CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

9 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

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.  

Wow this is quite a post. I appreciate your candor, but that’s about it. 
 

Children in public bother and/or inconvenience you therefore a policy that limits their presence is a positive. Even if it requires vaccination for a disease that doesn’t affect them. Because “they’re germ factories”.  Then we can better protect old people like you. You have such a narrow, warped set of priorities and worldview. 

The fact that a poster like yourself drives so much of the conversation here around Covid says a lot about this forum. And it ain’t good.

[Don Johnson 4745]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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.

You're probably due for a 4th shot.  That booster is at about 40% now.

[aggie08 21434]

30 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

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. 

Um, wut? This is not a good take.

[Neonmoon 38127]

15 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I didn’t cry about it. I was laughing at her. 
 

I’m not a fan of mandates generally, but the Covid vaccine is definitely a different animal than other vaccinations. 
 

I started laying out why the Covid vaccine is different but then I realized a lot of the points were in the column I shared. I don’t feel duplicating a lot of it. Feel free to read and challenge the points included there.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Heme Doc said:

What do you mean by “work”?  Do you mean “increase vaccine uptake with the end goal of decreasing death/hospital burden”?  I suppose I’d agree with this.  Although losing some hospital staff due to the mandates exacerbates hospital burden.  

But those people who want vaccinations have already gotten it.  Mandates, at this point, I fear, only serve to harden resolve of those who refuse the vaccine.  

I do not believe mandating injections of current vaccine formulations to enter certain venues, school, or participate in society substantially decreases transmission with our currently circulating variant.  Boosters probably do help with this issue somewhat.  

To me, there’s 2 ethical reasons to mandate a vaccine.

1.  The vaccine protects the individual from falling ill and prevents that person transmitting the disease to those at risk.  Current vaccinations absolutely prevent most death and hospitalizations but clearly do not do a great job of providing sterilizing immunity and protecting those around us from getting COVID.   In short, this argument says, “my vaccine protects you”…this is not the case (unfortunately).  Your vaccine protects you from severe illness/death.  Maybe not a lot more than that.  

2.  Mandating vaccination prevent hospital overload and allows for continuation of normal healthcare delivery (delays in surgery or care due to overburdened hospitals are bad for everyone).  While on the surface, this seems reasonable enough, Ethically, I find this problematic as well.  We do not mandate other medical treatments for this reason (flu or pneumonia vaccinations, for example).  We do not compel people to significantly change behavior when hospitals are at capacity (as often happened in winters even pre-COVID).  We don’t shut down liquor stores, limit driving, or stop other activities that add to hospital burden when they’re already full.  

I hope I’ve been clear in the above.  I always aim for respectful discourse/discussion.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  

I find COVID to be much like many cancer problems I deal with.  Complex, often without simple solutions, where intelligent, caring people with the best of intentions can sometimes disagree on the best course of action.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Heme Doc said:

See my post above replying to PW.  

Did you read the article posted by Immaculate Vibes?  Were there specific things in the article you felt were incorrect?  

Okay, so let's discuss the Peter Attia article since both of you are relying on that as your basis for being anti-mandate. 

First let's start out with Attia's points, if I am wrong summing it up, let me know

He agrees that the relative risk reduction (RRR) of death is between 84% and 88%, regardless of age, and overall, the risk of death among people who were vaccinated was infinitesimal. So that's good. Vaccines are good. 

So his argument against is

1. Vaccines do not provide complete protection to the vaccinated. They are not 100% effective at preventing infection, hospitalization, and death. In fact, although vaccines significantly reduce risk of detectable infection in the few months after vaccination, this protection drops precipitously once circulating antibodies decline, though protection against severe infections and death persists. Now, we have Novel therapeutics, fluvoxamine, and sophisticated critical care. 

2. Omnicron is less virulent. 

3. Natural Immunity. The null hypothesis around this point, at the outset, should be that natural immunity is indeed as good as vaccine immunity, pending data to prove that assumption false.

4. Vaccines don't prevent transmission. It seems that they only slightly reduce the risk of transmission, and that vaccinated and unvaccinated persons with detectable infection have the same viral loads, despite the reduction in disease severity for the former group. Using a metric called the secondary attack rate (SAR), it’s possible to look at infection rates in household contacts stratified by contact vaccination status and index case vaccination status, and based on such analysis, it seems that vaccination only slightly prevents transmission. Vaccination does not reduce the peak viral load in the infected (though it does appear to reduce the duration of viral shedding, which may translate to the reduction in SAR).

He sums his position up like this

We have a virus that is far less lethal than the one that started the pandemic two years ago.
We have very effective vaccines that reduce the severity of illness and death by about 90%.
We have ample treatments to further reduce severity of illness in death (in vaccinated and unvaccinated alike) by another 90% or so.
We have better methods of providing in-hospital care to the infected.
For all their benefits, vaccines are not very effective at preventing transmission.

The impact of vaccine mandates

An unvaccinated person cannot board a plane or a train, let alone go into a restaurant, gym, or skating rink. A Canadian friend of mine, this week, was prohibited from seeing a medical doctor for a corneal abrasion because the doctor refused to see unvaccinated patients. What they are not, however, is a monolithic tool to be used as a sword against our citizens, rather than a shield against a virus.

What is the scientific evidence to support vaccine mandates today?  If this were really about science, why would we not allow previous infection, which confers all the benefits of vaccination, if not more, the same rights?

 

My rebuttal

1. Vaccines do not provide complete protection to the vaccinated

      - Vaccines significantly protect against sever infection, hospitalization and death. Seat belts don't protect you 100% but we mandate those. 

2. Omnicron is less virulent

        - Delta is very deadly. We can't make decisions based on best case scenario variants. What if another variant develops that is deadlier than Delta? 850,000 people have died in the US. We mandate vaccinations against Rubella. 1,000 pregnant women lost their babies, 2,100 newborns died, and 20,000 babies were born with congenital rubella syndrome. Yet we still require it even though most people won't be affected. We have a long history of taking harmless vaccines so other people don't die. Just because you don't give a shit about X number of people dying, doesn't mean it's okay. 

3. Natural Immunity.

         Vaccines work better than natural immunity because there is no risk associated with dying to obtain a vaccine as opposed to natural immunity. Just because you want to take your chances with the virus doesn't mean that's a good idea, especially when it will negatively impact others. The more people that are vaccinated, the less chance the virus has to spread and infect others. 

4. Vaccines don't prevent transmission.

         No shit. But as he says, they do "slightly reduce the risk of transmission. Vaccination does not reduce the peak viral load in the infected (though it does appear to reduce the duration of viral shedding, which may translate to the reduction in SAR)." They reduce transmission

5. I will add Legal

      - Vaccine mandates are legal. See Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

6. Impact of Mandates

     - There is no impact other than learning how selfish people are. It is a choice. People are choosing to lose their job, lose access to sports, theatre, etc. People are choosing to lose access to the public because they are too fucking selfish to take a harmless vaccine to protect the public. Fuck them. 

7. What is the scientific evidence to support vaccine mandates today?

      - He already listed all the scientific evidence to support that getting vaccinated is better than not being vaccinated. He ignores all the data on previous deaths. He makes the assumption that only less virulent variants will remain. He admits vaccines reduce transmission.

8. If this were really about science, why would we not allow previous infection, which confers all the benefits of vaccination, if not more, the same rights?

    - This one is bit more complicated as the science backs previous infection providing good immunity. So I would agree they should be given the same rights as vaccinated. The problem with this is two-fold. Logistics and Policy. Logistically, we would require everyone have a vaccine pass (which still seems to be a bugaboo with the same people advocating for anit-mandates), and the vaccine pass would have to be updated with a confirmed infection test, and then given a time period of how long that immunity lasts. Of course vaccinated immunity has scientifically been proved to last longer than natural immunity. So we would need to update each vaccines pass with the require timelines. Policy, it would send the wrong message. If you want to take your chances with the virus, then go for it. 

 

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

45 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

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.  

Treated by whom? For what purpose? I swear, y'all have no idea what the CDC does, and importantly, doesn't do. And here, the CDC is clearly differentiating the two-dose vaccinated from the unvaccinated. I really don't know what you're complaining about.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Dahobbs

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

24 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Wow this is quite a post. I appreciate your candor, but that’s about it. 
 

Children in public bother and/or inconvenience you therefore a policy that limits their presence is a positive. Even if it requires vaccination for a disease that doesn’t affect them. Because “they’re germ factories”.  Then we can better protect old people like you. You have such a narrow, warped set of priorities and worldview. 

The fact that a poster like yourself drives so much of the conversation here around Covid says a lot about this forum. And it ain’t good.

Except this diesease IS affecting them, especially Delta and Omicron.  You are an absolute moron if you keep touting the line of this disease doesn't affect them.

You have been anti-vax, anti-mandate from minute one, and have been crowdsourced for it MULTIPLE times.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

19 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Um, wut? This is not a good take.

What, that I support kids 5 and over who are approved for the vaccine to have to show proof of vaccination to be in public spaces?  They carry the disease just like the rest of us, and in the case of Omicron, they are getting it and passing it on.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

30 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Wow this is quite a post. I appreciate your candor, but that’s about it. 
 

Children in public bother and/or inconvenience you therefore a policy that limits their presence is a positive. Even if it requires vaccination for a disease that doesn’t affect them. Because “they’re germ factories”.  Then we can better protect old people like you. You have such a narrow, warped set of priorities and worldview. 

The fact that a poster like yourself drives so much of the conversation here around Covid says a lot about this forum. And it ain’t good.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/21/kids-covid-hospitalizations-hit-pandemic-high-worrying-doctors-and-parents-.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-31/kids-covid-hospitalizations-reach-record-level-in-omicron-surge?sref=knoriXqz

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/healthcare/2021/12/30/how-omicron-covid-variant-affecting-children/9047577002/

Edited January 24, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/21/kids-covid-hospitalizations-hit-pandemic-high-worrying-doctors-and-parents-.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-31/kids-covid-hospitalizations-reach-record-level-in-omicron-surge?sref=knoriXqz

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/healthcare/2021/12/30/how-omicron-covid-variant-affecting-children/9047577002/

you're wasting your time

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you're wasting your time

I know.  It is almost like GRUHorn or whoever the fuck this guy is for the 5th itteration gets paid by the post.  Can we crowdsource this asshat again?

[GreenspointTexas 9567]

Jesus christ this thread is unreadable now

[smoky 837]

What, that I support kids 5 and over who are approved for the vaccine to have to show proof of vaccination to be in public spaces?  They carry the disease just like the rest of us, and in the case of Omicron, they are getting it and passing it on.

What's the rule in NYC for international travelers coming into the city for vacation?

I don't think French or Spanish 8 year olds can get the vaccine in their home country, so is their family shit out of luck or is there an exemption?

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[Willfully Horn 7916]

4 hours 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.

See if you can follow my logic. Author speaks convincingly of the benefits of vaccination  and then speaks convincingly about why expecting folks to get the jab is wrong. Do I not have that right? I’ve not questioned whether the author is good at either of those tasks, just pointed out the tasks are at odds. A hack, IOW.

I don’t want to read any hack piece, however skillfully worded, first, because I read what Johns Hopkins has to say on the subject, but mainly because I might read about fatigue on the part of the unvaxxed, or un-boostered, and that will piss me off. Tell that to the doctors and nurses and support staff who are really fatigued. I’m pretty fatigued myself, putting up with the freedum type anti-maskers and unvaccinated. 
 

The only mandates that I’m aware of are from businesses, and they have that fucking right.  All the other noise gives the unvaxxed the cover they seek to not do their duty to this country and to others, and also to the notion that government can tell business they don’t have that right. Which is another level of fucked.

If you find fault in MY argument, let’s hear it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

See if you can follow my logic. Author speaks convincingly of the benefits of vaccination  and then speaks convincingly about why expecting folks to get the jab is wrong. Do I not have that right? I’ve not questioned whether the author is good at either of those tasks, just pointed out the tasks are at odds. A hack, IOW.

I don’t want to read any hack piece, however skillfully worded, first, because I read what Johns Hopkins has to say on the subject, but mainly because I might read about fatigue on the part of the unvaxxed, or un-boostered, and that will piss me off. Tell that to the doctors and nurses and support staff who are really fatigued. I’m pretty fatigued myself, putting up with the freedum type anti-maskers and unvaccinated. 
 

The only mandates that I’m aware of are from businesses, and they have that fucking right.  All the other noise gives the unvaxxed the cover they seek to not do their duty to this country and to others, and also to the notion that government can tell business they don’t have that right. Which is another level of fucked.

If you find fault in MY argument, let’s hear it.

See my prior post below. I think calling him a hack is exactly the sort of knee jerk reaction that the anti-vaxxers are rightly criticized for. He isn't a hack. He has political views that differ from yours, but he isn't out there misrepresenting the science as far as I can tell. Lumping him in with anti-vaxxers only gives more fuel to their burning belief that the left/government/pharma is trying to hide the truth. 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

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. 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

Been watching this guy break down Covid studies for the past year, he does an excellent job of breaking down results in a non-partisan way. The CDC finally released the results of the first Natural Immunity study. Sounds like a pretty large study from data they got from CA and NY.

Cliffs:

- They looked at 4 Cohorts: 1) Unvaccinated with no previous infection 2) Vaccinated with no previous infection 3) Unvaccinated with a previous infection 4) Vaccinated with a previous infection

- They looked at these 4 Groups to see what happened to these people during Delta wave, not Omicron. So this was during the worst wave.

- Looking to find which of these groups was most at risk for hospitalizations and deaths

Results:

- Unvaccinated with no previous infections were obviously most At Risk

- Vaccinated with no previous infection were 2nd most At Risk

- Unvaccinated with previous infection and Vaccinated with previous infection were statically the same as the Lowest Risk during Delta.

Conclusion:

Basically, the Vaccine is the best thing guaranteed to keep you safe from hospitalization if you haven't had Covid. No surprise there. But if you HAVE had a previous infection, the data clearly suggests you are at lower risk than someone who was vaccinated without a previous infection, and equal to someone vaccinated who already had an infection. Sounds like this was data on millions of people on both Coasts, so not some small sample size. Bottom line, there really is no evidence Vaccines do anything more to protect people who have already had Covid.

Good watch if you have 25 minutes.

 

The complete and utter disregard of natural immunity from US public health authorities has completely and utterly destroyed their credibility for all time. They want nothing to do with actual science.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

I’m case @Skipper wants to read more on the subject, here is what John’s Hopkins published regardling vaccines and natural immunity.

 

Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, help you understand natural immunity and why getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended, even if you’ve already had COVID-19.
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know%3famp=true
 

The authors probably don’t do podcasts, or videos on YouTube, but have an open mind.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

Been watching this guy break down Covid studies for the past year, he does an excellent job of breaking down results in a non-partisan way. The CDC finally released the results of the first Natural Immunity study. Sounds like a pretty large study from data they got from CA and NY.

Cliffs:

- They looked at 4 Cohorts: 1) Unvaccinated with no previous infection 2) Vaccinated with no previous infection 3) Unvaccinated with a previous infection 4) Vaccinated with a previous infection

- They looked at these 4 Groups to see what happened to these people during Delta wave, not Omicron. So this was during the worst wave.

- Looking to find which of these groups was most at risk for hospitalizations and deaths

Results:

- Unvaccinated with no previous infections were obviously most At Risk

- Vaccinated with no previous infection were 2nd most At Risk

- Unvaccinated with previous infection and Vaccinated with previous infection were statically the same as the Lowest Risk during Delta.

Conclusion:

Basically, the Vaccine is the best thing guaranteed to keep you safe from hospitalization if you haven't had Covid. No surprise there. But if you HAVE had a previous infection, the data clearly suggests you are at lower risk than someone who was vaccinated without a previous infection, and equal to someone vaccinated who already had an infection. Sounds like this was data on millions of people on both Coasts, so not some small sample size. Bottom line, there really is no evidence Vaccines do anything more to protect people who have already had Covid.

Good watch if you have 25 minutes.

 

The complete and utter disregard of natural immunity from US public health authorities has completely and utterly destroyed their credibility for all time. They want nothing to do with actual science.

Before you post shit by John Campbell, you might ought to find out about his credentials.  He has been blasting out misinformation for a while. Not surprised you believe him.

Edited January 24, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

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.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

51 minutes ago, smoky said:

What's the rule in NYC for international travelers coming into the city for vacation?

I don't think French or Spanish 8 year olds can get the vaccine in their home country, so is their family shit out of luck or is there an exemption?

No exception, and both Spain and France have approved Pfizer for 5-11 year olds.  The EMA approved the Pfizer vaccine for kids on 11/26/2021.  Most EU countries rolled it out in December.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Except this diesease IS affecting them, especially Delta and Omicron.  You are an absolute moron if you keep touting the line of this disease doesn't affect them.

You have been anti-vax, anti-mandate from minute one, and have been crowdsourced for it MULTIPLE times.  

 

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/21/kids-covid-hospitalizations-hit-pandemic-high-worrying-doctors-and-parents-.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-31/kids-covid-hospitalizations-reach-record-level-in-omicron-surge?sref=knoriXqz

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/healthcare/2021/12/30/how-omicron-covid-variant-affecting-children/9047577002/

This is all fear mongering. Higher hospitalizations than ever? Remember we have the whole for or with Covid distinction to be made with omicron. But deaths the same.
 

1,000 deaths in the entire us of A in two years. The vast majority with significant comorbidities, not just obesity. We’re talking neurologic disorders, chronic pulmonary issues. Besides, you don’t actually care about the kids. You just enjoy having less of them around you. And you want the ones you have to be around to be vaccinated so you’re safer. A grown adult. Please. 
 

16 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’m case @Skipper wants to read more on the subject, here is what John’s Hopkins published regardling vaccines and natural immunity.

 

Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, help you understand natural immunity and why getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended, even if you’ve already had COVID-19.
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know%3famp=true
 

The authors probably don’t do podcasts, or videos on YouTube, but have an open mind.

You’ve cited this a couple times and that’s great but new shit has come to light. CDC, last week. 
 

 

[Willfully Horn 7916]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He has political views that differ from yours, but he isn't out there misrepresenting the science as far as I can tell.

Keep politics out of it. Politics exacerbated our threat, and I’ve no patience for continuing to let that happen. Get people vaccinated and keep the public discussion focused on getting people boostered and vaxxed. Let’s parse this shit when we have a handle on it. Maybe we are nearing such a point, but we aren’t there yet.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

5 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You’ve cited this a couple times and that’s great but new shit has come to light. CDC, last week. 
 

Too busy to provide a link? 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 hour ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Jesus christ this thread is unreadable now

NOW?

[Don Johnson 4745]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Treated by whom? For what purpose? I swear, y'all have no idea what the CDC does, and importantly, doesn't do. And here, the CDC is clearly differentiating the two-dose vaccinated from the unvaccinated. I really don't know what you're complaining about.

The CDC makes recommendations that multiples businesses, entities, schools etc use as a guideline for their internal policies.

I'm complaining that their most recent recommendations place no value in being fully vaccinated, as defined by 2 shots more than 5/6 months ago.  A fully vaccinated person is treated the same as unvaccinated.

Exposed - Someone "up to date" does not need to quarantine.  If you are "fully vaccinated" you need to stay home for 5 days.  Same as unvaccinated.

Masking indoors - If you are not up to date, you need to wear a mask indoors.  So, at workplaces across the country you have people who did the right thing and got vaccinated, many of who also have also had a prior infection, who are treated by the company as unvaccinated.  They must wear a mask around same as the unvaccinated.

As mentioned, the NCAA has changed their definition of "fully vaccinated" (their words not mine, so take up the nuance with them).  That's essentially a booster mandate for probably the healthiest segment of our society, with what I can only imagine also has an extremely high rate of prior infection.  They state that they changed the definition based on recent updates from the CDC.

You can dismiss the following as complaining about something that hasn't happened yet, but you know its going to have a trickle down effect.  Lower, Middle and Upper schools are going to start to treat fully vaccinated students the same as unvaccinated.  Cities that require vax cards or negative tests are going to start requiring fully vaccinated individuals to provide a negative test, same as unvaccinated.

There's a huge difference between being vaccinated and unvaccinated.  There is not a huge difference between being vaccinated and up to date.  

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

11 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

1,000 deaths in the entire us of A in two years.

Wut?

[Willfully Horn 7916]

The CDC info that is five days old is based on a study period ending in Nov 2021. So, the latest variant isn’t really on its radar.

We will be whacking moles if this type of discussion persists. Focus on a responsible narrative, and let the YouTubers know they are hacks.

How this is a political statement is beyond my pay grade.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wut?

Children’s Covid deaths 

[Dahobbs 17447]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The complete and utter disregard of natural immunity from US public health authorities has completely and utterly destroyed their credibility for all time. They want nothing to do with actual science.

Eyeroll here. Exaggeration like this doesn't help. 

I also hate it when people interpret or quote a study, but then don't provide the actual source material. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

Left off from your narrative is the fact that before the rise of Delta and Omicron, vaccination was actually substantially more protective than prior infection. 

Quote

Before the Delta variant became predominant in each state’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region (June 26 in Region 9 [California] and July 3 in Region 2 [New York]),*** the highest incidence was among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; during this time, case rates were relatively low among the three groups with either previous infection or vaccination and were lowest among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (Supplementary Figure 1, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253) (Supplementary Figure 2, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253). During the week beginning May 30, 2021, compared with COVID-19 case rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 case rates were 19.9-fold (California) and 18.4-fold (New York) lower among vaccinated persons without a previous diagnosis; rates were 7.2-fold (California) and 9.9-fold (New York) lower among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis and 9.6-fold (California) and 8.5-fold (New York) lower among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (Table 2).

* * *

COVID-19 hospitalization rates in California were always highest among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (Table 2) (Figure). In the pre-Delta period during June 13–June 26, for example, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates were 27.7-fold lower (95% CI = 22.4–33.0) among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 6.0-fold lower (95% CI = 3.3–8.7) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 7.1-fold lower (95% CI = 4.0–10.3) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. However, this pattern also shifted as the Delta variant became predominant. During October 3–16, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates were 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 18.2–21.4) among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 55.3-fold lower (95% CI = 27.3–83.3) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 57.5-fold lower (95% CI = 29.2–85.8) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis.

This is an important detail if you're going to rail against public health officials for not promoting natural immunity as just as good as vaccination. The truth is that we didn't know that. And, at least until Delta, it seems that vaccination was in fact superior to immunity provided by natural infection.  It probably shouldn't be surprising that the vaccines were most effective on the original strain they were designed to protect against. And it probably shouldn't be surprising that, at least when it comes to new infections (not necessarily severe disease), that the more broadly initiated immune response from an actual prior infection provides better coverage for new variants. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

24 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Keep politics out of it. Politics exacerbated our threat, and I’ve no patience for continuing to let that happen. Get people vaccinated and keep the public discussion focused on getting people boostered and vaxxed. Let’s parse this shit when we have a handle on it. Maybe we are nearing such a point, but we aren’t there yet.

You can't keep politics out of an inherently political issue, that is public health policy. And to be clear, I'm not using political in the partisan sense. I'm referring to the beliefs about the power of government and how government power should be utilized to reach some common goal. I think there are good arguments to be made that, as good as it would be from an overall health perspective to have the government require everyone be vaccinated, that letting the government utilize power to the scale invites abuse. Science can't address those issues because they aren't inherently scientific questions. They are political ones. 

[Willfully Horn 7916]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can't keep politics out of an inherently political issue, that is public health policy. And to be clear, I'm not using political in the partisan sense. I'm referring to the beliefs about the power of government and how government power should be utilized to reach some common goal. I think there are good arguments to be made that, as good as it would be from an overall health perspective to have the government require everyone be vaccinated, that letting the government utilize power to the scale invites abuse. Science can't address those issues because they aren't inherently scientific questions. They are political ones. 

Thanks for upping my pay grade. Still, I don’t know of any government mandates. I do know of some state governments that try to prohibit mandates. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[aggie08 21434]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

What, that I support kids 5 and over who are approved for the vaccine to have to show proof of vaccination to be in public spaces?  They carry the disease just like the rest of us, and in the case of Omicron, they are getting it and passing it on.

Let's try to remember that they're kids first, vessels for disease second. They're not the ones choosing whether or not to get vaccinated; their parents are. Punishing them and isolating them from society isn't the answer. There needs to be a middle ground between "YOLO who gives a fuck about public health" and "if you're not vaccinated, you can't leave your house."

You were also drifting into some pretty messed up "if kids aren't allowed in public in general, my life would be better off" territory. Seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to avoid places where children congregate if you're really that worried about them. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

You were also drifting into some pretty messed up "if kids aren't allowed in public in general, my life would be better off" territory. 

You new around here?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks for upping my pay grade. Still, I don’t know of any government mandates. I do know of some state governments that try to prohibit mandates. 

Healthcare workers, federal contractors (on hold). Federal employees. The attempted OSHA one obviously. 
 

[Willfully Horn 7916]

6 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

federal contractors (on hold). Federal employees

OK, those are government mandates, if you accept that folks must take the contracts and not choose to work elsewhere. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Claro

[Captainant 27467]

12 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Healthcare workers, federal contractors (on hold). Federal employees. The attempted OSHA one obviously. 

I don't know why people would argue against a vaccine mandate for HEALTHCARE WORKERS. I would be fucking pissed if I found out my cancer patient sister was treated by someone who voluntarily increased her risk profile for no reason but selfishness.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't know why people would argue against a vaccine mandate

FIFY. I don't know why either.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wut?

Not worth it anymore.  He is trying to say COVID doesn't impact kids since only 1k have died in the last year.  Of course, that doesn't take into account any long term issues with those kids.  Those metrics are not out there.  He is a troll.  I am just going to neg and ignore.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

40 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Let's try to remember that they're kids first, vessels for disease second. They're not the ones choosing whether or not to get vaccinated; their parents are. Punishing them and isolating them from society isn't the answer. There needs to be a middle ground between "YOLO who gives a fuck about public health" and "if you're not vaccinated, you can't leave your house."

You were also drifting into some pretty messed up "if kids aren't allowed in public in general, my life would be better off" territory. Seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to avoid places where children congregate if you're really that worried about them. 

I don't like kids.  I purposefully avoid places where kids are going to be, but sometimes, parents don't practice common courtesy and allow their snot nosed kids to act like complete shits in places where they honestly shouldn't be (think movie theaters, Broadway theaters, Museums, the ballet, and nice restaurants).  And don't get me started on kids on flights (I have long complained about that, so much so that I would be happy to pay a premium to be on a kid free flight because they have also shown up in both business and first with too much regularity).  So if some of those entitled parents aren't able to bring their precious with them because they refuse to get them vaccinated, then that is no fucking skin off my nose.  

And actually, I do not think there should be middle ground. If you choose to remain unvaccinated, you are a fucking asshole.  You should be shunned.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

45 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You new around here?

Yeah, I know he isn't.  My dislike of kids is known and was pretty consistent on the older site as well.  

I like my friends' kids in small doses.  

Rando kids, absolutely not.  

[DaysOff 7853]

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?   

This virus is 20x as deadly as polio in children and people lost their shit over that 70+ years ago.

Some of y'all should follow this phd immunology.

[Nivek 16861]

5 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I don't like kids.  I purposefully avoid places where kids are going to be, but sometimes, parents don't practice common courtesy and allow their snot nosed kids to act like complete shits in places where they honestly shouldn't be (think movie theaters, Broadway theaters, Museums, the ballet, and nice restaurants).  And don't get me started on kids on flights (I have long complained about that, so much so that I would be happy to pay a premium to be on a kid free flight because they have also shown up in both business and first with too much regularity).  So if some of those entitled parents aren't able to bring their precious with them because they refuse to get them vaccinated, then that is no fucking skin off my nose.  

And actually, I do not think there should be middle ground. If you choose to remain unvaccinated, you are a fucking asshole.  You should be shunned.  

It is all perspective.  After I had kids I now sympathize with the parents when the time bomb goes off.  Sometimes it happens in public.   I am with you on vaccinating kids though.  Mine are all vaccinated as soon as I could do it.  I understand people's hesitation but I also think their decision making abilities are shit.    The only thing worse than parents yammering on about kids and bringing them everywhere are dumbass dog worshipers who bring those stupid flea bags everywhere and yammer on about how their dumb dog is smart because it only licked a few random dog assholes that day.  

[Willfully Horn 7916]

This shit is exasperating. Here is something new. And it underscores how YouTube parsers of science are just making things worse. “Masks don’t work!” Oh yeah? Fuck off.

 

This is a study exactly about this situation. It doesn’t get more specific than this study, which is about kids in school with masks and without masks,” said American Medical Association Chairman Dr. Bobby Mukkamala.

New data from the University of Michigan and the state health department shows Michigan students who attended schools with mask requirements at the beginning of the school year, had lower rates of coronavirus transmission than those at schools without mandates.

 

The rate of infection reached an average of about 45 cases per 100 thousand students by late September in school districts with mask mandates.

 

Virus spread was 62% higher in school districts without mask rules- where the infection rate averaged 73 cases per 100 thousand students by late September.

 

https://www.abc12.com/coronavirus/university-of-michigan-study-shows-mask-mandates-at-schools-show-lower-covid-transmission-rates/article_9dfcd525-94d5-50cb-9b00-ac1c2171d7fe.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks for upping my pay grade. Still, I don’t know of any government mandates. I do know of some state governments that try to prohibit mandates. 

I do think @Immaculate Vibes identified a few below that would be considered government issued mandates. But they aren't universal mandates, it is true. I agree with you that state governments shouldn't be prohibiting private employees from requiring vaccination. 

59 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

OK, those are government mandates, if you accept that folks must take the contracts and not choose to work elsewhere. 

I think those would fit in what we typically call mandates. Our Constitution makes it so our "mandates" (regardless of what is being mandated) usually takes the form of a carrot/stick approach as opposed to a universal to do this or be jailed thing. 

51 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't know why people would argue against a vaccine mandate for HEALTHCARE WORKERS. I would be fucking pissed if I found out my cancer patient sister was treated by someone who voluntarily increased her risk profile for no reason but selfishness.

Yeah, I think of the universe of government issued mandates, vaccinated healthcare workers has to the be least objectionable and the most prudent. Personally, I'd be in favor of a universal adult mandate with some tax benefit attached to it. But that is me. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

22 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not worth it anymore.  He is trying to say COVID doesn't impact kids since only 1k have died in the last year.  Of course, that doesn't take into account any long term issues with those kids.  Those metrics are not out there.  He is a troll.  I am just going to neg and ignore.

It’s the last 2 years, but ok. 

Tell you what PW, you put me on ignore and I’ll do likewise.  
 

13 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I don't like kids.  I purposefully avoid places where kids are going to be, but sometimes, parents don't practice common courtesy and allow their snot nosed kids to act like complete shits in places where they honestly shouldn't be (think movie theaters, Broadway theaters, Museums, the ballet, and nice restaurants).  And don't get me started on kids on flights (I have long complained about that, so much so that I would be happy to pay a premium to be on a kid free flight because they have also shown up in both business and first with too much regularity).  So if some of those entitled parents aren't able to bring their precious with them because they refuse to get them vaccinated, then that is no fucking skin off my nose.  

And actually, I do not think there should be middle ground. If you choose to remain unvaccinated, you are a fucking asshole.  You should be shunned.  

hahahahahahha. 

[smoky 837]

 

16 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This shit is exasperating. Here is something new. And it underscores how YouTube parsers of science are just making things worse. “Masks don’t work!” Oh yeah? Fuck off.
 

Given that this study is pre omicron, I'd like to see the data refreshed.

 

EDIT:  Looks like they did update the data.  By Mid December there was almost no distinction between districts with mandates, partial mandates or no mandates.

Moral of the story is there are no absolutes, don't try to spike the covid football, and check the dates on story that show up as "new"

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/coronavirus/20211214_Data_and_modeling_update_vMEDIA_743631_7.pdf#page=51

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by smoky

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

It is all perspective.  After I had kids I now sympathize with the parents when the time bomb goes off.  Sometimes it happens in public.   I am with you on vaccinating kids though.  Mine are all vaccinated as soon as I could do it.  I understand people's hesitation but I also think their decision making abilities are shit.    The only thing worse than parents yammering on about kids and bringing them everywhere are dumbass dog worshipers who bring those stupid flea bags everywhere and yammer on about how their dumb dog is smart because it only licked a few random dog assholes that day.  

It is.  But I do not have a lot of patience, and kids are not something that were ever anything I wanted.  I have dogs, and while I will sometimes take the dog or dogs if we are going for drinks outside where they are welcome, for the most part, I leave them at home for the same reason that I believe most people should leave their kids at home.  I don't want to impose my life choices on others when out in public.

[Skipper 6103]

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

See if you can follow my logic. Author speaks convincingly of the benefits of vaccination  and then speaks convincingly about why expecting folks to get the jab is wrong. 

No.   You don't have that right. He speaks convincingly about why "mandating" folks get the vaccine is wrong. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

11 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

It’s the last 2 years, but ok. 

Tell you what PW, you put me on ignore and I’ll do likewise.  
 

hahahahahahha. 

It is like you do not read things that do not support your idiotic views.  Long covid and complications after recovery.  Have you not been paying attention?!?

How about you stop posting bad info.

[Skipper 6103]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

 

 

Okay, so let's discuss the Peter Attia article since both of you are relying on that as your basis for being anti-mandate. 

Have been too busy to respond at length.  Appreciate actually taking the time to read it.  I'll weigh in on a few of your points once I have some free time.