CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Sawbonz 28081]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I get the observation of hospital load, and what you state isn't too different than what I've seen reported in the press, but there are apparently some regions that are being slammed.

Case counts are primarily a function of measurement and reporting, and not necessarily disease permeation.  

I just think it's premature to speak of "opening up" when we are currently losing more Americans per day than we have, on average, throughout the pandemic.  If messaging is so important, then let's not gloss over that hugely important point.

Well we also currently have up to 3 times as high a spike in new cases compared to previous surges and thr death rates are below those. We are running out of people who have not been exposed, and just about everyone who wants the vax has had it

[jimmyjazz 46972]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Well we also currently have up to 3 times as high a spike in new cases compared to previous surges and thr death rates are below those. We are running out of people who have not been exposed, and just about everyone who wants the vax has had it

Like I said, case counts are not particularly reliable.  Hospitalization and deaths are the metrics we should focus on, and they aren't all that different now than they have been at the worst points in the pandemic.  Do you disagree?  

[jimmyjazz 46972]

To put a finer point on it, we are currently at 60% of the peak mortality rate of this pandemic.  Somebody make a better case for letting off the brakes than I've heard so far, because I think a whole bunch of people are just fatigued and no longer give a shit, which should NOT be an input into public health policy, even if it's docs saying it.  Hell no.  Bad science, bad policy.

[Sawbonz 28081]

46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I said, case counts are not particularly reliable.  Hospitalization and deaths are the metrics we should focus on, and they aren't all that different now than they have been at the worst points in the pandemic.  Do you disagree?  

Yes. Reported case counts underestimate total cases. Even if you assume a higher rate of testing with this surge as the only  reason for the increased case count,which I have not seen posited anywhere, the deaths are down 40%. Assuming that is not the case, the sheer number of increased reported cases dwarfs any of the previous surges.
 

The current surge is 3x the size of the surge last January and deaths are 60% of what they were. That’s much different. And almost all are unvaccinated by choice which matters to me

 

Edited for clarity 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Sawbonz 28081]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

To put a finer point on it, we are currently at 60% of the peak mortality rate of this pandemic.  Somebody make a better case for letting off the brakes than I've heard so far, because I think a whole bunch of people are just fatigued and no longer give a shit, which should NOT be an input into public health policy, even if it's docs saying it.  Hell no.  Bad science, bad policy.

Put the daily case graph next to this one

[jimmyjazz 46972]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Put the daily case graph next to this one

IT.  DOES.  NOT.  MATTER.

People are dying at nearly unprecedented levels.

I am so fucking over this whole thing, soup to nuts, masks to vaccines, "social distancing", whatever the fuck people don't want to do.

We blew it.  You're not helping.  The message is garbled, it's not driven by science, and we've suffered an unimaginable number of deaths as a result.  But sure, open it up, at a time when we are currently losing MORE Americans per day than on average due to this disease, per day.  Explain that policy.

 

Quote

Even if you assume a higher rate of testing with this surge, which I have not seen posited anywhere

Are you quite literally high?

[Skipper 6406]

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Post fringe waco article. Get called out on it. Cry about it. 

Why are you ant-vaccine mandate? Is it just Covid or does this include all vaccines? Do you think every person should be able to decide which vaccines are necessary and which ones are not? 

 

 

Peter Attia is now a fringe wacko? LOL.   Go listen to one of his 4 hour lipids podcast and let me know how "fringe" or "wacko" he is.

He also had an entire Podcast discussing the anti-vax movement and dangers of it etc, with Peter Hotez.   But glad to see that because he had the gall to suggest he was "pro-vaccination, but anti-mandates" - the geniuses on this board have already decided he's some fringe anti-vax nutjob.  Never change Cloak Roomers.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Skipper

[Sawbonz 28081]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

IT.  DOES.  NOT.  MATTER.

People are dying at nearly unprecedented levels.

I am so fucking over this whole thing, soup to nuts, masks to vaccines, "social distancing", whatever the fuck people don't want to do.

We blew it.  You're not helping.  The message is garbled, it's not driven by science, and we've suffered an unimaginable number of deaths as a result.  But sure, open it up, at a time when we are currently losing MORE Americans per day than on average due to this disease, per day.  Explain that policy.

 

Are you quite literally high?

I’m sorry jimmy but it does matter. Cases are triple what they were at the previous high point. That is important to consider when deaths are 60% what they were at that time. And I don’t consider 60% of peak daily deaths “near unprecedented levels” and I don’t think anyone in medicine or public health would. And I’m not sure why you think we need to get below some “average number of deaths” for a disease that comes in waves. We have just passed the biggest wave ever and everything points to future waves being smaller. Other than continuing to encourage anyone you know who is unvaxed to get vaxed what more do you think you and I can do?

[jimmyjazz 46972]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 Cases are triple what they were at the previous high point.

You don't know that.

 

Quote

And I don’t consider 60% of peak daily deaths “near unprecedented levels” and I don’t think anyone in medicine or public health would.

WTF?  I'm sorry, I deal in numbers all day every day, and when I see something that breaches 60% of an all-time peak, I think "nearly unprecedented" is not a huge exaggeration.  Come on, these numbers are BAD.

 

Quote

And I’m not sure why you think we need to get below some “average number of deaths” for a disease that comes in waves. 

Uh, what?  We are already talking about normalizing to a bad flu season.  Well, guess what, we have zero evidence that this will ever get down to that point.  Show me the data that indicate otherwise.  It's a big fucking extrapolation, at best.

[Brisketexan 106618]

Uh, what?  We are already talking about normalizing to a bad flu season.  Well, guess what, we have zero evidence that this will ever get down to that point.  Show me the data that indicate otherwise.  It's a big fucking extrapolation, at best.

How about this, which I think is what Sawbonz is getting at: among the vaccinated and the very young who can’t get vaccinated, COVID will be a disease that kills at a similar rate as the flu.

Among the unvaxxed….we can’t get them to behave rationally, so fuck em, and fuck caring about them personally or statistically. Just exclude them from policy making considerations. If they want to die, we can’t stop them, and we can’t waste any more time giving a fuck about them.

Am I on target, Sawbonz?

[Willfully Horn 8204]

16 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Peter Attia is now a fringe wacko? LOL.   Go listen to one of his 4 hour lipids podcast and let me know how "fringe" or "wacko" he is.

He also had an entire Podcast discussing the anti-vax movement and dangers of it etc, with Peter Hotez.   But glad to see that because he had the gall to suggest he was "pro-vaccination, but anti-mandates" - the geniuses on this board have already decided he's some fringe anti-vax nutjob.  Never change Cloak Roomers.

So, the dude knows the dangers but nevertheless feeds the anti-vaccine fire? 
 

Seems like a hack to me, skippy.

[Sawbonz 28081]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You don't know that.

 

WTF?  I'm sorry, I deal in numbers all day every day, and when I see something that breaches 60% of an all-time peak, I think "nearly unprecedented" is not a huge exaggeration.  Come on, these numbers are BAD.

 

Uh, what?  We are already talking about normalizing to a bad flu season.  Well, guess what, we have zero evidence that this will ever get down to that point.  Show me the data that indicate otherwise.  It's a big fucking extrapolation, at best.

1. Link data that refutes the case count being triple previous 

 

2. 60% is closer to “glass half full vs glass half empty” than it is to “record high”

 

3. I don’t recall any public health officials saying we shouldn’t open up until deaths are down to what we would see from flu. My recollection is that it has always been about stress on the healthcare system. 

[jimmyjazz 46972]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this, which I think is what Sawbonz is getting at: among the vaccinated and the very young who can’t get vaccinated, COVID will be a disease that kills at a similar rate as the flu.

Maybe, if the next mutation behaves like omicron.  Where is the confidence in that?

[Sawbonz 28081]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this, which I think is what Sawbonz is getting at: among the vaccinated and the very young who can’t get vaccinated, COVID will be a disease that kills at a similar rate as the flu.

Among the unvaxxed….we can’t get them to behave rationally, so fuck em, and fuck caring about them personally or statistically. Just exclude them from policy making considerations. If they want to die, we can’t stop them, and we can’t waste any more time giving a fuck about them.

Am I on target, Sawbonz?

Yes although again I think the measure isn’t getting to flu levels necessarily but not overly taxing the healthcare system. Although the fewer deaths the better

[jimmyjazz 46972]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

1. Link data that refutes the case count being triple previous 

I don't know if there have been studies that put a finer point on what seems like near random  public panic-associated testing.  Anecdotally, I can say in my experience a shit-ton more people are testing now than before, which is of course driven in part by the higher contagion of omicron.  I just don't think we have a good handle on case counts, and haven't since this thing started.  It's a very fuzzy metric.

 

Quote

2. 60% is closer to “glass half full vs glass half empty” than it is to “record high”

Alright, we're into semantics.  60% of 2X the normal leading cause of death is a pretty high number.  For fuck's sake.  At the current rate, covid will be #1 for 2022, over heart disease and cancer.  Yay, team!

 

Quote

3. I don’t recall any public health officials saying we shouldn’t open up until deaths are down to what we would see from flu. My recollection is that it has always been about stress on the healthcare system. 

I'm arguing policy perspectives that are put forth on this thread.  That's it.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I mean that vaccine mandates have caused more vaccine uptake which has allowed NYC to not get back to the dire days of March/April 2020 from a hospitalization or death perspective even though The case counts are at 400% of any other time during the pandemic.  It has allowed NYC to largely get back to normal.

Me and most people in Texas have lived normally for over a year now.   

[Sawbonz 28081]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know if there have been studies that put a finer point on what seems like near random  public panic-associated testing.  Anecdotally, I can say in my experience a shit-ton more people are testing now than before, which is of course driven in part by the higher contagion of omicron.  I just don't think we have a good handle on case counts, and haven't since this thing started.  It's a very fuzzy metric.

 

Alright, we're into semantics.  60% of 2X the normal leading cause of death is a pretty high number.  For fuck's sake.  At the current rate, covid will be #1 for 2022, over heart disease and cancer.  Yay, team!

 

I'm arguing policy perspectives that are put forth on this thread.  That's it.

I’m not going to get too much into it he weeds on this but I have seen no one anywhere question whether the omicron surge has resulted in multiples of the cases seen during the previous peak wave. If you have a credible link I will consider it. It matters when considering deaths, especially predicting healthcare utilization going forward

 

[NWBuck 8619]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Me and most people in Texas have lived normally for over a year now.   

Sure, if you call "living near Aggies" normal...

[jimmyjazz 46972]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m not going to get too much into it he weeds on this but I have seen no one anywhere question whether the omicron surge has resulted in multiples of the cases seen during the previous peak wave. If you have a credible link I will consider it. It matters when considering deaths, especially predicting healthcare utilization going forward

Well, let's posit a simple example, which probably isn't too far off the truth, give or take:

2X the contagion  x  50% the severity = . . . similar mortality rate.

 

So what exactly are we trying to stop here?

[brakeman 28646]

 

[Don Johnson 4802]

4 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

3 peas in a pod. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this, which I think is what Sawbonz is getting at: among the vaccinated and the very young who can’t get vaccinated, COVID will be a disease that kills at a similar rate as the flu.

Among the unvaxxed….we can’t get them to behave rationally, so fuck em, and fuck caring about them personally or statistically. Just exclude them from policy making considerations. If they want to die, we can’t stop them, and we can’t waste any more time giving a fuck about them.

Am I on target, Sawbonz?

Which is fine, until those unvaccinated take up all the space in the hospital and people die since they cannot have needed medical procedures.  If you choose to remain unvaccinated, then you should be at the bottom of the list for healthcare resources.  You have to reap the consequences of your choice.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

26 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Me and most people in Texas have lived normally for over a year now.   

No one cares.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Brisketexan 106618]

Which is fine, until those unvaccinated take up all the space in the hospital and people die since they cannot have needed medical procedures.  If you choose to remain unvaccinated, then you should be at the bottom of the list for healthcare resources.  You have to reap the consequences of your choice.

I truly have no problem with that. When your “freedom” takes things away from others, it’s not freedom and Liberty, it’s just a selfish tantrum. And our institutions shouldn’t indulge tantrums.

[pearlandhorn 3343]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

No one cares.

 

I care.

[workswithseed 2201]

12 minutes ago, pearlandhorn said:

I care.

The Nazi Karen said no one cares. So you must be wrong.

[Mdhorn 6153]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Vaccine mandates work.  

As does erring on the side of caution.  Today I exited a restaurant and was yelled at from a passing pickup that I can remove my mask since I was outside.  I had totally forgot it was on since it was keeping my face warm.  The right really is militant about people removing their masks.   

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly have no problem with that. When your “freedom” takes things away from others, it’s not freedom and Liberty, it’s just a selfish tantrum. And our institutions shouldn’t indulge tantrums.

My freedoms shouldn't infringe on my responsibility for the safety of others.  Also, blah blah blah scripture blah blah blah Bible blah blah.  Somewhere in it are a whole lot of verses around love thy neighbor.  But we're a pretend society.  

[Mdhorn 6153]

45 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Which is fine, until those unvaccinated take up all the space in the hospital and people die since they cannot have needed medical procedures.  If you choose to remain unvaccinated, then you should be at the bottom of the list for healthcare resources.  You have to reap the consequences of your choice.

Insurance agencies care if you smoke and smokers pay more.  Going to choose not to get vaccinated--here's your adjusted rates too.  

[heso 2848]

As the omicron wave started retreating up here in PA, I started to think we were going to make it out of this without catching it. 

We've been as careful as we could be short of taking our kid out of school. 

5 year old woke up with symptoms and tested positive this morning. fuck. 

[South Austin 53154]

8 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Which is fine, until those unvaccinated take up all the space in the hospital basement.

Problem solved.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

Open everything up but only if the unvaccinated are absolutely denied hospital admission.

Give ‘em horse paste with lots of thoughts and prayers, and send them on their way.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

11 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I mean that vaccine mandates have caused more vaccine uptake which has allowed NYC to not get back to the dire days of March/April 2020 from a hospitalization or death perspective even though The case counts are at 400% of any other time during the pandemic.  It has allowed NYC to largely get back to normal.

I meant to ask you, how broad do you want the mandates/passports? Do you approve of the NY law requiring proof of Covid vaccination for kids to access public places? 

[Skipper 6406]

11 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

So, the dude knows the dangers but nevertheless feeds the anti-vaccine fire? 
 

Seems like a hack to me, skippy.

Did you read the article at all?  Please explain to me how anything in that article, where he speaks convincingly about the benefits of the vaccine, is "feeding the anti-vaccine fire". Assuming you can't, thanks for proving my point that many on the left are just as anti-science as the right.  Or maybe you are just completely incapable of critical analysis.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

23 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Did you read the article at all?  Please explain to me how anything in that article, where he speaks convincingly about the benefits of the vaccine, is "feeding the anti-vaccine fire". Assuming you can't, thanks for proving my point that many on the left are just as anti-science as the right.  Or maybe you are just completely incapable of critical analysis.

I’m assuming Willfully Horn is just operating under the new paradigm whereby opposing Covid vaccine mandates in and of itself makes you an anti-vaxxer. That’s been a recent change. By labeling people with reasonable stances anti-vaxxers they actually cheapen the term. 
 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

[Don Johnson 4802]

Sounds like CDC is about to change a few definitions.  First, "fully vaccinated" will no longer be used.  Will now be "up to date."

Second, fully vaccinated/up to date will include a booster if you are eligible.  Not going to go over well when you start treating people with two shots and prior infection like they are unvaccinated.  And the fully vaccinated/up to date percentages in the US are going to plummet.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-plans-apos-pivot-language-160632718.html

Quote

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said during a Friday briefing that the agency is working to "pivot" its language regarding what it means to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Responding to a question about why the CDC is not changing the definition of the phrase to include a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the health leader told reporters that it is working to "pivot the language to make sure that everybody is as up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine."

CDC STUDIES SHOW COVID-19 BOOSTERS OFFER NECESSARY PROTECTION AGAINST OMICRON VARIANT

 

"So, importantly, right now, we’re pivoting our language. We really want to make sure people are up to date. That means if you recently got your second dose, you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up to date. If you are eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up to date and you need to get your booster in order to be up to date," she added.

Previously, Walensky and others had stated that the definition of being fully vaccinated would not change from those who have received their primary series of their COVID-19 vaccine.

 

 

[Dahobbs 18185]

12 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

So, the dude knows the dangers but nevertheless feeds the anti-vaccine fire? 
 

Seems like a hack to me, skippy.

 

56 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Did you read the article at all?  Please explain to me how anything in that article, where he speaks convincingly about the benefits of the vaccine, is "feeding the anti-vaccine fire". Assuming you can't, thanks for proving my point that many on the left are just as anti-science as the right.  Or maybe you are just completely incapable of critical analysis.

Addressing both posts above:

I think folks have a problem recognizing that public health policy and science aren't actually one and the same. The science says pretty much everyone should get vaccinated. But it is possible to believe that and yet disagree with a public health policy that would mandate vaccinations. But it is important to point out that the disagreement usually isn't because of science (e.g., some medical reason people shouldn't get vaccinated), but rather because of inherently political views about the nature of the government power and its proper use. I haven't seen anything in Peter Attia's podcasts to suggest he is a hack or that he is ignoring the evidence or the science. He may have views on governmental power or its use that are more restrictive than my own, but they aren't entirely unreasonable positions. 

That said, I do think it may show a lack of judgment on Attia's part to appear on a Goop podcast. But having not heard that particular podcast, I don't know that any of the content on his end was bad. It may have been a good faith effort to reach out to those that tend to look down on or misunderstand science. 

[Skipper 6406]

8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Sounds like CDC is about to change a few definitions.  First, "fully vaccinated" will no longer be used.  Will now be "up to date."

Second, fully vaccinated/up to date will include a booster if you are eligible.  Not going to go over well when you start treating people with two shots and prior infection like they are unvaccinated.  And the fully vaccinated/up to date percentages in the US are going to plummet.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-plans-apos-pivot-language-160632718.html

 

What's funny is one of the guys on the last Attia podcast (recorded end of December) 100% predicted this phrasing.   The CDC is kind of becoming a joke.  Starting with the whole "masks don't work" statement at the beginning of the pandemic (in an effort to keep demand low for high quality mask due to shortage), and now treating a booster like it has the same benefit in a 15 year old as it does in a 75 year old.    Businesses, schools, etc. all make policy based on CDC recs and they continue to enact policy based on absolutely zero nuance because they think American's are too dumb.  

I have yet to see any data reflecting a material benefit for a "booster" in a fully vaccinated kid, teenager, 20 year old etc.  I saw the CDC distributed data over weekend that did reflect the benefit of the booster on hospitilazations but it wasn't broken down by age tiers.  And you know damn well the CDC has that data.  Just pure intellectual dishonesty if that data isn't released.   The only study i've seen to date looking at booster benefit against sever disease by age showed the benefit at 70+.  If someone has found more recent data please link.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

 

[Dahobbs 18185]

30 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Sounds like CDC is about to change a few definitions.  First, "fully vaccinated" will no longer be used.  Will now be "up to date."

Second, fully vaccinated/up to date will include a booster if you are eligible.  Not going to go over well when you start treating people with two shots and prior infection like they are unvaccinated.  And the fully vaccinated/up to date percentages in the US are going to plummet.

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-plans-apos-pivot-language-160632718.html

 

 

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

What's funny is one of the guys on the last Attia podcast (recorded end of December) 100% predicted this phrasing.   The CDC is kind of becoming a joke.  Starting with the whole "masks don't work" statement at the beginning of the pandemic (in an effort to keep demand low for high quality mask due to shortage), and now treating a booster like it has the same benefit in a 15 year old as it does in a 75 year old.    Businesses, schools, etc. all make policy based on CDC recs and they continue to enact policy based on absolutely zero nuance because they think American's are too dumb.  

I have yet to see any data reflecting a material benefit for a "booster" in a fully vaccinated kid, teenager, 20 year old etc.  I saw the CDC distributed data over weekend that did reflect the benefit of the booster on hospitilazations but it wasn't broken down by age tiers.  And you know damn well the CDC has that data.  Just pure intellectual dishonesty if that data isn't released.   The only study i've seen to date looking at booster benefit against sever disease by age showed the benefit at 70+.  If someone has found more recent data please link.

Y'all, at least include the rest of the quote so as not to be misleading:

Quote

 

"So, individuals are considered fully vaccinated against COVID-19 if they’ve received their primary series. That definition is not changing," she said during a Jan. 5 White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing. "But consistent with how public health has historically viewed or even talked about how we recommend vaccines, we are now recommending that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for."

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN on Friday that the CDC had not updated the language because their recommendations are about "how well you are protected rather than a definition."

"It becomes almost a matter of semantics," he noted.

"One of the things that we're talking about from a purely public health standpoint is how well you are protected, rather than what a definition is to get someone to be required or not required," Fauci added.

 

This sounds like they are adding another term, "up-to-date" not changing the definition of "fully vaccinated." You want nuance, but apparently refuse to acknowledge it when it is staring you in the face.  

[Skipper 6406]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Y'all, at least include the rest of the quote so as not to be misleading:

This sounds like they are adding another term, "up-to-date" not changing the definition of "fully vaccinated." You want nuance, but apparently refuse to acknowledge it when it is staring you in the face.  

 "But consistent with how public health has historically viewed or even talked about how we recommend vaccines, we are now recommending that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for."

--------------------------------------------------------------

You don't think that statement will drive policy?   

 

Nuance would say "we are recommending for anyone age 70+ or with co-morbidities that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for.  Additionally, others may elect to receive additional doses they are eligible for to further decrease risk but data reflects those that are not in this category are still very well protected against hospitalization and severe disease based on the 2 dose vaccine"

 

You already have universities dictating that healthy college kids get boosted.   NCAA athletes, the healthiest of the healthy, may now need to be boosted in order to bypass additional testing protocol.  

 

[Don Johnson 4802]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Y'all, at least include the rest of the quote so as not to be misleading:

This sounds like they are adding another term, "up-to-date" not changing the definition of "fully vaccinated." You want nuance, but apparently refuse to acknowledge it when it is staring you in the face.  

I linked the article so not exactly trying to hide it.  She's changing it without changing it.  As the article says, Walensky previously stated they would not change the definition of fully vaccinated, so they can't really do that.

All they are doing is creating a new category "up to date" that has all the benefits of the previous "fully vaccinated" and the people who are fully vaccinated with just 2 shots will now be treated similarly to unvaccinated.

[Dahobbs 18185]

5 minutes ago, Skipper said:

 "But consistent with how public health has historically viewed or even talked about how we recommend vaccines, we are now recommending that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for."

--------------------------------------------------------------

You don't think that statement will drive policy?   

 

Nuance would say "we are recommending for anyone age 70+ or with co-morbidities that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for.  Additionally, others may elect to receive additional doses they are eligible for to further decrease risk but data reflects those that are not in this category are still very well protected against hospitalization and severe disease based on the 2 dose vaccine"

 

You already have universities dictating that healthy college kids get boosted.   NCAA athletes, the healthiest of the healthy, may now need to be boosted in order to bypass additional testing protocol.  

 

From a health perspective, the CDC is recommending people stay up to date. I don't see the problem with that. The final language isn't even out yet, so we really have no idea what specific recommendations it will make it terms of getting boosters. But, the CDC provided the nuance for you right there, but now you're saying the nuance isn't enough. And frankly you're making an arbitrary cut off on what you believe to be appropriate booster regime (not grounded in any scientific terms, just your vague gut feeling).  The truth is you're never going to be happy. You want the CDC to be the bad guy, so you're going to make it the bad guy no matter what it does.  I mean, I've seen the exact language you just proposed, "data reflects those that are not in this category are still very well protected against hospitalization and severe disease based on the 2 dose vaccine" come out of Fauci's mouth. I really don't understand what the bitch is here. 

 

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I linked the article so not exactly trying to hide it.  She's changing it without changing it.  As the article says, Walensky previously stated they would not change the definition of fully vaccinated, so they can't really do that.

All they are doing is creating a new category "up to date" that has all the benefits of the previous "fully vaccinated" and the people who are fully vaccinated with just 2 shots will now be treated similarly to unvaccinated.

Give us nuance, the people aren't stupid!

Don't give us a nuance, the people are stupid!

Which is it? 

[Skipper 6406]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

 And frankly you're making an arbitrary cut off on what you believe to be appropriate booster regime (not grounded in any scientific terms, just your vague gut feeling). 

Huh?  The only study I've seen that showed a material benefit against severe disease/hospitalization was 70+.   Have you seen something different?  If the data says 50, great.  If it says 20, great.  Policy should be based on data.  And yes, I lost all respect for the CDC as it came to Booster recommendations when I listened to the debate on whether the committee recommend 12-17 year olds "should" or "may" get the vaccine.  And they landed on "should" with zero discussion of benefits in this population.  To me, that rec clearly reflects a "goal" of limiting symptomatic infections as much as possible (i.e, Covid Zero approach).  And if we are going to start treating antibody levels in absolute lowest risk population now, where will it end?  Boosters perpetually every 4 months as antibody levels drop for all?   

[Don Johnson 4802]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Give us nuance, the people aren't stupid!

Don't give us a nuance, the people are stupid!

Which is it? 

As you are quoting me, I have no idea what your "nuance" discussion has to do with any of my posts on this subject.

Being fully vaccinated does not mean what it used to mean.  Its just a statistic they don't want to change.

For CDC protocols, up to date is the new fully vaccinated.

Fully vaccinated is the new unvaccinated.

Unvaccinated is still unvaccinated.

A fully vaccinated 20 year old that recovered from alpha or delta is treated the same as an unvaccinated 55 year old.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

3 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I meant to ask you, how broad do you want the mandates/passports? Do you approve of the NY law requiring proof of Covid vaccination for kids to access public places? 

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/counseltothemayor/downloads/Key-to-NYC-FAQ.pdf

I absolutely support this.  Kids are, at the best of times, germ factories.  I like my friend's kids in small doses, but on the whole, I am not a fan of children.  So if fewer of them are out and impacting my life, that is all a net positive to me.  

[YChang 3531]

15 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Huh?  The only study I've seen that showed a material benefit against severe disease/hospitalization was 70+.   Have you seen something different?  If the data says 50, great.  If it says 20, great.  Policy should be based on data.  And yes, I lost all respect for the CDC as it came to Booster recommendations when I listened to the debate on whether the committee recommend 12-17 year olds "should" or "may" get the vaccine.  And they landed on "should" with zero discussion of benefits in this population.  To me, that rec clearly reflects a "goal" of limiting symptomatic infections as much as possible (i.e, Covid Zero approach).  And if we are going to start treating antibody levels in absolute lowest risk population now, where will it end?  Boosters perpetually every 4 months as antibody levels drop for all?   

To clarify, your current opinion is that booster a-ok for those 70+-ish but not for anyone else? Out of curiosity and sorry if I missed it, this thread moves fast. But why the push back against added defense to our immune system from boosters for all?

Also big-picture wise, I'm def ready for public health policy/guidance to shift towards our new normal. And to me that means boosters. I want to protect/minimize my symptoms if I catch Covid (again) as much as possible. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by YChang

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Huh?  The only study I've seen that showed a material benefit against severe disease/hospitalization was 70+.   Have you seen something different?  If the data says 50, great.  If it says 20, great.  Policy should be based on data.  And yes, I lost all respect for the CDC as it came to Booster recommendations when I listened to the debate on whether the committee recommend 12-17 year olds "should" or "may" get the vaccine.  And they landed on "should" with zero discussion of benefits in this population.  To me, that rec clearly reflects a "goal" of limiting symptomatic infections as much as possible (i.e, Covid Zero approach).  And if we are going to start treating antibody levels in absolute lowest risk population now, where will it end?  Boosters perpetually every 4 months as antibody levels drop for all?   

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/health/covid-boosters-cdc-omicron.html

90% effective against hospitalization.  Most effective for those 50 and over, with no data for younger.  

But seriously, if you are in your 40s, why wouldn't you get a booster to top things up going into the winter?

[Dahobbs 18185]

6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Huh?  The only study I've seen that showed a material benefit against severe disease/hospitalization was 70+.   Have you seen something different?  If the data says 50, great.  If it says 20, great.  Policy should be based on data.  And yes, I lost all respect for the CDC as it came to Booster recommendations when I listened to the debate on whether the committee recommend 12-17 year olds "should" or "may" get the vaccine.  And they landed on "should" with zero discussion of benefits in this population.  To me, that rec clearly reflects a "goal" of limiting symptomatic infections as much as possible (i.e, Covid Zero approach).  And if we are going to start treating antibody levels in absolute lowest risk population now, where will it end?  Boosters perpetually every 4 months as antibody levels drop for all?   

Policy should both be based on data and also based on the limitations of data gathering. There is reason to think that boosters increase vaccine effectiveness (serological testing) and the study below indicate boosters help prevent disease. While this isn't strictly aimed at analyzing severe disease, the truth is that data is going to be hard to get given the relative newness of both boosters and Omicron. In an information limited atmosphere during a quick moving pandemic, recommending additional protection is based on the existing data seems reasonable. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7104e3-H.pdf

Quote

The VISION Network§ examined VE [Vaccine Effectiveness] by analyzing 222,772 encounters from 383 emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care (UC) clinics and 87,904 hospitalizations from 259 hospitals among adults aged ≥18 years across 10 states from August 26, 2021¶ to January 5, 2022. Analyses were stratified by the period before and after the Omicron variant became the predominant strain (>50% of sequenced viruses) at each study site. During the period of Delta predominance across study sites in the United States (August–mid-December 2021), VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated ED and UC encounters was 86% 14–179 days after dose 2, 76% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. Estimates of VE for the same intervals after vaccination during Omicron variant predominance were 52%, 38%, and 82%, respectively. During the period of Delta variant predominance, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations was 90% 14–179 days after dose 2, 81% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. During Omicron variant predominance, VE estimates for the same intervals after vaccination were 81%, 57%, and 90%, respectively.

* * *

These findings underscore the importance of receiving a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to prevent both moderately severe and severe COVID-19, especially while the Omicron variant is the predominant circulating variant and when the effectiveness of 2 doses of mRNA vaccines is significantly reduced against this variant. All unvaccinated persons should get vaccinated as soon as possible. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines during their primary COVID-19 vaccination series should receive a third dose when eligible, and eligible persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations

* * *

VE was significantly higher among patients who received their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose <180 days before medical encounters compared with those vaccinated ≥180 days earlier. During both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, receipt of a third vaccine dose was highly effective at preventing COVID-19–associated emergency department and urgent care encounters (94% and 82%, respectively) and preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalizations (94% and 90%, respectively).

Additionally, as far as I know, one of the primary reason booster rollout has been more limited elsewhere isn't because boosters wouldn't be good for the population, but rather due to limited vaccine availability. 

[Don Johnson 4802]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?s_cid=mm7104e2_w#T1_down

Omicron data not out yet, but for delta, booster drops death rates for

65+ - 3.1 per 100,000 (fully vaccinated) to 0.5 (booster)

50-64 - 0.4 to 0.2

18-49 - 0.0 to 0.0

Still funny to me we often categorize 18 year olds with 49 year olds.  I've always believed that was to make things look worse for young people.  

Edited January 24, 2022 by Don Johnson

[Skipper 6406]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/health/covid-boosters-cdc-omicron.html

90% effective against hospitalization.  Most effective for those 50 and over, with no data for younger.  

But seriously, if you are in your 40s, why wouldn't you get a booster to top things up going into the winter?

I did.  From a purely selfish perspective of trying to avoid Delta while traveling for work so I wouldn't miss TX-OU.    My problem is the CDC is well aware their recs dictate policy of public/private sector throughout the country.  They need to be supported by science.    I can't read your link but if there is a proven benefit for over 50 then I have no issue with that being a cutoff.  Similarly, I would have no issue with 12 being the cutoff if the data supported it.