AhXXlGoFHVZJBQAQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lung.org%2Fblog%2Fwhy-children-should-get-covid-19-vaccine&usg=AOvVaw3HbsVHNCEsTvCjLad3Ldte
 

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parents-need-to-know
 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Willfully Horn
citation

[Bookman 4,639]

19 hours ago, Skipper said:

If you have data that evidences there is a benefit to boosting healthy college students please share.

That's why? Interesting.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

8 hours ago, Skipper said:

I never said that.   I said that I don't think any PED that has dug into the data would recommend that a child that a healthy young child that is both boosted and has 2 confirmed natural infections in a 2 year window would state it's necessary to continue boosting as soon as possible.  My personal PED I discussed with recommended vax but didn't feel strongly after our kids had a natural infection that was a non-event.  Basically likely no real benefit or harm was my takeaway.

Apologies. Your original post that I quoted was not clear. So your personal PED did recommend vaccination? Or recommended it but not strongly due to your child’s medical history? Or didn’t recommend vaccination? 

[The Royal We 3,072]

Yea, that's a little confusing.  So your PED just hasn't dug into the data yet?

I was going to make a crack about listening to the experts- unless they contradict your priors, but I realized I'm doing the exact same thing in reverse.  My PCP is a little kooky and was telling me I didn't really need the vax (because I was young and healthy) even during the early OG waves when most everyone was clamoring to get a shot.  I ignored his advice and got the shot as soon as I could because I live close to grandparents and didn't want to be the one to get them sick.

It is a bit confusing to know what's best for my 3 kids.  They've all gotten the shot and had natural infections since then that have all been pretty much non events.  The data seem all over the place and anyone can find a study to support whatever the believed in the first place.  My oldest is a 13 y.o. boy and is really the only one that falls into a category where the risk/reward of the vax seems to possibly be in question.  But from what I've read, even for his age group the probabilities of heart issues is greater from covid infection than it is from the vax.

[Don Johnson 4,755]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Going through all of these posts, it’s not hyperbolic to say that Skipper is anti-vaccine, even though I didn’t say that, but nowadays I understand how even the implication may be construed. My apologies. He’s definitely not pro-vaccine for non adults. 

Using that same logic, is it hyperbolic to say that the majority of parents of young children are anti-vaccine, or definately not pro vaccine?  Most have come to the exact same conclusion as skipper.

90%+ of parents of 6 mos-4 years are "anit-vax", including 85%+ in both California and New York.

[Skipper 6,190]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Apologies. Your original post that I quoted was not clear. So your personal PED did recommend vaccination? Or recommended it but not strongly due to your child’s medical history? Or didn’t recommend vaccination? 

Recommended when available (before officially available) then by the time we saw him again, both kids had COVID (complete non-events, colds we'd had that year were worse) and it was a soft rec.  Was not pushing it at all.  Basically said could make it less likely they would get it again soon but good to know they have some immunity and it wasn't meaningful.  FWIW - I had discussions about Covid and kids generally with numerous doctors when my son was hospitalized at Texas Children's this fall (random/rare throat infection) when it was absolutely jam packed with sick kids (8 hour ER wait, etc.). It was all flu and RSV.  They were seeing some kids test + for Covid in the ER but almost all upper respiratory admissions were flu and RSV and really no COVID per multiple doctors.

Regardless, this thread went off the rails of my original point and I'm not going to have as much time to bicker next couple of days.  COVID is really barely on my radar at this point and whether or not people or their kids continue to get boosted is a personal choice, and outside of the high risk population, (who are also backstopped by Paxlovid) I just don't think it will move the needle from a personal or societal standpoint.  My concern is that the need/benefit for the shots were oversold in young population and that is having an impact on uptake of the actual necessary/beneficial vaccines. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of that podcast that was posted yesterday but I agree the messaging has been terrible and while the anti-vax messaging is also to blame, I think we're just beginning to see the fallout.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Skipper

[Neonmoon 38,130]

11 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Using that same logic, is it hyperbolic to say that the majority of parents of young children are anti-vaccine, or definately not pro vaccine?  Most have come to the exact same conclusion as skipper.

90%+ of parents of 6 mos-4 years are "anit-vax", including 85%+ in both California and New York.

Cool. I know you want to turn this into a label argument, but I’d rather not. If you are correct with your parental statistics, that saddens me. Of course, we also see low Flu vaccinations. I understand they’re both personal choices. I advocate for Flu vaccinations too because not only does it protect or lessen the Flu for me, but also helps lessen the flu in general for more vulnerable people. Same principle, it serves me no purpose to get the MMR vaccine. I did because I believe, as my parents did, that protecting the vulnerable in society is important. 

9 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Recommended when available (before officially available) then by the time we saw him again, both kids had COVID (complete non-events, colds we'd had that year were worse) and it was a soft rec.  Was not pushing it at all.  Basically said could make it less likely they would get it again soon but good to know they have some immunity and it wasn't meaningful.  FWIW - I had discussions about Covid and kids generally with numerous doctors when my son was hospitalized at Texas Children's this fall (random/rare throat infection) when it was absolutely jam packed with sick kids (8 hour ER wait, etc.). It was all flu and RSV.  They were seeing some kids test + for Covid in the ER but almost all upper respiratory admissions were flu and RSV and really no COVID per multiple doctors.

Regardless, this thread went off the rails of my original point and I'm not going to have as much time to bicker next couple of days.  COVID is really barely on my radar at this point and whether or not people or their kids continue to get boosted is a personal choice, and outside of the high risk population, (who are also backstopped by Paxlovid) I just don't think it will move the needle from a personal or societal standpoint.  My concern is that the need/benefit for the shots were oversold in young population and that is having an impact on uptake of the actual necessary/beneficial vaccines. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of that podcast that was posting but I agree the messaging has been terrible and while the anti-vax messaging is also to blame, I think we're just beginning to see the fallout.

So your PED did recommend the vaccination for your child, but after learning the updated medical history, revised the recommendation as a soft recommendation because of recent infection. That is a little different than the message of your previous posts where you said doctors need to dig into the science, Covid doesn’t affect kids, etc. Do you not agree?

 

[Skipper 6,190]

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Cool. I know you want to turn this into a label argument, but I’d rather not. If you are correct with your parental statistics, that saddens me. Of course, we also see low Flu vaccinations. I understand they’re both personal choices. I advocate for Flu vaccinations too because not only does it protect or lessen the Flu for me, but also helps lessen the flu in general for more vulnerable people. Same principle, it serves me no purpose to get the MMR vaccine. I did because I believe, as my parents did, that protecting the vulnerable in society is important. 

So your PED did recommend the vaccination for your child, but after learning the updated medical history, revised the recommendation as a soft recommendation because of recent infection. That is a little different than the message of your previous posts where you said doctors need to dig into the science, Covid doesn’t affect kids, etc. Do you not agree?

 

I don't necessarily agree.  It was still "recommended" but his message was take it or leave it. No hard sell because otherwise healthy and no clear benefit (benefit was it might make it less likely they get it again the next couple of months).  See above post from Don on uptake stats.  You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe).  You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold.   My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available". It's a nuance but I think a nuance that matters from a trust standpoint. That's what concerns me.  You are going to have some portion of those same parents that aren't going to trust other vaccine recs that actually do provide a clear and convincing benefit.   It's a point one of the dr's in that podcast posted yesterday was making to some extent before I had to turn it off.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

I don't necessarily agree.  It was still "recommended" but his message was take it or leave it. No hard sell because otherwise healthy and no clear benefit (benefit was it might make it less likely they get it again the next couple of months).  See above post from Don on uptake stats.  You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe).  You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold.   My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available". It's a nuance but I think a nuance that matters from a trust standpoint. That's what concerns me.  You are going to have some portion of those same parents that aren't going to trust other vaccine recs that actually do provide a clear and convincing benefit.   It's a point one of the dr's in that podcast posted yesterday was making to some extent before I had to turn it off.

There is a lot to unpack here. 

1.  "You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe)."

           - I don't have the time nor inclination to provide you with all the studies, trials, and etc. that vaccinating kids is beneficial to the the child and the community at large. There was a study posted by Willfully Horn on this thread that showed how multiple infections led to worse health outcomes, but yet, you ignore that data point because it does not fit the narrative you want to believe. Yes, I read the study you provided, and agreed with, and I'm sure it is the reason why your doctor did not "hard sell" you on your child being boosted, because they had a recent infection, and it would serve no purpose getting boosted. That is not incongruous with other vaccine recommendations. But to my larger point this entire time, I'm not a doctor, and reading medical studies should be left to the people who know how to interpret not only the presented here but along with the other million studies. 

2.  "You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold."

            -  This statement is a good example of anti-vaccination rhetoric. My child had the Flu/Measles/Chickenpox/Etc and they were fine. That could be true, however, that doesn't mean every person/child will be fine after the Flu/Measles/Chickenpox/Etc. Increasing vaccinations in the entire community better protects the entire community.

 

3. "My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available".

              - Again, this in untrue. Refer to Willfully Horn's post about multiple infections leading to worse outcomes as one example. Not to mention, you don't have any evidence presented so far to support this claim. Do I have the time to find all the studies done that the CDC considered to show you that covid vaccinations, and vaccinations in general, benefit the population as a whole? No I don't. Do I believe the CDC, and the medical community at large, have recommended vaccinations without doing any studies proving their benefit? No I do not. 

4. Is there a communication issue? Absolutely. Your distrust of the information has proven this, and clearly the messaging needs to be refined and simpler, with access to all the supporting information. There may already be a resource like that. I don't know, but I'm not one that requires it to agree to vaccinations. 

Okay, done with lunch break, need to do more work.