CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,150]

16 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

The party affiliation coloring doesn't seem to follow party affiliation (registration/identification) numbers. Appears to only be using Presidential voting results maybe.

 

[wildcat09 29,279]

I've been seeing this test online everywhere recently: 

It says authorized under an EUA right there on the box, but when you go to the FDA's page that lists all of the EUAs its given for antigen tests, I don't see it. This is Amazon's promoted at-home covid test right now and it looks to be completely bullshit. 

[RDCanecutter 26,312]

17 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

Oughta be a way to brew a beer that contains a booster shot.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Putting this here as a PSA.  I thought this was one of the best even keeled discussions regarding vaccines, boosters and the current state of affairs.  I'll admit to being a fanboy of this particular podcast and especially the guests he has on.

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/

From a political standpoint, makes me think the Dems need to pivot as fast as they can, as science permits, to treating this like the flu.

[Anastasis 23,402]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've been seeing this test online everywhere recently: 

It says authorized under an EUA right there on the box, but when you go to the FDA's page that lists all of the EUAs its given for antigen tests, I don't see it. This is Amazon's promoted at-home covid test right now and it looks to be completely bullshit. 

Looks liek this is their EUA...https://www.fda.gov/media/151245/download

For ease of reference, this letter will use the term “your product” to refer to the CareStart COVID-19 Antigen Home Test, that will also be offered under the authorized distributor brand name of “on/go COVID-19 Antigen SelfTest,” used for the indication identified above

[Celery Man 20,893]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

The party affiliation coloring doesn't seem to follow party affiliation (registration/identification) numbers. Appears to only be using Presidential voting results maybe.

 

haven't dug into this at all, but there are a lot of people who reliably vote republican (and therefore are republican/MAGA) but, perhaps to soothe their cognitive dissonance, are not registered republicans and falsely think of themselves as independent voters

[Brisketexan 104,718]

15 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

From a political standpoint, makes me think the Dems need to pivot as fast as they can, as science permits, to treating this like the flu.

For those of us who don't have time to listen to a 2 hr podcast....what are the key points you heard that lead you to that conclusion?  I'm not asking that as a challenge to you, I am genuinely curious to hear them.

[wildcat09 29,279]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Looks liek this is their EUA...https://www.fda.gov/media/151245/download

For ease of reference, this letter will use the term “your product” to refer to the CareStart COVID-19 Antigen Home Test, that will also be offered under the authorized distributor brand name of “on/go COVID-19 Antigen SelfTest,” used for the indication identified above

Thanks for this. I read through the list but didn't realize approved tests could have multiple labels. 

[Anastasis 23,402]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Thanks for this. I read through the list but didn't realize approved tests could have multiple labels. 

Yeah, took some digging through the footnotes to find. I'd say go for it, but don't love the app tie in. Prefer the binax or quickvue tests myself, but they are vapor-tests right now it seems. 

[C-Man 27,075]

17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the sort of thing that should get bi-partisan attention and support to address.  All political stripes should have a problem with "bad government," and should work to implement 'better government."

Long lines at the DMV is something that governors and legislatures of all stripes generally try to fix, because the DMV shouldn't be any worse than it has to be.  The CDC has an important and valid role.  That role is not always well-suited for a pandemic, or for efficiency in general.  Striking the right balance between proper oversight and ability to be nimble and gather and publish information quickly should  be a policy discussion.

It won't be.  If this prompts ANY discussion, it will be a mudfight of "DISBAND THE COMMIE CDC!!!!" vs. "no, we shouldn't do that."  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Imagine the stupidest discussion that solves nothing, and that's what we'll do.  It's our brand.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

 

12 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 

 

[Brisketexan 104,718]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For those of us who don't have time to listen to a 2 hr podcast....what are the key points you heard that lead you to that conclusion?  I'm not asking that as a challenge to you, I am genuinely curious to hear them.

Also, I just listened to some of the excerpts regarding the "end game."  Bottom line, they seem to be where I have been -- if we can turn this into primarily a transmissible illness that causes a pain in the ass illness, but a low number of serious illnesses/death, that's the end-point.  It just becomes another illness like the flu, with seasonal spikes, and even localized strain on hospitals, but not over-the-top and everywhere all at once.

That said, one of the speakers summed up the goal -- "we have to transition from a culture of mandates to a culture of responsibility."  Yeah.  Good fucking luck with that.  We have gone all-in on toxic individualism.  We aren't getting past that.

[wildcat09 29,279]

Judge says Navy violates rights of Seals in denying religious waivers on vaccines.

Pure calvinball shit here. Wrong on the merits, wrong on the procedure. Reed O'Connor strikes again. The next time I hear a Republican complaining about judicial activism, I'm going to find a volcano to throw him in.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Judge says Navy violates rights of Seals in denying religious waivers on vaccines.

Pure calvinball shit here. Wrong on the merits, wrong on the procedure. Reed O'Connor strikes again. The next time I hear a Republican complaining about judicial activism, I'm going to find a volcano to throw him in.

That ruling is indefensible. 

[Brisketexan 104,718]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Judge says Navy violates rights of Seals in denying religious waivers on vaccines.

Pure calvinball shit here. Wrong on the merits, wrong on the procedure. Reed O'Connor strikes again. The next time I hear a Republican complaining about judicial activism, I'm going to find a volcano to throw him in.

He is fucking awful.....and the decision is horribad.  The military doesn't create an exemption from the Constitution?  WTF?  The military can literally order you to go on a suicide mission -- "hold this hill as long as you can to cover our retreat," etc.  It can order you to kill.  I can imagine that most religious faiths have a pretty strong stance against both suicide and killing someone.

If you cannot reconcile the obligations that go with military service with your faith, then.....you are not fit to serve.  We have Conscientious Objector status regarding compulsory service for that reason, and I agree that it should be available.  If your religion forbids you from following military orders, then you should not be in the military.

If these SEALs have a religious belief that prevents them from getting a vaccine, swimming a mile, shooting a bad guy, planting mines on enemy ships, or any other part of the job they are ordered to do, then......don't be a SEAL anymore. Easy-peasy.  That's the answer.  You do not have a right BOTH to be in the military AND ignore orders to which you have a religious objection.  You have to choose.

[tantric superman 4,667]

53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For those of us who don't have time to listen to a 2 hr podcast....what are the key points you heard that lead you to that conclusion?  I'm not asking that as a challenge to you, I am genuinely curious to hear them.

Initial vaccines, and prior survived exposure, protect virtually everyone from death.

Booster provides almost no extra protection, the fact that healthy people are getting boosters rather than us focusing on countries that haven't got their initial vaccines, is terrible and many have died because of it.  First vaccine is critical. Boosters don't do much, and booster mandates for kids returning to school is just politics based on bad science.  Advantages of keeping any healthy kid out of school because of any mandate at this point are simply outweighed by social and psycological hazards. 

Having the second shot so soon after the initial shot was bad science.

Given the new therapies, the only people who are in danger, are those with underlying health issues and the morbidly obese. 

Netted out, no doubt about the value of vaccines to individual help.  Vaccines and booster of very questionable utility in "protecting others" and thus policies that do so are of questionable and potentially negative consequences.

Bottom line - we were all super cautious, but the science points to us admitting that this is a virus that is a true danger to a very limited number of people and our policies need to quickly shift to focusing on them.

Also, I had not heard the term omnicold.

Not quite finished with it. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by tantric superman

[jimmyjazz 45,586]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Booster provides almost no extra protection, the fact that healthy people are getting boosters rather than us focusing on countries that haven't got their initial vaccines, is terrible and many have died because of it.  First vaccine is critical. Boosters don't do much,

I'd like to see the data that back this up, because it doesn't align with many things I've read.  We know vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, so a booster sufficiently after full vaccination (6 months?  8 months?) helps rebuild immunity.

If it's all just related to the angle that most healthy Americans are going to be fine either way, then that's one thing, but I don't think there is science out there that says boosters are ineffective when properly administered.  If there is, like I said, I'd sure like to see it.

[Brisketexan 104,718]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Initial vaccines, and prior survived exposure, protect virtually everyone from death.  Seems to be the case, that's good.

Booster provides almost no extra protection, the fact that healthy people are getting boosters rather than us focusing on countries that haven't got their initial vaccines, is terrible and many have died because of it.  First vaccine is critical. Boosters don't do much, and booster mandates for kids returning to school is just politics based on bad science.  Advantages of keeping any healthy kid our of school because of any mandate at this point are simply outweighed by social and psycological hazards.  I sure thought the data on vaxxed vs. vaxxed and boosted being infected and/or hospitalized in this wave showed a material benefit of boosting?  That said, I can also see the cost-benefit of diverting vaccines for boosters before everyone is vaxxed may be a poor policy choice.

Having the second shot so soon after the initial shot was bad science.  Would be curious to hear more about this.  Better immune system response with a delay?  But wouldn't that mean that the booster approach is also helpful?

Given the new therapies, the only people who are in danger, are those with underlying health issues and the morbidly obese.  Depends on availability of those therapies.  An effective therapy that isn't available to administer doesn't help me much.  I'd like to see some data on how the therapies are performing in an actual clinical setting as well, being that several of them have been rolled out for a while now.

Netted out, no doubt about the value of vaccines to individual help.  Vaccines and booster of very questionable utility in "protecting others" and thus policies that do so are of questionable and potentially negative consequences.  Agree and disagree.  Vaccines and boosters have been shown to reduce transmission to a degree -- maybe not enough to their liking, but it does help reduce transmission some.  But more importantly, by avoiding unnecessary hospital trips and burdens on the workplace etc., vaccination does provide protection to others in many other ways.

Bottom line - we were all super cautious, but the science points to us admitting that this is a virus that is a true danger to a very limited number of people and our policies need to quickly shift to focusing on them.  It is a true danger to a limited number of people now, now that we're dealing with 1) Omicron and 2) a heavily vaccinated/prior infected population.  And that's good.  I agree that this is how we get to the end-game.  And I very much agree with their criticism of the messaging by public health officials.  I've said from very early on that officials are doing a shitty job of describing the end-game.

Also, I had not heard the term omnicold.

Not quite finished with it. 

Thanks for the follow up.  My quick thoughts in response in bold above.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

'd like to see the data that back this up, because it doesn't align with many things I've read.  We know vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, so a booster sufficiently after full vaccination (6 months?  8 months?) helps rebuild immunity.

If it's all just related to the angle that most healthy Americans are going to be fine either way, then that's one thing, but I don't think there is science out there that says boosters are ineffective when properly administered.  If there is, like I said, I'd sure like to see it.

The issue is effective for what?  These doctors seem to be arguing that vaccines reduce the chance of virtually all people dying to zero.  You can't do better than zero, so not only should we have shifted the vaccines to poor countries, we should admit what happens to a vaccinated person who gets COVID.  They have a bad cold and they can transmit the disease.  Boosters give them a less bad cold and they can still transmit the disease.  The particular podcast is not afraid of getting into the weeds and citing studies. 

[tx 3 putt 76,439]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Judge says Navy violates rights of Seals in denying religious waivers on vaccines.

Pure calvinball shit here. Wrong on the merits, wrong on the procedure. Reed O'Connor strikes again. The next time I hear a Republican complaining about judicial activism, I'm going to find a volcano to throw him in.

What’s the worst post in the navy ? Those guys are about to find out 

[tx 3 putt 76,439]

6 hours ago, Okie State said:

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 
people that use the emergency room for a dr's visit should be turned away, but still charged 

I remember about five years back my daughter had a bad incident at her daycare that required emergency surgery. She was transported to the medical center and we had to wait in the ER area until the surgeon could get to us. It was absolutely packed. This was mid-afternoon on a Tuesday. I drove home to grab some things around 2AM and passed back through...still packed. Next morning was packed as well. I guess it's just always like that, but it seemed strange.

my dad has a buddy, buddy’s wife is crazy and routinely thinks she’s about to die. She’ll go to the er then argue with everyone there. The three local er’s have ‘banned’ her 

Edited January 4, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Dahobbs 17,454]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The issue is effective for what?  These doctors seem to be arguing that vaccines reduce the chance of virtually all people dying to zero.  You can't do better than zero, so not only should we have shifted the vaccines to poor countries, we should admit what happens to a vaccinated person who gets COVID.  They have a bad cold and they can transmit the disease.  Boosters give them a less bad cold and they can still transmit the disease.  The particular podcast is not afraid of getting into the weeds and citing studies. 

This is strange take given the newness of Omicron. Three months ago you couldn't say with much certainty one way or the other whether initial vaccination without booster or prior infection did much to prevent serious infection. We hoped it did. And the initial data now appears promising. But I don't get the criticism for taking a more conservative approach focused on our population and not the world at large (because, really, we can't even get ourselves vaccinated, how the fuck are we going to really help the rest of the world?). 

[Don Johnson 4,745]

12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Initial vaccines, and prior survived exposure, protect virtually everyone from death.

Is there a good study on 2nd infections?  My hunch is the odds of a 2nd infection being worse than the 1st are pretty low, without a material change in the health of the individual.  "Natural immunity" became such a political hot potato that it became taboo for some to discuss it.

[Scheiss Meister 8,399]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the worst post in the navy ? Those guys are about to find out 

They are dive qualified, so have them scrape barnacles off the hulls of mothballed ships.

[Incredulity 11,564]

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Is there a good study on 2nd infections?  My hunch is the odds of a 2nd infection being worse than the 1st are pretty low, without a material change in the health of the individual.  "Natural immunity" became such a political hot potato that it became taboo for some to discuss it.

My second infection was so mild I wouldn't have even thought to test if I hadn't been close contact(like all day Christmas Eve and Christmas Day close contact) to 3 other positives.  

[tx 3 putt 76,439]

5 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

They are dive qualified, so have them scrape barnacles off the hulls of mothballed ships.

i figured they had robots doing that ?

[Don Johnson 4,745]

Just now, Incredulity said:

My second infection was so mild I wouldn't have even thought to test if I hadn't been close contact(like all day Christmas Eve and Christmas Day close contact) to 3 other positives.  

What was your vaccination status for the 1st and the 2nd infections?  

[Incredulity 11,564]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

What was your vaccination status for the 1st and the 2nd infections?  

2x Moderna. 2nd shot end of April.  No booster as not 90 from first infection.  I assume the clock starts over?

1st infection end of Oct. (assume Delta) PCR test at Urgent Care

2nd infection a week ago.(assume Omicron) Home Test.

[tantric superman 4,667]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But I don't get the criticism for taking a more conservative approach focused on our population and not the world at large (because, really, we can't even get ourselves vaccinated, how the fuck are we going to really help the rest of the world?). 

These are doctors on the podcast so they aren't afraid in pointing out mistakes that were made along the way.  They admit themselves that they were cautious in the beginning, taking their kids out of school before anyone was doing so, but the point is what we do now, going forward. 

In terms of getting ourselves vaccinated, again, these are doctors, so they know patients won't get vaccinated, or lose weight, or exercise when it's clear they should, so ultimately, with their being a limited number of persons who truly are at risk, they ultimately don't have time to fret about dumbshits who won't get vaccinated.   If they die, they die, and we should be worried about people who are at risk who ARE doing everything they can to stay safe.

[tantric superman 4,667]

34 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

"Natural immunity" became such a political hot potato that it became taboo for some to discuss it.

Yep, that's part of the point of the podcast.  Many of us got locked in early on in this thing.  I've been pissed for a while at kids in laws who are trumpy and none of them got their vaccines, and all have had COVID at least one or two times, and they all have been fine.

At some point I may need to admit that they didn't necessarily pose a greater risk to my family's health. If that's the case, then, I need to admit that all my beefs aren't "my good science v. your bad science".

[jimmyjazz 45,586]

Well, severe covid outcomes might be relatively rare, but some 850,000 dead Americans shouldn't be dismissed.  This is a fact:  covid will be the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States for 2021, behind only heart disease and cancer.  Some 50%-60% of Americans will develop heart disease at some point in their lifetime.  Approximately 40% of Americans will get cancer in their lifetime.  The number of Americans who have caught covid in less than two years is thought to be well north of those numbers.  Two years.  So yes, the odds of severe outcome may be low, but the infection rate is so high that the actual raw mortality statistics are nearly as bad as the two leading causes of death in the United States.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

i figured they had robots doing that ?

Marines can't swim. I keed, I keed.

[Sawbonz 27,445]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Initial vaccines, and prior survived exposure, protect virtually everyone from death.

Booster provides almost no extra protection, the fact that healthy people are getting boosters rather than us focusing on countries that haven't got their initial vaccines, is terrible and many have died because of it.  First vaccine is critical. Boosters don't do much, and booster mandates for kids returning to school is just politics based on bad science.  Advantages of keeping any healthy kid out of school because of any mandate at this point are simply outweighed by social and psycological hazards. 

Having the second shot so soon after the initial shot was bad science.

Given the new therapies, the only people who are in danger, are those with underlying health issues and the morbidly obese. 

Netted out, no doubt about the value of vaccines to individual help.  Vaccines and booster of very questionable utility in "protecting others" and thus policies that do so are of questionable and potentially negative consequences.

Bottom line - we were all super cautious, but the science points to us admitting that this is a virus that is a true danger to a very limited number of people and our policies need to quickly shift to focusing on them.

Also, I had not heard the term omnicold.

Not quite finished with it. 

Not going to listen but prior to SARS and MERS the 4 coronaviruses that infect humans are variants that cause the common cold. Assuming we can’t contain and eradicate the virus, as it mutates the dominant strains should become more infectious and cause less severe illness than prior strains (no guarantees of that but natural selection would favor such a strain). Covid may be heading that way. Also it’s not really a novel virus anymore, as the immune systems of a majority of people have been exposed either by vaccine, illness, or both

[Don Johnson 4,745]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Putting this here as a PSA.  I thought this was one of the best even keeled discussions regarding vaccines, boosters and the current state of affairs.  I'll admit to being a fanboy of this particular podcast and especially the guests he has on.

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/

From a political standpoint, makes me think the Dems need to pivot as fast as they can, as science permits, to treating this like the flu.

One of the guests in this podcast is ZDoggMD.  Kind of hard to take a guy who calls himself ZDogg seriously, but he obviously is a bright guy and good communicator.  I don't know a ton about him, but someone (buzzrock?) recently posted this podcast where he line by line refutes most of what Peter McCullough said on Joe Rogan's podcast.  I think wildcat09 accused him of promoting anti-vax propaganda and poof it was gone.  No clue why, the guy is about as pro vax as they come and ripped a guy who is anti.  Maybe all anyone saw was McCullough's name in the title, not realizing it was refuting him.

Anyway, I found myself agreeing with this pod about 99.9%.  

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Don Johnson

[YChang 3,432]

I'm all for public policy readujsting to what we know/understand and can realistically predict in the near-future.

[wildcat09 29,279]

13 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

One of the guests in this podcast is ZDoggMD.  Kind of hard to take a guy who calls himself ZDogg seriously, but he obviously is a bright guy and good communicator.  I don't know a ton about him, but someone (buzzrock?) recently posted this podcast where he line by line refutes most of what Peter McCullough said on Joe Rogan's podcast.  I think wildcat09 accused him of promoting anti-vax propaganda and poof it was gone.  No clue why, the guy is about as pro vax as they come and ripped a guy who is anti.  Maybe all anyone saw was McCullough's name in the title, not realizing it was refuting him.

Anyway, I found myself agreeing with this pod about 99.9%.  

 

Yeah, that's my bad. I thought it was Rogan's McCullough interview.

[Dahobbs 17,454]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

Is there a good study on 2nd infections?  My hunch is the odds of a 2nd infection being worse than the 1st are pretty low, without a material change in the health of the individual.  "Natural immunity" became such a political hot potato that it became taboo for some to discuss it.

The message up front should have been that immunity from a prior infection almost certainly provides some measure of protective benefits, but it is hard to quantity those due to the difficulties performing a proper study and the differences from person-to-person. 

58 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

These are doctors on the podcast so they aren't afraid in pointing out mistakes that were made along the way.  They admit themselves that they were cautious in the beginning, taking their kids out of school before anyone was doing so, but the point is what we do now, going forward. 

In terms of getting ourselves vaccinated, again, these are doctors, so they know patients won't get vaccinated, or lose weight, or exercise when it's clear they should, so ultimately, with their being a limited number of persons who truly are at risk, they ultimately don't have time to fret about dumbshits who won't get vaccinated.   If they die, they die, and we should be worried about people who are at risk who ARE doing everything they can to stay safe.

I don't think being cautious in the face of incomplete information is a mistake. We can make changes based on new evidence without vilifying past deeds based on 20-20 hindsight. That said, while their approach may make sense for individual clinicians dealing with their patients, I don't think it makes sense from a broader public health stand point. We've made mistakes in our messaging, but simply giving up on a large portion of the population has to be a no go from a public health perspective. 

53 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yep, that's part of the point of the podcast.  Many of us got locked in early on in this thing.  I've been pissed for a while at kids in laws who are trumpy and none of them got their vaccines, and all have had COVID at least one or two times, and they all have been fine.

At some point I may need to admit that they didn't necessarily pose a greater risk to my family's health. If that's the case, then, I need to admit that all my beefs aren't "my good science v. your bad science".

Of course they've been fine. The vast majority of people who get Covid, Omicron or not, will ultimately be fine (especially if younger). But those sorts of anecdotes (1) don't tell us anything we don't already know, and (2) severely downplay the severity of the disease to 1% to 5% of population, or anywhere from to 3 million to 15 million people in the US. I'd also be really interested in seeing any data that says Omicron is less severe in the unvaccinated or previously unexposed. I don't think the studies that have come out support that conclusion. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29,279]

Even if Omicron is less severe than Delta was in the unvaccinated, there's entirely way too much covid spreading throughout the world to predict how severe future variants might be. Despite what a lot of people say, it's actually not necessarily the case that all variants decrease in severity as time goes on.

Three months ago we were through the worst of Delta and the possibility of a variant that spread nearly as fast as measles seemed remote. There's really no way for us to know what the future of covid will be. 

[Brisketexan 104,718]

58 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

These are doctors on the podcast so they aren't afraid in pointing out mistakes that were made along the way.  They admit themselves that they were cautious in the beginning, taking their kids out of school before anyone was doing so, but the point is what we do now, going forward. 

In terms of getting ourselves vaccinated, again, these are doctors, so they know patients won't get vaccinated, or lose weight, or exercise when it's clear they should, so ultimately, with their being a limited number of persons who truly are at risk, they ultimately don't have time to fret about dumbshits who won't get vaccinated.   If they die, they die, and we should be worried about people who are at risk who ARE doing everything they can to stay safe.

I have an issue with calling decisions made based upon limited information, including information that this was potentially a very high-risk illness, "mistakes."  Judging decisions made with 10% of today's information by the standards of today's 100% information (which, by the way, will be tomorrow's 30% or 10% information as we continue to learn) is shitty.  That's exactly what the "anti-science" crowd does -- "See, science had you do X, and now, after lots more information came in, it turns out that Y is a better path - SCIENCE IS WRONG, SO DON'T LISTEN TO IT!"

I have no problem with evaluating those decisions in light of current information to determine whether they would be good decisions in the FUTURE.  For example, I think we have learned enough about the costs-benefits of shutting down in-person schooling in reaction to this virus that we will mostly stay away from doing so in the future.

Also, we don't have time to fret about the dumbshits.....except for the fact that they are a drag on our healthcare system and our economy.  So, I still cut them zero slack.

53 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yep, that's part of the point of the podcast.  Many of us got locked in early on in this thing.  I've been pissed for a while at kids in laws who are trumpy and none of them got their vaccines, and all have had COVID at least one or two times, and they all have been fine.

At some point I may need to admit that they didn't necessarily pose a greater risk to my family's health. If that's the case, then, I need to admit that all my beefs aren't "my good science v. your bad science".

I do agree that a going-forward analysis of the risk of this disease MUST acknowledge infection-acquired immunity/resistance.  Shit, most of the EU does so -- you can enter Germany right now if vaccinated OR proof of prior infection and recovery.  But again, don't cut the Trumpy relatives slack - they got lucky, relatively speaking.  Vaccinated people have a much better outcome of a COVID infection than non-vaccinated.  If you are going to choose how to acquire your immunity, in terms of relative risk, getting vaccinated vs. getting infected is clearly the way to go.

20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Not going to listen but prior to SARS and MERS the 4 coronaviruses that infect humans are variants that cause the common cold. Assuming we can’t contain and eradicate the virus, as it mutates the dominant strains should become more infectious and cause less severe illness than prior strains (no guarantees of that but natural selection would favor such a strain). Covid may be heading that way. Also it’s not really a novel virus anymore, as the immune systems of a majority of people have been exposed either by vaccine, illness, or both

Good thoughts, thanks.  It does seem like that should be what the end-game looks like: COVID turning into a cold-like illness, occasionally flaring up to be more severe, and always presenting a higher-than-the-cold risk to unvaccinated/not previously infected people.

And if that is the baseline risk that humanity will reach, then that HAS to be the "new normal," and we need to get on with it and live life.

15 minutes ago, YChang said:

I'm all for public policy readujsting to what we know/understand and can realistically predict in the near-future.

100%.  We should always be willing to pivot and adjust course as information develops.  But I'll re-iterate that it's a real problem and impediment to doing so when leading mouthpieces say "see, you're changing course.  That means you were WRONG before, and why should we listen to you now?"  Ummm, that's exactly how evidence-based decision-making works.  It's the sane path.  But, without getting into a full chicken-egg analysis, we have a lot of thought leaders who will not do so because to do so would open them to relentless attacks that they were wrong, and thus they shouldn't be listened to now.  In a mutual arms race of stupidity, the only rational decision is to stay the course, even if it's stupid, because changing course is an admission of error and a surrender of all authority and credibility going forward.

[Born to Run 6,568]

Of course they've been fine. The vast majority of people who get Covid, Omicron or not, will ultimately be fine (especially if younger). But those sorts of anecdotes (1) don't tell us anything we don't already know, and (2) severely downplay the severity of the disease to 1% to 5% of population, or anywhere from to 3 million to 15 million people in the US. I'd also be really interested in seeing any data that says Omicron is less severe in the unvaccinated or previously unexposed. I don't think the studies that have come out support that conclusion. 

Or long term health effects. One of my unvaxxed nieces was really sick for months. (30 year old Fatty) Another had weird nuero issues for months. (mid 20s, thin)

[Sawbonz 27,445]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The message up front should have been that immunity from a prior infection almost certainly provides some measure of protective benefits, but it is hard to quantity those due to the difficulties performing a proper study and the differences from person-to-person. 

I don't think being cautious in the face of incomplete information is a mistake. We can make changes based on new evidence without vilifying past deeds based on 20-20 hindsight. That said, while their approach may make sense for individual clinicians dealing with their patients, I don't think it makes sense from a broader public health stand point. We've made mistakes in our messaging, but simply giving up on a large portion of the population has to be a no go from a public health perspective. 

Of course they've been fine. The vast majority of people who get Covid, Omicron or not, will ultimately be fine (especially if younger). But those sorts of anecdotes (1) don't tell us anything we don't already know, and (2) severely downplay the severity of the disease to 1% to 5% of population, or anywhere from to 3 million to 15 million people in the US. I'd also be really interested in seeing any data that says Omicron is less severe in the unvaccinated or previously unexposed. I don't think the studies that have come out support that conclusion. 

On my phone so I can’t search it, but I believe the south African studies show a less severe course for Omicron and are in a less vaccinated population than ours. Of course, it is a younger and in general healthier population than ours, but comparing their experience with Delta to their experience with Omicron indicates less severe illness.  

[Dahobbs 17,454]

31 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

On my phone so I can’t search it, but I believe the south African studies show a less severe course for Omicron and are in a less vaccinated population than ours. Of course, it is a younger and in general healthier population than ours, but comparing their experience with Delta to their experience with Omicron indicates less severe illness.  

The South African study I'm aware of showed Omicron was less severe, but it wasn't definitive on the reasoning as it didn't account for prior vaccination or exposure. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268116v1.full-text

Quote

 

It is difficult to disentangle the relative contribution of high levels of previous population immunity versus intrinsic lower virulence to the observed lower disease severity. Our finding of no difference in severity in SGTF compared to non-SGTF infected individuals in the same time period, and the lower risk of severity in SGTF compared to earlier Delta infected individuals, suggests that this reduced severity may be in part a result of high levels of population immunity (due to natural infection and/or vaccination). Incomplete vaccination data, and the fact that the majority of re-infections were likely not detected, resulted in incomplete adjustment for the effect of prior immunity in our analyses.

* * * 

Conclusion Early analyses suggest a reduced risk of hospitalisation among SGTF-infected [Omicron]  individuals when compared to non-SGTF infected [not Omicron] individuals in the same time period. Once hospitalised, risk of severe disease was similar for SGTF- and non-SGTF infected individuals, while SGTF-infected individuals had a reduced risk of severe disease when compared to earlier Delta-infected individuals. Some of this reducton is likely a result of high population immunity.

We could very well just be seeing Omicron's greater propensity to reinfect the previously immune as opposed to any lowering of actual severity. This is also consistent with the fact that the SA data showed those no difference in risk of severity for those that were hospitalized. The people that ended up hospitalized may have been people that weren't previously exposed, which is why that group showed no difference between the Omicron and Delta variants. 

I think one of the UK studies more directly found a possible lessened severity of Omicron compared to Delta in the unexposed/unprotected population. But I don't have it in front of me and I don't think it was a strong conclusion either. 

As to your point, I don't think directly comparing the severity between two entirely different countries is going to tell you much, at least not without doing a lot of statistical rejiggering to account for the population differences. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I have an issue with calling decisions made based upon limited information, including information that this was potentially a very high-risk illness, "mistakes."  Judging decisions made with 10% of today's information by the standards of today's 100% information (which, by the way, will be tomorrow's 30% or 10% information as we continue to learn) is shitty.  That's exactly what the "anti-science" crowd does -- "See, science had you do X, and now, after lots more information came in, it turns out that Y is a better path - SCIENCE IS WRONG, SO DON'T LISTEN TO IT!"

.

I do agree that a going-forward analysis of the risk of this disease MUST acknowledge infection-acquired immunity/resistance.  Shit, most of the EU does so -- you can enter Germany right now if vaccinated OR proof of prior infection and recovery.  But again, don't cut the Trumpy relatives slack - they got lucky, relatively speaking.  Vaccinated people have a much better outcome of a COVID infection than non-vaccinated.  If you are going to choose how to acquire your immunity, in terms of relative risk, getting vaccinated vs. getting infected is clearly the way to go.

.

Disregarding/discounting natural immunity was always going to end up being an “anti-science” position. That didn’t require hindsight, just knowledge of basic science. Therefore polices based on that (mandates and firing of previously infected individuals) were/are mistakes. 
 

The mandates will be one of the most interesting things to follow coming out of Omicron. If as a society we’ve reached the realization that it’s endemic and has lessened severity going forward then are these widespread mandates pursued further? I suspect we’ll see a continued bifurcation between places that eschew mandates and those that go further down that road, mandating boosters throughout their population. Balkanization intensifies. 

[jimmyjazz 45,586]

2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Disregarding/discounting natural immunity was always going to end up being an “anti-science” position. That didn’t require hindsight, just knowledge of basic science.

I don't think that's true at all.  Until there were measurable immune responses X weeks/months following infection, then it would be imprudent to assume significant protection.  It's the same process for evaluating a vaccine -- why differ?

Shit, I can catch a "common cold" multiple times in a given winter.  Maybe they're all different viruses, maybe they aren't, but when the potential outcome is severe disease or even death, I think it behooves science to err on the side of caution until more information comes to light.

[Dahobbs 17,454]

3 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Disregarding/discounting natural immunity was always going to end up being an “anti-science” position. That didn’t require hindsight, just knowledge of basic science. Therefore polices based on that (mandates and firing of previously infected individuals) were/are mistakes. 
 

The mandates will be one of the most interesting things to follow coming out of Omicron. If as a society we’ve reached the realization that it’s endemic and has lessened severity going forward then are these widespread mandates pursued further? I suspect we’ll see a continued bifurcation between places that eschew mandates and those that go further down that road, mandating boosters throughout their population. Balkanization intensifies. 

I don't think anyone was outright disregarding natural immunity as protective from a scientific standpoint. The question has been from a public health standpoint whether it makes sense to differentiate natural immunity or not. Practically speaking, vaccination is easy to prove and well documented. Prior infection much less so. I think there can be reasonable debate on the best approach here. 

[Don Johnson 4,745]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I do agree that a going-forward analysis of the risk of this disease MUST acknowledge infection-acquired immunity/resistance.  Shit, most of the EU does so -- you can enter Germany right now if vaccinated OR proof of prior infection and recovery.  But again, don't cut the Trumpy relatives slack - they got lucky, relatively speaking.  Vaccinated people have a much better outcome of a COVID infection than non-vaccinated.  If you are going to choose how to acquire your immunity, in terms of relative risk, getting vaccinated vs. getting infected is clearly the way to go.

Choosing infection over vaccination is dumb.  But many did not choose that.  They simply got infected.  And when their need for vaccination was questioned it was ridiculed.  And this isn't new info.  Like you said, most of the EU places value on acquired immunity and has for a while.  Many non-Trumpers have been asking for a while why we are one of the few countries that don't.  We had a lot of people fired because we said it had no value and they needed to do what we told them to.

If/when we acknowledge it now,  we admit we lied (again) in the name of public policy.  Because it was just easier and we didn't trust them to understand the real science.

Yeah, we have a country with a lot of dumbasses.  You still do more damage by lying.  It just creates more irreparable distrust.

Signed - vaccinated guy who has not knowingly contracted Covid and does not have acquired immunity.

[Don Johnson 4,745]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 I think there can be reasonable debate on the best approach here. 

It's a little late for those who were fired due to mandates.

[Dahobbs 17,454]

12 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

It's a little late for those who were fired due to mandates.

And I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest. Mandates are reasonable public health policy. They may not be the only option and may not even be the best option, but I think they are certainly a reasonable option. Not getting a free vaccine to protect yourself and others, and to keep your job is not reasonable. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Don Johnson 4,745]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

And I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest. 

I know you don't.  But they will appreciate your reasonable debate after the fact.

[Dahobbs 17,454]

9 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I know you don't.  But they will appreciate your reasonable debate after the fact.

I don't think those individuals were ever reasonable. The reasonable debate is on on public policy, that is what is the most effective way to protect the public health and what is the most efficient way to do it? It is easier to administer a simple mandate than it is to administer a system with a bunch of exceptions and varying types of proof. Could you create such a system that would work well? Yeah, you could. But it is going to be more expensive to do so. If the vaccines are free, will benefit for everyone to some degree, and easy to acquire, I don't see why requiring vaccination should be problematic. I think that is a reasonable approach that trades flexibility for simplicity. And, practically speaking, I think mandates are the easiest way to quickly ensure a population is protected. 

Individuals chose stupidity over their jobs. I have zero sympathy for them. I see no need to advocate for their stupidity as you seem to do. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Scheiss Meister 8,399]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

Choosing infection over vaccination is dumb.  But many did not choose that.  They simply got infected.  And when their need for vaccination was questioned it was ridiculed.  And this isn't new info.  Like you said, most of the EU places value on acquired immunity and has for a while.  Many non-Trumpers have been asking for a while why we are one of the few countries that don't.  We had a lot of people fired because we said it had no value and they needed to do what we told them to.

If/when we acknowledge it now,  we admit we lied (again) in the name of public policy.  Because it was just easier and we didn't trust them to understand the real science.

Yeah, we have a country with a lot of dumbasses.  You still do more damage by lying.  It just creates more irreparable distrust.

Signed - vaccinated guy who has not knowingly contracted Covid and does not have acquired immunity.

Choosing to go with the best available knowledge at the time is not lying.  Until we know with some certainty,  and we still do not, how effective and long lasting natural immunity lasts after an infection, being cautious is what one should expect.