CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Captainant 27404]

5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Type II diabetic who caught Covid twice, but it was the vaccine.

Sounds like Spankytoes

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

This.  Spankytoes had a rough go of it this year, but blaming getting the vaccine is...yikes.

Especially after admitting he was a medically obese type 2 diabetic. 

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

It may sound harsh but if someone is unhealthily obese, I cannot take their vaccine or any other health related opinion seriously.  The data is overwhelming about the impact of long term obesity, especially into middle age and older.  I know a woman who was anti-covid vax, died of covid, but was 60ish and at least 300 pounds.  I think we all know cases like that but if you're eating Hot Pockets or some shit for breakfast, it's obvious you don't care about what goes in your body.  You're just anti-vax because of politics.  

[Anastasis 23390]

At least in what I have read of spanky's episode, it would probably score as a "possible drug related adverse event" per the naranjo algorithm. The lack of a retest and a few other factors are all that differentiate it from a probable ADE. 

 

I've hesitated to post this but will go ahead at this point. FWIW, my wife was hospitalized a short while back for TIA like symptoms. Unilateral weakness, desensitization, and slowed speech were the primary symptoms. CTs were all negative for bleeds and clots, and MRI negative for ischemia, infarct, or structural issues. Symptoms resolved relatively quickly. She is early 40s, a workout freak and her metabolic profile is nuts (LDL <45, HDL>70, no HTN, no DM, no known risk factors at all). She's getting the cardiology workup to rule out any arrhythmias or other causes, and neurology follow-up. FWIW she was PFE vaxxed three times. No history of symptomatic covid infection, but has seroconverted on N ab. To the extent that she has any risk factor for TIA, PFE vaccination is the only thing that starts to resembles one.  But again, there is no way to draw a clear causal relationship at this point, and there likely never will be in her specific case. But I also don't think that we should ostrich when confronted with signals at the population level, and there are plenty of them around. The effect, if any, is very small, but does appear to be something that is popping with some consistency.

The reality is that we are all guinea pigs to a certain extent when it comes to the long-term effects of these things. Same same for any new medication treatment. If you are not comfortable with that, you really should not take most medications that have been approved in the last decade. To be clear, the benefits of primary series clearly outweigh the risk, certainly throughout 2021 and through to today. I think even the initial booster was a no brainer for at risk adults, and even lower risk adults. I am far less convinced of the risk/benefit profile for continued boosting at this point though. Not boosting the kids and not lining up for any more shots myself. If we get to a sterilizing nasal spray, I'll probably re-engage.    

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Sorry to hear about your wife.  I know y'all had a rough round of flu recently, too.

More info on a "sterilizing nasal spray", please?  Would such a thing be covid-specific, or literally just more of an antiseptic that helps viruses from taking hold?

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

I'm sympathetic to all of these stories but the covid vaccine was likely the most widely distributed medication/shot in world history.  Yes, bad things happen to otherwise healthy people.  That's always been the case.  For every story about someone who got the vaccine and is now sick with something else, there are literally tens of millions of people who got it and are fine.

[MissingInAction 24807]

I heard a healthy cocaine habit prevents Covid infection.

At least that was the discussion around 3 am Sunday morning.

[tx 3 putt 76296]

2 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I heard a healthy cocaine habit prevents Covid infection.

At least that was the discussion around 3 am Sunday morning.

you should be a life coach 

[Anastasis 23390]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

More info on a "sterilizing nasal spray", please?  Would such a thing be covid-specific, or literally just more of an antiseptic that helps viruses from taking hold?

I am just referring to a nasally administered vaccine that would be able to generate a robust antibody response in the nasal mucosa. Sterilizing just meaning that it would be able to prevent infection and transmission. I think that most, including myself, expected the mRNA vaccines to generate a meaningful mucosal immunity, but that does not appear to be the case.

For a summary, see: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.add9947

 

During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time, we have seen a succession of important variants of concern with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages. With that, there has been a marked falloff in the capacity for vaccinations and booster shots to block infections and transmission (2). A major unmet clinical need has arisen to block the transmission chain, prevent the frequent breakthrough infections, and achieve high levels of durable protection against severe disease, no less prevent post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC, or long COVID).

That has spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots. A new report by Tang et al. (3) sheds considerable light on the shortcomings of mRNA vaccines for not achieving respiratory mucosal immunity against Omicron in people while also showing how well this can be accomplished with a nasal vaccine in mice.

 

 

[MissingInAction 24807]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

you should be a life coach 

I am easily the happiest person I know.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

43 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am just referring to a nasally administered vaccine that would be able to generate a robust antibody response in the nasal mucosa. Sterilizing just meaning that it would be able to prevent infection and transmission. I think that most, including myself, expected the mRNA vaccines to generate a meaningful mucosal immunity, but that does not appear to be the case.

It's interesting, I have somewhat resumed "normal" life after 4X shots, including the bivalent version.  I can't recall the last time I wore a mask.  I've been in many a crowd since catching covid in NYC last summer, and as far as I know, nada.  I was in a jam-packed Hole In The Wall last Friday and 6 days later, no 'vid, no flu, no RSV, no nothing.  I figured that would certainly be the point where I caught *something*.

Obviously, my covid vaccines don't do anything for flu or RSV, so maybe I've just been lucky.

I really need to go get my flu shot.  

[Satchel 6908]

French nun, Sister Adame, died Tuesday at 118. She never contracted COVID and credited a steady diet on wine and chocolate with her longevity. 

[Don Johnson 4745]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

French nun, Sister Adame, died Tuesday at 118. She never contracted COVID and credited a steady diet on wine and chocolate with her longevity. 

Looks like I'm living to 118

[Anastasis 23390]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

Looks like I'm living to 118

What are the longevity numbers for bourbon and bbq?

[jimmyjazz 45538]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What are the longevity numbers for bourbon and bbq?

You died last week.

[Skipper 6100]

17 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I think even the initial booster was a no brainer for at risk adults, and even lower risk adults. I am far less convinced of the risk/benefit profile for continued boosting at this point though. Not boosting the kids and not lining up for any more shots myself. If we get to a sterilizing nasal spray, I'll probably re-engage.    

I still follow it all relatively closely and this is where I come out.  This has been discussed on this thread before and one hand I understand why govt agencies had such a blunt approach to COVID Vax recs but, for example, there was never any evidence there was a meaningful benefit for healthy children or boosters for college kids, etc.  I've seen recent data that the historically standard vaccine uptake among young children is down either further post-COVID and no doubt a big reason why was the US approach to COVID vaccination (recall Europe never recommended vaccination for kids).  Again, given the evidence that it was generally safe, I understand why they took the approach they did (particularly when it was hopeful it would materially decrease transmission).  But in hindsight I think a more targeted approach would have helped in the long run.  

 

[kevwun 15608]

They also didn't know it was going to mutate so much during the initial vaccination push.  When you think it can be eradicated with a vaccine, you have to vaccinate as many people as possible.

Edited January 19, 2023 by kevwun

[Don Johnson 4745]

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

They also didn't know it was going to mutate so much during the initial vaccination push.  When you think it can be eradicated with a vaccine, you have to vaccinate as many people as possible.

They know that today, yet right now they recommend vaccination for children 6 months old and boosters for 5 year olds.

[Skipper 6100]

7 minutes ago, kevwun said:

They also didn't know it was going to mutate so much during the initial vaccination push.  When you think it can be eradicated with a vaccine, you have to vaccinate as many people as possible.

Agreed.  All things considered it was a huge success even though a material segment of the population won't recognize it.  My only criticism is that once it became clear it didn't really stop transmission (Delta and certainly by Omicron), the messaging didn't change.  It's been debated on this page before butI think it was embarrassing that some of the alleged top institutions of higher learning were (and maybe still are?) mandating not only vaccines but also boosters in student population where there really wasn't any benefit (particularly once it was clear it didn't stop transmission on campus).   Like just about everything, the extreme on both sides of the COVID Vax debate had it totally wrong IMO. 

[Skipper 6100]

15 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

They know that today, yet right now they recommend vaccination for children 6 months old and boosters for 5 year olds.

Refusal to change messaging as more is known has been my biggest critique.  I think the powers that be think Americans are too dumb to understand recs can and should change over time as more data becomes available (fear of the far right accusing them of flip flopping, etc.) but a more nuanced and flexible approach would have earned the trust of the sane/competent majority.

[kevwun 15608]

An unfortunately large percentage of the public is incapable of understanding that.

Edited January 19, 2023 by kevwun

[Don Johnson 4745]

12 minutes ago, kevwun said:

An unfortunately large percentage of the public is incapable of understanding that.

Probably a no win situation in this day and age, but has "lying to you for your own good" ever backfired worse in medical history?  Does anyone really trust the CDC anymore?

I'm not trying to get kooky, but does anyone really believe a normal 6 month old needs to get the vaccine as recommended?  Even the staunchest on here were/are making their own rules up on boosters, rather than following CDC recommendations.  Took it before recommended, got a 3rd full dose instead, waiting longer than recommended, waiting on the newer model to come out.....all ways to say "I know what's better for my body than the CDC does."

[kevwun 15608]

It was a damned if you do situation if one has ever existed.  Adapting in real time to a new virus in a terrible political climate that dictated how people responded to even a mention of the Covid can't really be handled successfully. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by kevwun

[HornOnTheBayou 8879]

32 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Refusal to change messaging as more is known has been my biggest critique.  I think the powers that be think Americans are too dumb to understand recs can and should change over time as more data becomes available (fear of the far right accusing them of flip flopping, etc.) but a more nuanced and flexible approach would have earned the trust of the sane/competent majority.

You think more than half of Americans are sane/competent?

[Incredulity 11541]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

Refusal to change messaging

The CDC has tried nothing and they are all out of ideas

[Skipper 6100]

17 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

Probably a no win situation in this day and age, but has "lying to you for your own good" ever backfired worse in medical history?  Does anyone really trust the CDC anymore?

I'm not trying to get kooky, but does anyone really believe a normal 6 month old needs to get the vaccine as recommended?  Even the staunchest on here were/are making their own rules up on boosters, rather than following CDC recommendations.  Took it before recommended, got a 3rd full dose instead, waiting longer than recommended, waiting on the newer model to come out.....all ways to say "I know what's better for my body than the CDC does."

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

[MissingInAction 24807]

People are stupid. We're all gonna die.

Those are the only two truths in life.

[wildcat09 29213]

For those of you who actually know something about the science and question whether people should continue to get boosters once a year or whatever, what's the difference between annual covid boosters and annual flu shots? Is it just that we've got a better understanding of how flu shots affect most people, even though it's somewhat different every year, so the risk/reward is clearer?

[Gatorubet 30083]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

For those of you who actually know something about the science and question whether people should continue to get boosters once a year or whatever, what's the difference between annual covid boosters and annual flu shots? Is it just that we've got a better understanding of how flu shots affect most people, even though it's somewhat different every year, so the risk/reward is clearer?

Flu does not have the Soros micro bots that change your DNA. Duh.

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

For those of you who actually know something about the science and question whether people should continue to get boosters once a year or whatever, what's the difference between annual covid boosters and annual flu shots? Is it just that we've got a better understanding of how flu shots affect most people, even though it's somewhat different every year, so the risk/reward is clearer?

Nothing, really.  I recently had my annual physical.  Got the covid booster but not the flu shot.  I'm not worried about getting the flu but I worry about sever/long covid.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

For those of you who actually know something about the science

Not sure I qualify, but that's never stopped me before.

 

Quote

and question whether people should continue to get boosters once a year or whatever, what's the difference between annual covid boosters and annual flu shots? Is it just that we've got a better understanding of how flu shots affect most people, even though it's somewhat different every year, so the risk/reward is clearer?

It's not directly related to your question, but it seems to me that flu is more seasonal than covid; i.e., winter spikes.  Covid can (so far) go crazy at any time.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that the efficacy of a flu shot dies out after several months, much like a covid vaccine, but the flu just isn't as big a risk as covid in warmer months.

Or, I could be full of shit.  

Or both.

[Sawbonz 27392]

On 1/18/2023 at 8:42 PM, Anastasis said:

ory of symptomatic covid infection, but has seroconverted on N ab.

Sorry y’all are going through this. I read an article that said covid infection carries increased risk of CV events for at least 12 months after infection. Makes me wonder if I should start taking an aspirin a day

[Anastasis 23390]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Sorry y’all are going through this. I read an article that said covid infection carries increased risk of CV events for at least 12 months after infection. Makes me wonder if I should start taking an aspirin a day

I know that it goes against some of the protocols, but I did give her a full dose ASA within an hour of symptom onset.  ED doc liked the move, but he had the benefits of CT scans to rule out bleed when he opined.  

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

 

[tx 3 putt 76296]

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

It’s hard to breathe when you’re full of shit 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

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

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

And the confirmed infections probably weren’t serious in part because they had the jabs.  Why is that logic so hard for you?

[Bookman 4610]

On 1/19/2023 at 3:03 PM, Skipper said:

 mandating not only vaccines but also boosters in student population where there really wasn't any benefit (particularly once it was clear it didn't stop transmission on campus).

Why do you think there "really wasn't any benefit"?

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

good

[Skipper 6100]

10 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

And the confirmed infections probably weren’t serious in part because they had the jabs.  Why is that logic so hard for you?

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

[Skipper 6100]

7 hours ago, Bookman said:

Why do you think there "really wasn't any benefit"?

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

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

12 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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

 

9 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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

It doesn't matter what evidence anyone produces. Your anecdotal evidence has your mind made up for you.  You have been like this for over 2 years now.  You are not worth a response.

[Skipper 6100]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

It doesn't matter what evidence anyone produces. Your anecdotal evidence has your mind made up for you.  You have been like this for over 2 years now.  You are not worth a response.

It's not anecdotal.  It's a fact.  COVID is low risk in healthy kids.  Please find something, anything, that disputes that.  RSV and Flu are much more problematic than COVID in that age group and any PED would tell you the same thing.   People like you want to "trust the science" like it's a badge of honor but have absolutely no idea what the science actually is. 

[Skipper 6100]

On 1/20/2023 at 10:06 AM, wildcat09 said:

For those of you who actually know something about the science and question whether people should continue to get boosters once a year or whatever, what's the difference between annual covid boosters and annual flu shots? Is it just that we've got a better understanding of how flu shots affect most people, even though it's somewhat different every year, so the risk/reward is clearer?

I think one difference is people seem to have a much stronger reaction to COVID booster vs. flu shot. Certainly the case for me.  Flu shot doesn't impact me at all, but for COVID, both my 2nd shot and booster were pretty much the equivalent to the infection I got 6 months later.  From what I've read, t and b cell immunity (from infection or prior shot) are proving to be long lasting.  So annual booster may not be needed to provide protection if low risk.  Until there is data reflecting significant decrease in transmission (i.e., essentially being able to schedule your infection if going to be down for 24-48 hours from the shot), I'm not sure there is much upside in low risk population.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

  

23 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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

Jesus Christ, it's not just about the benefit to the individual.  

Edited January 23, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Skipper 6100]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

  

Jesus Christ, it's not just about the benefit to the individual.  

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

[jimmyjazz 45538]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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

I don't need to limit the discussion to college students.  That's silly.  The idea is herd immunity, so that the weaker members of the herd don't fucking die.  (1.1M and counting, here in the US alone.)

But you knew that.  

[Skipper 6100]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I don't need to limit the discussion to college students.  That's silly.  The idea is herd immunity, so that the weaker members of the herd don't fucking die.  (1.1M and counting, here in the US alone.)

But you knew that.  

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

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Just now, Skipper said:

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

I'm sorry, you're wrong.  There have been studies that show the risk of transmission drops with prior infection, drops more with vaccination, and drops even more for prior infection with vaccination.  

I assume you understand the concept of trying to limit transmission.  If you don't, this conversation is seriously over.  Oh, who am I kidding?  It's over anyway.  

[Skipper 6100]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, you're wrong.  There have been studies that show the risk of transmission drops with prior infection, drops more with vaccination, and drops even more for prior infection with vaccination.  

I assume you understand the concept of trying to limit transmission.  If you don't, this conversation is seriously over.  Oh, who am I kidding?  It's over anyway.  

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