CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Brisketexan 104709]

11 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

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.

Correct.

[Dahobbs 17454]

15 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

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.

I think to the extent there was lying it was because we didn't expressly say this. We probably should have. 

[jimmyjazz 45585]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think to the extent there was lying it was because we didn't expressly say this. We probably should have. 

This is where I struggle with the concept of public health policy vs science.  Clearly, the message needs to be distilled down somewhat in order to present an easily-understood and believable action plan for society at large, but I don't know what that means in practice.  I've assumed it means "go with the most brutally simple policy possible", but clearly, that is questionable.  How far should we move off "brutally simple'?  I don't know.  I don't envy those who make those decisions, but they presumably have much more expertise than I on the subject.

[safe sex 11686]

7 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.

I used to be a big fan of ZDogg, but over the pandemic he's become really annoyingly "both sides." Maybe he's tempered that in recent months, but it got bad enough that I unfollowed him on my socials. He was hawking merchandise of enlightened centrism. Vomit. 

[TwiceHorn 31311]

7 hours 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.

Complete political hacks at the district court level are rare indeed.  Texas is cursed with at least two of them in OConnor and Hanen.

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Complete political hacks at the district court level are rare indeed.  Texas is cursed with at least two of them in OConnor and Hanen.

Just callin’ them balls and strikes. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 hours 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

I disagree that mandating vaccines were/are mistakes because of acquired immunity.  Vaccines offer greater protection than acquired immunity. We don’t know how long acquired immunity lasts, how it relates to variants or protects from each one, and there is no reliable test determine if a person Is protected. We can’t just make public policy based on feelings. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

32 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I disagree that mandating vaccines were/are mistakes because of acquired immunity.  Vaccines offer greater protection than acquired immunity. 

I would dispute that. I’ll just say that given the totality of the evidence, a reasonable statement is that natural immunity is roughly equivalent to vaccine immunity. 
 

35 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

We can’t just make public policy based on feelings. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, trauma babe said:

He was hawking merchandise of enlightened centrism. Vomit. 

Yeah, the podcast generally appealed to my enlightened centrism. 

[safe sex 11686]

Yer honest, and that's what I's appreciates about ya

[Lurch 5921]

Some interesting descriptions written in lay terms by the Atlantic to help people understand why Omicron is successfully infecting vaccinated people and causing illness but usually not severe:

The unvaccinated remain most at risk, but this trend would have troubling consequences for the vaccinated and previously infected too, especially if they’re unboosted. Many of the antibodies we marshaled against previous versions of the coronavirus don’t recognize Omicron very well, and won’t be able to sequester it before it foists itself into cells. Eventually, a vaccine- or infection-trained immune system will “catch up,” Ryan McNamara, a virologist at Harvard Medical School, told me, churning out more antibodies and launching an army of T cells that can quell the virus before it begets serious disease. But those defenses take a few days to kick in and might not arrive in time to forestall the early, and often most potent, stages of transmission. The faster Omicron sprints, the more of a head start it gets against the body’s defenses.

Antibodies are powerful but simple sentinels. Squeezed out by B cells, they spend their days wandering the body, trying to glom on to a super-specific anatomical sliver on a pathogen. When they manage the feat, some of them—the neutralizers—can cling on so tightly that a virus becomes unable to interact with and enter cells. “That’s why we care so much about antibodies,” Andrew Redd, an immunologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me. They can block infection solo; the rest of the immune system never has to get involved.

That perfect scenario doesn’t always play out, though. After vaccination or infection, antibody levels skyrocket—then, slowly but surely, they start to tick down, giving pathogens more opportunities to sneak by. Neutralizing antibodies are also easily duped by mutations that even slightly rejigger a microbe’s superficial features. Where they once clung on tight, they’ll simply slip off. Viruses, then, have both time and mutations on their side: Infections become easier as antibodies disappear and microbes metamorphose. And once a pathogen has foisted its way inside a cell, it becomes “inaccessible to [neutralizing] antibodies,” Alessandro Sette, of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told me. The relevant bits of the bug are no longer visible to them, so they just whiz on by.

But where antibodies stumble, killer Ts shine. Their entire raison d’être is rooting out infected cells—not free-floating viruses—and they manage that feat through an affinity for gore. As a signal of distress, infected cells can chop up some of the viruses they’re being forced to produce and display the mangled pieces on their outside. “They say, ‘Look, I’m infected with something,’” Avery August, an immunologist at Cornell University, told me. The dismembered bits are gross but effective: Nothing makes killer Ts go wild more than a hunk of mutilated virus splattered onto the surface of an infected cell.

While neutralizing antibodies pinpoint viruses by their external traits, the microbe equivalent of hair and skin, killer Ts can also identify them via their innards—the blood, muscle, and bone underneath. And because the virus is pretty mashed up at this point, T cells aren’t always as flummoxed by mutations as are antibodies, which care intimately about shape. “That all makes it much more difficult for the virus to evade T-cell responses,” Gadir, of Seed Health, said. SARS-CoV-2 would have to alter a lot more of its physiology to successfully disguise itself—revamping its outsides with plastic surgery, and reshuffling its internal organs with transplants—something the virus might not be able to accomplish without compromising its ability to hack into our cells.

 

This is some fantastic description.

[Ten Bears 2479]

If anyone has had any luck finding testing sites in Austin (esp N Austin for my benefit) that aren't days away please post them here.  This shit is ridiculous. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

56 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I would dispute that. I’ll just say that given the totality of the evidence, a reasonable statement is that natural immunity is roughly equivalent to vaccine immunity. 
 

 

You can dispute it, but you don’t have any evidence to back up your dispute. If you do, please provide. Your statement is factually incorrect.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211031/covid-vax-5-times-more-protective-than-natural-immunity

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

Vaccine immunity lasts significantly longer than acquired immunity

Again, vaccines provide greater protection than natural immunity and considering it is in the public interest to protect people, it is the public interest to mandate vaccines. 

[Sawbonz 27445]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

a reasonable statement is that natural immunity is roughly equivalent to vaccine immunity. 

Other than literally risking your life to attain one they are virtually identical 

[jimmyjazz 45585]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Other than literally risking your life to attain one they are virtually identical 

, except that they aren't.

[Sawbonz 27445]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

, except that they aren't.

I haven’t seen a clinical study that shows otherwise. The webmd article linked above does not show any raw numbers or link the study purporting to show >5x increased risk of hospitalization in recovered vs vaxed. It also is in direct opposition to other studies I’ve seen

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

You can dispute it, but you don’t have any evidence to back up your dispute. If you do, please provide. Your statement is factually incorrect.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211031/covid-vax-5-times-more-protective-than-natural-immunity

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

Vaccine immunity lasts significantly longer than acquired immunity

Again, vaccines provide greater protection than natural immunity and considering it is in the public interest to protect people, it is the public interest to mandate vaccines. 

But if prior infection means that you are as protected from "serious illness" as the vaccine, that's a different question, and calls into question the whole issue of booster mandates and testing mandates. 

In other words, is it reasonable to be concerned about serious illness and being put on a ventilator, but NOT being particularly concerned about getting reinfected?  I think so, given the fact that we are going to have access to great medicines to treat COVID over the next weeks, then then its very reasonable to measure the $$$ and social and psychological costs of mandates against their value - which seems to be decreasing rapidly. (One of the more interesting arguments in the podcast is that we shouldn't be doing so much testing. If someone is at risk and a doctor recommends a test, great.  If not, we shouldn't all be testing if we've been vaccinated and just have a cold.  I have taken four negative tests to date when I had a mild virus.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext

Although longer follow-up studies are needed, clinicians should remain optimistic regarding the protective effect of recovery from previous infection. Community immunity to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic can be reached with the acquired immunity due to either previous infection or vaccination. Acquired immunity from vaccination is certainly much safer and preferred. Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.

Edited January 5, 2022 by tantric superman

[justhookit 4184]

14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

But if prior infection means that you are as protected from "serious illness" as the vaccine, that's a different question, and calls into question the whole issue of booster mandates and testing mandates. 

In other words, is it reasonable to be concerned about serious illness and being put on a ventilator, but NOT being particularly concerned about getting reinfected?  I think so, given the fact that we are going to have access to great medicines to treat COVID over the next weeks, then then its very reasonable to measure the $$$ and social and psychological costs of mandates against their value - which seems to be decreasing rapidly. (One of the more interesting arguments in the podcast is that we shouldn't be doing so much testing. If someone is at risk and a doctor recommends a test, great.  If not, we shouldn't all be testing if we've been vaccinated and just have a cold.  I have taken four negative tests to date when I had a mild virus.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext

Yup.

Didn’t listen to the podcast, sorry, but the testing craze/fad lately is amazing. You know why it’s hard to get a test lately?  A bunch of people here on surly have the means and time to test multiple times.
You feel sick? Stay home.

I know a large family - 10ish people- that all popped positive this week. All asymptomatic. They tested because they were at a Christmas party where about half the people who were there had Covid.

our office in Austin has twice as many people out this week as any other time since Covid started.

this is insanity. We have a large portion of this country that refuses the science of a vaccine, but you think those same people are going to run out and get a test? Unless new data comes to light about Omni or we get a worse variant, this shit is over. There is no way to test or vaccinate your way out. It is what it is.

About the only good reason I can think of to test anymore is if you are going to be around someone elderly or otherwise high risk, and even then if you are going to be around other people between your test and your visit, well?

[Neonmoon 38127]

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I haven’t seen a clinical study that shows otherwise. The webmd article linked above does not show any raw numbers or link the study purporting to show >5x increased risk of hospitalization in recovered vs vaxed. It also is in direct opposition to other studies I’ve seen

The link was in the first paragraph. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w
 

[Dahobbs 17454]

9 hours ago, tantric superman said:

But if prior infection means that you are as protected from "serious illness" as the vaccine, that's a different question, and calls into question the whole issue of booster mandates and testing mandates. 

In other words, is it reasonable to be concerned about serious illness and being put on a ventilator, but NOT being particularly concerned about getting reinfected?  I think so, given the fact that we are going to have access to great medicines to treat COVID over the next weeks, then then its very reasonable to measure the $$$ and social and psychological costs of mandates against their value - which seems to be decreasing rapidly. (One of the more interesting arguments in the podcast is that we shouldn't be doing so much testing. If someone is at risk and a doctor recommends a test, great.  If not, we shouldn't all be testing if we've been vaccinated and just have a cold.  I have taken four negative tests to date when I had a mild virus.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext

Although longer follow-up studies are needed, clinicians should remain optimistic regarding the protective effect of recovery from previous infection. Community immunity to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic can be reached with the acquired immunity due to either previous infection or vaccination. Acquired immunity from vaccination is certainly much safer and preferred. Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.

Prior infection being medically the same as vaccination in the prevention of serious illness is important information for public health officials to consider. It isn't the only information that matters. First, you still want to encourage vaccination as opposed to infection for those unexposed (20% of the population?). For instance, we still mandate vaccination for school children for a large number of diseases and Covid-19 should ultimately be in that grouping. Second, as far as public screening tool goes, its very simple and quick to check a vaccination card. It is much more difficult to assess evidence of recovery from prior infection. What evidence will you allow? A positive PCR test? A positive at home test? A doctor's note? Do you need both positive and negative tests? How do you deal with people that were never actually tested but are sure they had the virus? Finally, given the rise of variants, I don't think it is reasonable at all to back off on vaccination efforts. You're relying on limited data ("follow up studies needed") to make grand conclusions. I don't think that is a good idea. Let things play out just a little bit more before we make whole-sale changes in policy. 

8 hours ago, justhookit said:

Yup.

Didn’t listen to the podcast, sorry, but the testing craze/fad lately is amazing. You know why it’s hard to get a test lately?  A bunch of people here on surly have the means and time to test multiple times.
You feel sick? Stay home.

I know a large family - 10ish people- that all popped positive this week. All asymptomatic. They tested because they were at a Christmas party where about half the people who were there had Covid.

our office in Austin has twice as many people out this week as any other time since Covid started.

this is insanity. We have a large portion of this country that refuses the science of a vaccine, but you think those same people are going to run out and get a test? Unless new data comes to light about Omni or we get a worse variant, this shit is over. There is no way to test or vaccinate your way out. It is what it is.

About the only good reason I can think of to test anymore is if you are going to be around someone elderly or otherwise high risk, and even then if you are going to be around other people between your test and your visit, well?

Wow. We get a couple of preliminary studies over the last couple of weeks that indicates Omicron may not be as bad in terms of severity (although, mostly because so much of the population has already been exposed or vaccinated), a EUA for a new treatment drug with no current availability and that we have seen actually used in the wild yet, and you're wanting to jump to "this is over"? Talk about fucking reckless. Y'all need to simmer just a bit. We just scored a TD to tie the game up in the 3rd quarter. And our new QB is looking good. But let's not fucking count it as a win yet, mmmmkay? Instead, let's continue the course and use our current game plan. We can talk about bringing in backups once things are actually somewhat under control. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

18 hours ago, YChang said:

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

Therein lies the rub.

One team's realism is another's insanity.  There's more than enough to go around, but it's just those dumb motherfuckers over there that are screwing things up so bad...

Edited January 5, 2022 by slorch

[Dahobbs 17454]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Therein lies the rub.

One team's realism is another's insanity.

I'm a believer in objective truth. One group is definitely wrong and we can ignore them. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

8 hours ago, tantric superman said:

But if prior infection means that you are as protected from "serious illness" as the vaccine, that's a different question, and calls into question the whole issue of booster mandates and testing mandates. 

In other words, is it reasonable to be concerned about serious illness and being put on a ventilator, but NOT being particularly concerned about getting reinfected?  I think so, given the fact that we are going to have access to great medicines to treat COVID over the next weeks, then then its very reasonable to measure the $$$ and social and psychological costs of mandates against their value - which seems to be decreasing rapidly. (One of the more interesting arguments in the podcast is that we shouldn't be doing so much testing. If someone is at risk and a doctor recommends a test, great.  If not, we shouldn't all be testing if we've been vaccinated and just have a cold.  I have taken four negative tests to date when I had a mild virus.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext

Although longer follow-up studies are needed, clinicians should remain optimistic regarding the protective effect of recovery from previous infection. Community immunity to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic can be reached with the acquired immunity due to either previous infection or vaccination. Acquired immunity from vaccination is certainly much safer and preferred. Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.

You raise a good issue. With the severity of Covid decreasing with emerging variants, will that change the dynamic of public policy and mandates. I personally don’t care if getting a vaccine causes one social or psychological effects. It doesn’t cost them monetarily at all. We shouldn’t base public policy on the fears of the ignorant, but on protecting the public. 

The article and quotation above you linked has a good qualifying statement, “although longer follow up studies are needed”. There are studies out there saying acquired immunity wanes after 60-90 days. But vaccination lasts 6 months. My point is that this is still a dynamic situation and we need more data and better testing. 

Right now, too many people are still dying every day. Mandates work. They have been proven to work at getting the population vaccinated. Vaccination has proven the safest way to be protected from death. Now, with less severe variants emerging, people want to reframe the narrative. Some of it might be justified as new information emerges, like all science, new shit comes to light, things change, and recommendations change. I’m fine with that. I just don’t think there is a good reason not to get vaccinated, even if you’ve been previously infected, and the only reason people are arguing against mandates is so they don’t have to get vaccinated. 

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

48 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I personally don’t care if getting a vaccine causes one social or psychological effects. It doesn’t cost them monetarily at all. We shouldn’t base public policy on the fears of the ignorant, but on protecting the public. 

I simply think that is not true, and this is why we have such political divisions. The "free testing" costs someone money.  I've had four.  President Biden wants 500 million.  So ultimately, let's just agree that my little grandson is going to be paying for this in terms of reduced educational opportunity or reduced social security benefits, just like he'll be paying for all of the various expenses that we don't properly fund with current taxes. 

I'm willing to wait on the final tally of the negative implications of school closures/falling behind in school, but there will be real consequences. 

I think it's imperative that we make sure we define what "protecting the public" means in our discussions, because when we use it too broadly its hard to discuss the issue. (I'm thinking we need to focus on "protecting those vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID" -- and we need to stay focused on that.)   Whoever fails to focus on that definition and frankly, whoever continues to perpetrate solutions that don't fit the current situation and whoever doesn't admit that prior steps may not have been that effective, is going to face some pretty bad consequences in future elections. 

[Sawbonz 27445]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

The link was in the first paragraph. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w
 

Thanks. What that means is if one is hospitalized for Covid like illness,  an unvaccinated recovered patient is 5 x as likely as a vaccinated patient to be sick from Covid 19 rather than something else (and in both groups much more likely to be hospitalized for something other than Covid per the study). That is not the same as an unvaccinated recovered person being 5 x as likely as a vaccinated person to require hospitalization from a Covid infection 

 

Also reading on phone but I did not see that the positives were analyzed based on other variables such as obesity or other comorbidities (maybe not possible in that there were only 89 positives in the unvaccinated previous illness cohort and 324 in the vaccinated) and that is a huge weakness especially given the small numbers. 
 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19096]

New York State and City are revisiting hospitalization data.  Right now, the data is everyone in the hospital with COVID, even if COVID isn't the reason you are there.  They want to see if they can parse the data to show who is in the hospital because of COVID specifically, not those that came in with a broken leg due to a skiing accident and got a mild case that was like a cold.  I think that data would be useful.  

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m fine with that. I just don’t think there is a good reason not to get vaccinated, even if you’ve been previously infected, and the only reason people are arguing against mandates is so they don’t have to get vaccinated. 

It's too late at this point because the Repubs will do anything to make Dem legislation fail, but the Biden admin should have seen from the outset that the way to maximize vaccines would have been to pass legislation that allowed all businesses to determine for themselves whether they would require their employees and customers to be vaccinated. They could have thus been on the side of individual choice for both individuals and businesses.  They could have let the states and localities fight the battle of local mandates. 

If the Repubs fought those mandates the Dems could have at least been seen as being on the side of "liberty" - which might have appealed to some swing voters.

Edited January 5, 2022 by tantric superman

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19096]

I wish we were doing this.  We should make life shitty for the unvaccinated as they are putting us all at risk.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-05/france-s-macron-says-he-wants-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated?cmpid=BBD010522_MKT&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220105&utm_campaign=markets&sref=knoriXqz

I am glad I live in a city where they are not fucking around with mandates (We have them for Healthcare workers, teachers, city employees, and all businesses in the city of NY).  The problem with the US is you have the crazy states (Texas and Florida leading the way currently), who are actively killing their constituents due to political bullshit.  DeSantis and Abbott should be in jail after this for murder along with their idol, Trump.  They all have blood on their hands.

Edited January 5, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Dahobbs 17454]

59 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I simply think that is not true, and this is why we have such political divisions. The "free testing" costs someone money.  I've had four.  President Biden wants 500 million.  So ultimately, let's just agree that my little grandson is going to be paying for this in terms of reduced educational opportunity or reduced social security benefits, just like he'll be paying for all of the various expenses that we don't properly fund with current taxes. 

I'm willing to wait on the final tally of the negative implications of school closures/falling behind in school, but there will be real consequences. 

I think it's imperative that we make sure we define what "protecting the public" means in our discussions, because when we use it too broadly its hard to discuss the issue. (I'm thinking we need to focus on "protecting those vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID" -- and we need to stay focused on that.)   Whoever fails to focus on that definition and frankly, whoever continues to perpetrate solutions that don't fit the current situation and whoever doesn't admit that prior steps may not have been that effective, is going to face some pretty bad consequences in future elections. 

(1) He is talking about vaccinations. You are talking about testing. Those don't have the same cost/benefits analysis. 

(2) Yes, we have to understand what we mean when we are talking about protecting the public. You have to understand that the people policy decisions don't make them looking at what is best for one single individual. They are trying to make the best decision for society as a whole. That means limiting death, severe illness, and overwhelming of the healthcare system as efficiently as possible. It just so happens that the most effective method for doing that, universal vaccinations, also happens to be the most cost effective and efficient to administrate. Unfortunately, we don't have the political will to get that done. So we are stuck with this stupid abomination of closures, testing, and the like. 

(3) I get concerned when people talk about just protecting those that are vulnerable because I don't know what they really mean. Are we only talking about those at the highest risk of death? Are we talking about the folks that may get hospitalized? Are we talking about the unvaccinated and previously unexposed? While severe disease is unlikely for a relatively healthy middle-aged adult, it isn't so rare that we should treat it as non-existent.  

(4) What do you mean willing to wait on the tally for school closures? Are you really suggesting that school closures in 2020 weren't prudent based on the information at the time? Stop vilifying past decisions in light of new information. We can change future conduct, but we can't look at everything with 20-20 hindsight like that. 

(5) It is very clear at this point that future elections are going to be predicated on the beliefs of stupid people. I still don't see that as a reason to give in to them. 

27 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It's too late at this point because the Repubs will do anything to make Dem legislation fail, but the Biden admin should have seen from the outset that the way to maximize vaccines would have been to pass legislation that allowed all businesses to determine for themselves whether they would require their employees and customers to be vaccinated. They could have thus been on the side of individual choice for both individuals and businesses.  They could have let the states and localities fight the battle of local mandates. 

If the Repubs fought those mandates the Dems could have at least been seen as being on the side of "liberty" - which might have appealed to some swing voters.

Uh, what? What would that legislation even look like? What exactly would the Constitutional hook be? Why would such a law even be necessary?  Businesses could already do this in absence of a law that says otherwise. Oh wait, Republicans are in fact enacting laws stop businesses from make those choices  via state legislation and executive orders (see Abbott). What you want is exactly what has happened. And it is fucking stupid.  

Edited January 5, 2022 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29276]

I can't believe it's 2022 and we're still arguing about whether vaccine mandates are good.

[tantric superman 4667]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh, what? What would that legislation even look like? What exactly would the Constitutional hook be? Why would such a law even be necessary?  Businesses could already do this in absence of a law that says otherwise.

Well, it would be a bill, which would then become law.

The commerce clause. 

Because we want(ed) people to get vaccinated.

The law would outline how the businesses would be immune from lawsuit and outline any exemptions from ADA or religoius accommodation.

[Anastasis 23402]

27 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Thanks. What that means is if one is hospitalized for Covid like illness,  an unvaccinated recovered patient is 5 x as likely as a vaccinated patient to be sick from Covid 19 rather than something else (and in both groups much more likely to be hospitalized for something other than Covid per the study). That is not the same as an unvaccinated recovered person being 5 x as likely as a vaccinated person to require hospitalization from a Covid infection 

 

Also reading on phone but I did not see that the positives were analyzed based on other variables such as obesity or other comorbidities (maybe not possible in that there were only 89 positives in the unvaccinated previous illness cohort and 324 in the vaccinated) and that is a huge weakness especially given the small numbers. 

Right, feels like deja vu talking about these CDC case control studies and how to interpret the data.  The most surprising thing in that study to me, and which you allude to, is that of the 7348 individuals hospitalized with COVID-like illness, only 5.6% n=413 actually had COVID. Among those that were vaccinated the positivity was 5.1%, among those with prior infection 8.7%, for an absolute difference of 2.6%. The OR is not a measure of relative risk and can be misleading if misinterpreted. 

[tantric superman 4667]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I can't believe it's 2022 and we're still arguing about whether vaccine mandates are good.

Are you suggesting that a COVID vaccine mandate is never going to end?  I doubt it. The question is at what point to we pivot to a more "flu like" protocol in regard to COVID.  

I think it is completely fair for that discussion to begin now.

 

[Dahobbs 17454]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Well, it would be a bill, which would then become law.

The commerce clause. 

Because we want(ed) people to get vaccinated.

The law would outline how the businesses would be immune from lawsuit and outline any exemptions from ADA or religoius accommodation.

Again, nothing stops businesses from doing this right now (other than state laws that now say they can't). They don't need to make religious accommodations, they aren't the government. I don't know what the ADA has to do with anything. Immunity from lawsuits would either have to be limited to certain federal laws (none of which I think really create liability for this sort of thing) or would have to pre-empt state laws. That latter options would never in a million years be allowed to pass. Even if such a law somehow passed the senate, it would be heavily litigated for years and probably somehow overturned as unconstitutional. 

[tantric superman 4667]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(1) He is talking about vaccinations. You are talking about testing. Those don't have the same cost/benefits analysis. 

That's fair.  But both have a cost.  He wants to ignore the cost on vaccines.  I don't think that is an appropriate.

[Dahobbs 17454]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Are you suggesting that a COVID vaccine mandate is never going to end?  I doubt it. The question is at what point to we pivot to a more "flu like" protocol in regard to COVID.  

I think it is completely fair for that discussion to begin now.

 

Have we ended vaccine mandates for other diseases prior to school? No? Ok, then, yes, I'm suggesting we treat Covid exactly the same and continue the vaccination requirements forever. We do that, and eventually we can stop worrying about any other sort of covid vaccine mandates or protections. 

[Anastasis 23402]

Employer vaccine mandates have a measurable impact on vaccine uptake.  I think that employers should strongly consider them.  I don't think that the government should use OSHA emergency rule making authority to put arbitrary requirements on employers to implement them.   

[Dahobbs 17454]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

That's fair.  But both have a cost.  He wants to ignore the cost on vaccines.  I don't think that is an appropriate.

He isn't ignoring it. He said it doesn't cost the individual out of pocket. But fine. Discuss the costs of the vaccine. If you're honest at all with the numbers, you'll ultimately reach the same conclusion that everyone with a brain has already reached: they are fucking worth it. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Employer vaccine mandates have a measurable impact on vaccine uptake.  I think that employers should strongly consider them.  I don't think that the government should use OSHA emergency rule making authority to put arbitrary requirements on employers to implement them.   

I understand that argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but at least I understand it and can respect it. 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, nothing stops businesses from doing this right now (other than state laws that now say they can't). They don't need to make religious accommodations, they aren't the government. I don't know what the ADA has to do with anything.

This is a crazily uninformed post. 

The primary concern any business would have in imposing a mandate on its employees without protection from government laws is crazy lawsuits by crazy employees and customers. That's why businesses have been frustrated by the federal mandates and the courts fucking with them.  Companies would love to the mandate so that they can rely on it to fend off lawsuits.  Without it, they face lots of loony constitutionally based lawsuits.

Companies have to comply with the ADA.  Right now, companies are inundated with requests for accommodations based on COVID

Companies have to make religious accommodations, including for those with people who have a sincere believe that the vaccines are  the mark of the devil or whatever sincere but hard to understand reason they have. 

[DaysOff 7854]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Are you suggesting that a COVID vaccine mandate is never going to end?  I doubt it. The question is at what point to we pivot to a more "flu like" protocol in regard to COVID.  

I think it is completely fair for that discussion to begin now.

 

 

When we have an annual death total that resembles even a bad influenza year.

[YChang 3432]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Therein lies the rub.

One team's realism is another's insanity.  There's more than enough to go around, but it's just those dumb motherfuckers over there that are screwing things up so bad...

For sure it’s not easy. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

Just now, tantric superman said:

This is a crazily uninformed post. 

The primary concern any business would have in imposing a mandate on its employees without protection from government laws is crazy lawsuits by crazy employees and customers. That's why businesses have been frustrated by the federal mandates and the courts fucking with them.  Companies would love to the mandate so that they can rely on it to fend off lawsuits.  Without it, they face lots of loony constitutionally based lawsuits.

Companies have to comply with the ADA.  Right now, companies are inundated with requests for accommodations based on COVID

Companies have to make religious accommodations, including for those with people who have a sincere believe that the vaccines are  the mark of the devil or whatever sincere but hard to understand reason they have. 

No, it isn't. Even if your law that could never be passed actually came into fruition, there would still be looney-tunes lawsuits. It doesn't change anything. None of those lawsuits have any legally viable basis. 

You're asking for a law that isn't necessary and that wouldn't provide any additional benefit to anyone. It wouldn't stop looney-tunes lawsuits. I guess you want a definitive statement that requiring vaccination doesn't violate title VII or the ADA. Maybe that helps clarify things (although I don't think it substantively changes the law, which basically says that they can do it anyway). But it isn't going to have any effect on the numerous state laws and orders now in place that make it difficult for some businesses to implement such mandates. And a law that preempts state laws is never going to pass the senate. Never. And even if it did, there would be plenty of fucking lawsuits to stop it. 

[jimmyjazz 45585]

I keep pointing out versions of this statistic, but I think a lot of people aren't interested in absorbing what it means.

In 2021, roughly 476,000 Americans died of covid-19.  That is a staggering number.

Our current 7-day moving average is 1,206 American deaths per day.  If that continues throughout 2022, it would point to another 440,000 dead Americans.  That is also a staggering number.

 

Now is not the time to take the "it's just like the flu" tack in terms of defining public policy.  Will omicron ultimately prove to be less severe in terms of mortality risk to the individual?  Probably.  Will it continue to burn through the US at an incredible rate?  For a while, probably.  Will our daily mortality rate subsequently drop significantly from the current average rate of 1,206 dead Americans each day?  We have no idea.  If if things do get better, then are we confident the next variant will pose equally benign risks to the individual?  Nobody knows.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Have we ended vaccine mandates for other diseases prior to school? No? Ok, then, yes, I'm suggesting we treat Covid exactly the same and continue the vaccination requirements forever. We do that, and eventually we can stop worrying about any other sort of covid vaccine mandates or protections. 

I don't know the trajectory of this disease.  However, at some point there should be a scientific determination that the risk to school children remains so great that we require the vaccine.  So somewhere between polio and flu?

This debate would be much different if school age children were in an at risk group and if the vaccines have been approved quickly for all their age groups. 

[tantric superman 4667]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, it isn't.

[tantric superman 4667]

26 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

When we have an annual death total that resembles even a bad influenza year.

Fine with me.  Although it's still important to understand the efficacy of vaccinations (vs. acquired immunity as well). 

And for a political standpoint, I think government agencies would be well served to be thinking about the signposts that might cause them to alter their policy.  I think "annual death total" is a great measuring post. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

.  

(4) What do you mean willing to wait on the tally for school closures? Are you really suggesting that school closures in 2020 weren't prudent based on the information at the time? Stop vilifying past decisions in light of new information. We can change future conduct, but we can't look at everything with 20-20 hindsight like that. 

 

After spring semester 2020, school closures were the wrong choice. Doing it now like is happening in some areas is straight up negligence. 
 

37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Have we ended vaccine mandates for other diseases prior to school? No? Ok, then, yes, I'm suggesting we treat Covid exactly the same and continue the vaccination requirements forever. We do that, and eventually we can stop worrying about any other sort of covid vaccine mandates or protections. 

Pediatric mandates are a whole different ballgame, scientifically and politically. 
 

 

[Dahobbs 17454]

23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I don't know the trajectory of this disease.  However, at some point there should be a scientific determination that the risk to school children remains so great that we require the vaccine.  So somewhere between polio and flu?

This debate would be much different if school age children were in an at risk group and if the vaccines have been approved quickly for all their age groups. 

Why? Public policy on requiring vaccinations doesn't need to be solely based on the benefits to the individual, but can and should be based on the benefits to society as a whole. Inoculating children early on is proven way to ensure a high percentage of the population is inoculated. It protects not just the children from possible severe disease, but slows the spread, protects those same children from severe disease if infected later in life, and saves the medical resources that would have been spent on treatment. 

And, the flu isn't a good differentiator anyway. If we had vaccines that worked as well against the flu and with as little side effects as the ones we have for Covid-19, I'm confident we'd be requiring those for children as well. 

18 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

This is what I do. And I literally explained my reasoning in the post. Feel free to respond to the substance. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The article and quotation above you linked has a good qualifying statement, “although longer follow up studies are needed”. There are studies out there saying acquired immunity wanes after 60-90 days. But vaccination lasts 6 months. My point is that this is still a dynamic situation and we need more data and better testing. 

 

 

 

There’s all kinds of studies, given you thought that your previous citation was a gotcha I’m going to question your understanding of all the totality of the evidence. Btw CDC recommends booster at 5 months now so you’re behind there on vaccine duration. 
 

What a lot of posters here are missing is the political calculus with vaccines and mandates is different now. When the vaccine rollout started a lot of people were really behind it because it was to “stop the spread” and it’s “our way out of the pandemic”. Those absolute statements have turned out to be false. Thus you can expect some of the moderates on this issue are going to waiver especially after they’ve contracted Covid and seen all their vaxxed friends get it as well. 
 

The next big fight will be transitioning the definition of fully vaccinated to include boosting. A lot of people that just had Covid aren’t going to like that. We’ll see what happens.