Requests Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media
Politics & World General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding
Creative Forum The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum
Sexuality Hot Takes Complaints Awwww
Hobbies      

Politics & World


Current Events and World Affairs, Government Information and News Headlines... but please leverage the Hot Takes forum for debates!

[scrubbed]

Posted Over 1 Year ago by [scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

There are 79 Replies


Ph.D holders are the least likely to get vaccinated. It's literally the brightest Americans aren't blindly taking the vaccine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/americans-with-phds-are-most-reluctant-to-get-vaccinated-against-covid/ar-AANjRHh
Anyways, yeah, if someone is opposed to the vaccine, but has no problem eating fast food, high fructose corn syrup, or meat, they're hypocrites.

Over 1 Year ago
Post-Wall Feminist

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

Damn, where's a Bigot Post when you need one.

Over 1 Year ago
Xhin
Sky's the limit

Ph.D holders are the least likely to get vaccinated. It's literally the brightest Americans aren't blindly taking the vaccine.








Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 

We doing pandemic memes?







Over 1 Year ago
Xhin
Sky's the limit

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

We doing pandemic memes?


Yeah, glad to see you got the ones I didn’t post, but that morons would. We definitely need those to balance out and point out the stupidity of the people who made them, thanks!

Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 









I'd also like to point on that the people who make these memes also like to say that the FLu kills more people each year, which is absolutely false. Infact, the amount of deaths in the US associated with the flu dropped from 22,0000 in 2019-2020 to 700 in 2020-2021 due to the mask and social distancing mandates. If COVID was not more contagious and deadly then why didn't it's number drop down that low? I mean, it's been said more people die from the Flu than COVID right?

oh, and incase you think I am making this up: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/
Also, the meme about only 1% dying from COVID is also wrong. The flu kills around 0.1% of those infected, COVID had a 3.4% death rate as of Aug. 25, 2020. That's was now over a year ago and if you think that the number will be lower this year then you better think again because the amount of deaths in 2021 surpassed those from 2020: As of Jun 10, 1,884,146 people have died of COVID-19 in 2021, compared with the 1,880,510 in 2020.

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-vs-flu.htmlhttps://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/06/global-covid-deaths-2021-have-topped-all-last-years
But wait, what is that I hear you asking: "if people are getting Vaccinated how are the deaths going up?"

Good question that is very easily answered for people who can figure out how to google covid infection rate vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

So first off, lets explain how a vaccine works as alot of people dont understand what it is compared to a CURE:

COVID-19 vaccines help our bodies develop immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19 without us having to get the illness.

But Q, what does that mean? It means that the vaccine teaches your body to fight THAT strain or VARIANT of the virus. Viruses change all the time, which is why the flu is still around. And just because you have the vaccine does not mean you can't get infected. It just means that your body will be able to fight the virus off and kill it before it can make you sick or make you seriously sick. However, it is still possible to be infected.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/how-they-work.html
But wait, Damnit Q, You haven't answered why you should get the vaccine if you can still get infected by it!!!! Well here is the answer that stupid question -

By July 25, 2021, a total of 10,175,425 (65.8%) New York adults aged ≥18 years were fully vaccinated; 1,603,939 (10.4%) were partially vaccinated. Among fully vaccinated adults, 51.3% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 39.8% had received Moderna, and 8.9% had received Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccines. During May 3–July 25, a total of 9,675 new cases (1.31 per 100,000 person-days) occurred among fully vaccinated adults, compared with 38,505 (10.69 per 100,000 person-days) among unvaccinated adults (Table). Most (98.1%) new cases among fully vaccinated persons occurred ≥7 days after being classified fully vaccinated (median = 85 days; IQR = 58–113). During May 3–July 25, case rates among fully vaccinated persons were generally similar across age groups, as were case rates among unvaccinated persons, declining through the end of June before increasing in July (Figure 1). Weekly estimated VE against new laboratory-confirmed infection during May 3–July 25 for all age groups generally declined, ranging from 90.6% to 74.6% for persons aged 18–49 years, 93.5% to 83.4% for persons aged 50–64 years, and 92.3% to 88.9% for persons aged ≥65 years. During May 3–July 25, the overall, age-adjusted VE against infection declined from 91.7% to 79.8% (Figure 1) (Table).

A total of 1,271 new COVID-19 hospitalizations (0.17 per 100,000 person-days) occurred among fully vaccinated adults, compared with 7,308 (2.03 per 100,000 person-days) among unvaccinated adults (Table). Hospitalization rates generally declined through the week of July 5, but increased the weeks of July 12 and July 19, and were higher among fully vaccinated and unvaccinated persons aged ≥65 years compared with younger age groups (Figure 2). Age group–specific estimated VE against hospitalization remained stable, ranging from 90.8% to 97.5% for persons aged 18–49 years, from 92.4% to 97.0% for persons aged 50–64 years, and from 92.3% to 96.1% for persons aged ≥65 years. During May 3–July 25, the overall, age-adjusted VE against hospitalization was generally stable from 91.9% to 95.3% (Figure 2) (Table). The ratio of hospitalizations to cases was moderately lower among fully vaccinated (13.1 hospitalizations per 100 cases) compared with unvaccinated (19.0 hospitalizations per 100 cases) groups.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm
Now, what does that all mean? Simply read the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph that says During May 3–July 25, a total of 9,675 new cases (1.31 per 100,000 person-days) occurred among fully vaccinated adults, compared with 38,505 (10.69 per 100,000 person-days) among unvaccinated adults.

That's a huge drop. All from a vaccine that is FREE. Literally costs you nothing but the time it takes to schedule the appointment and drive to the location. Some places do drive up vaccinations without needing an appointment. You are literally gaining nothing by refusing to get the vaccine.

Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 

Those memes couldn't even be bothered to get vaguely accurate statistics to put in them.

Over 1 Year ago
Jet Presto

I'd also like to point on that the people who make these memes also like to say that the FLu kills more people each year


I always hated that argument for a number of reasons, least of which because it had no basis in reality or actual real-world statistics. But also, it is really revealing of just how heartless people can be. Like, imagine if wearing a mask during flu season actually prevented some of those thousands of flu deaths each year? A very minor action, and people can't be bothered because who cares if I give someone the flu (or COVID) and they die from it? It's not my fault their immune system didn't work as well as mine did.

Over 1 Year ago
Jet Presto

Thing that always bums me out is like, no one seems to ask any questions. I understand that people might be hesitant because it hadn't been fully approved yet by the FDA (even though it was approved by the FDA for emergency use, explicitly because it was deemed safe and effective). But then I thought, "What does it even take to get FDA-approved?" And I spent exactly 20 minutes reading about it one night and learned that it's a bureaucratic process that works out of an abundance of caution. It wasn't "not approved" because it was unsafe. It was "not approved" because they require X amount of months of data showing it's safe and effective to get that full approval.

But no one seems to ask questions. They bring up a concern, but then just...stop there. Then you get the people who won't get the vaccine but will take all these other bonkers chemicals or literally dewormer and destroy their intestines because someone on the internet said that worked. Again, not even asking, "What is this chemical?"

Over 1 Year ago
Jet Presto

Then you get the people who won't get the vaccine but will take all these other bonkers chemicals or literally dewormer and destroy their intestines because someone on the internet said that worked. Again, not even asking, "What is this chemical?"


Like the morons that drank bleach and disinfectant sprays? Probably the same people making the memes not to get the vaccine.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-06-05/cdc-some-people-did-take-bleach-to-protect-from-coronavirus

Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

Can we not just enjoy the memes? Maybe have dueling memes?

COVID had a 3.4% death rate as of Aug. 25, 2020




This data is current as of March 2021.

It just means that your body will be able to fight the virus off and kill it before it can make you sick or make you seriously sick.


Orrrr... the "vaccine" will cause ADE, which will make certain variants have an easier time of entering your cells.
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext
This might explain why ~60% of the Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 are fully vaccinated.

You haven't answered why you should get the vaccine if you can still get infected by it


A better question is, "Why mandate the vaccine for public venues, when vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission?".

You are literally gaining nothing by refusing to get the vaccine.


It makes more sense to wait until after the clinical trials have completed. Check back in 2022-2023.



Over 1 Year ago
Xhin
Sky's the limit

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

[scrubbed]

Over 1 Year ago
[scrubbed]

I understand that people might be hesitant because it hadn't been fully approved yet by the FDA


I think that's more of a justification. The actual hesitancy has more to do with the experimental nature of the "vaccine", its rushed development in an election year, overall (justified!) mistrust of the government, ever-changing inconsistent recommendations, heavy-handed mandates in a country that prizes freedom, and a rabbit hole of corruption and incompetency that increases hesitancy the deeper you go.

Over 1 Year ago
Xhin
Sky's the limit

Can we not just enjoy the memes? Maybe have dueling memes?


Sure, we can have the ones based off of truth vs ones based off of lies.

This data is current as of March 2021.


Source?

Orrrr... the "vaccine" will cause ADE, which will make certain variants have an easier time of entering your cells.


Show me in the article you linked where it says ADE WILL occur.

In conclusion, ADE may occur in people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors) and then exposed to a Delta variant. Although this potential risk has been cleverly anticipated before the massive use of Covid-19 vaccines6, the ability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to mediate infection enhancement in vivo has never been formally demonstrated. However, although the results obtained so far have been rather reassuring1, to the best of our knowledge ADE of Delta variants has not been specifically assessed. Since our data indicate that Delta variants are especially well recognized by infection enhancing antibodies targeting the NTD, the possibility of ADE should be further investigated as it may represent a potential risk for mass vaccination during the current Delta variant pandemic.

Thats from the article you linked. I'm going to point out that no where does it say ADE absolutely will occur. And it says that ADE should be investigated as it MAY, again the word MAY, represent a potential risk. Deciding not to get the Vaccine because of something that MAY happen is absolutely dumb. That would be like driving without a seat belt on because the seat belt may restrict your escape after a crash.

This might explain why ~60% of the Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 are fully vaccinated.


Yeah about that: The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system, but infectious disease experts emphasized that this vaccine and others for COVID-19 nonetheless remain highly protective against severe disease and death.

I'm going to go with experts on this one.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties
A better question is, "Why mandate the vaccine for public venues, when vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission?".


An even better question is where you are getting that they don't prevent it at all. Again, vaccines aren't always 100% effective as it varies depending on the strain used and the individual getting the vaccine.

It makes more sense to wait until after the clinical trials have completed. Check back in 2022-2023.


It makes more sense to get the current vaccine, and then when a new one comes out to then get that one too. Kind of like the flu vaccine.



Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 

The actual hesitancy has more to do with the experimental nature of the "vaccine", its rushed development in an election year, overall (justified!) mistrust of the government, ever-changing inconsistent recommendations, heavy-handed mandates in a country that prizes freedom, and a rabbit hole of corruption and incompetency that increases hesitancy the deeper you go.




Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 



Over 1 Year ago
Q2
 

Source?


The CDC.

I'm going to point out that no where does it say ADE absolutely will occur.


I never made that claim, so your point is moot. My claim was that there is a demonstrated risk of ADE, especially when anitbodies produced from the wuhan-based vaccine encounter the delta variant.

Deciding not to get the Vaccine because of something that MAY happen is absolutely dumb.


Worrying about COVID-19 when your age group has an 0.05% death rate is absolutely dumb.

Yeah about that: The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system, but infectious disease experts emphasized that this vaccine and others for COVID-19 nonetheless remain highly protective against severe disease and death.


That has nothing to do with what I said. Why are ~60% of the Israelis currently hospitalized for COVID-19 fully vaccinated?

An even better question is where you are getting that they don't prevent it at all. Again, vaccines aren't always 100% effective as it varies depending on the strain used and the individual getting the vaccine.


No, my point stands that if a "vaccine" doesn't provide solid immunity (as traditional vaccines tend to) or prevent spread, then there's no sense in mandating them in order to prevent spread.

It makes more sense to get the current vaccine


It doesn't make sense to use a preventative product that has no reliable data on its safety or effectiveness, in order to prevent a disease with a 99.95% survival rate.

amazing every word of what you just said was wrong


Would you like to actually debunk anything I said? Here, I'll make it easier for you:

  • the experimental nature of the "vaccine"

  • its rushed development in an election year

  • overall (justified!) mistrust of the government

  • ever-changing inconsistent recommendations

  • heavy-handed mandates in a country that prizes freedom

  • a rabbit hole of corruption and incompetency that increases hesitancy the deeper you go.

    Choose wisely.

  • Over 1 Year ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    Sorry, I keep thinking about that first meme Riven posted, and I genuinely am curious where those numbers come from. It attempts to make the argument that the percentage of people vulnerable to COVID and dying from it is equal to the percentage of deaths from vaccinations, essentially making the argument that it's hypocritical to take precautions for COVID because 0.1% of Americans have died from it, while downplaying 0.1% of Americans have died from the vaccine. And I keep wondering where the hell these numbers come from, because it groundwork of that meme is fundamentally predicated on either false representations of data, misunderstandings, or just literally made up.

    First, it *dramatically* inflates the percentage of vaccine-related deaths. There have been some reported deaths, but that number is around 5,300. So if we want to make a comparison to COVID-related deaths, it pales. 5,300 vaccine-related deaths to 635,0000 related COVID deaths is sort of strange in terms of pure numbers.

    Secondly, we have to talk about these percentages. Above all else, there is no math that gets you to 0.1% vaccine-related deaths. No amount of new math or common core math get you there. But even the percentages of COVID deaths is predicated on some incredibly limited understanding of math, statistics, and risk. Plus fails to understand the larger picture issue of COVID itself.

    The argument is, COVID isn't worth all these precautions and regulations because 0.1% of people have died from it. Apart from how completely dismissive that is to a major mass death event, this doesn't mean that only 0.1% of the population is at risk. That 0.1% isn't who is at risk. That 0.1% is just everyone who died. This does not factor in people who have been hospitalized (and traumatized), intubated, perhaps even coming close to death, or now have chronic health problems as a result of their COVID infections (I personally know a half dozen people personally who were infected last summer and fall, but continue to have respiratory issues). You can't simply use the metric of death and surviving here. Yes, the overwhelming majority wind up totally fine (especially vaccinated and incredibly wealthy and privileged politicians who tell you not to get vaccinated or wear a mask). But in terms of how many people have been dramatically affected from COVID infection is much, much higher than 0.1%. It isn't a binary where you either die, or you live and therefore are fine. I can't provide too much data on those numbers, though, because we haven't been tracking much of that.

    But also, that 0.1% is based purely on the total American population. The death rate looks a little different when you consider what it is for people who get COVID. As of most recent data, there have been over 38 million cases of COVID in the US. That's just over 11% of the total US population having contracted COVID in the past year and a half. So if we want to look at what the percentages are of people dying from COVID in terms of population that actually had it, you're talking a little under 2%. Now, I'm sure that's still not big enough to care about those dead people. However, that gives us a little more accurate insight into how costly this virus could be. If even half the country got COVID, with that 1.7% death rate, that would be over 2 million deaths. And I dunno: it still just feels weird to me to argue that half a million deaths don't matter because it's a tiny percentage.

    But *then* we have to get into who is *actually* at greater risk. Keep in mind, as well, that these are the numbers during a time that included precautions. This included shut downs, mask mandates, social distancing, et cetera. Undoubtedly, and uncontroversially to declare, those numbers absolutely would be higher if we had never done any of that.

    Death tolls and percentages don't even remotely tell you the story of what percentage of the population is at risk here. For example, we *know* that the single largest demographic of deaths is from senior citizens. People age 65 and older account for over 81% of COVID deaths. They also account for over 16% of the total US population. Or we also have known that people who are immunocompromised are at greater risk of serious infection, as well as death. About 5% of American adults report being immunocompromised. (And let's be honest: this number is *actually* going to be higher because in America, not everyone even has access to a doctor, so there are millions who just never really get to see one.)

    All this is to say: we aren't issuing mask or vaccination mandates to protect the 0.1% of people who have died. We are doing that to protect the 16% of seniors and 5% of adults who are at discernibly higher risk of death or severe infection (as well as just everyone else who, ya never know! I know if I get COVID, I'm almost certainly gonna be fine. But you can't guarantee that, and I dunno, I'd personally rather just not risk it if I can avoid it.)

    Now back to the vaccinations. If you are measuring both COVID deaths and vaccine deaths by total US population only, then you get 0.1% for COVID deaths, but then 0.001% vaccine deaths. When your total population is over 328 million, that's a discernible difference from a pure numbers standpoint. We could also measure it by percentage of people who got it. 1.7% of Americans infected with COVID have died from COVID. Over 172 million Americans have received a shot so far. That means that the total percentages of vaccine-related deaths is at 0.003%. COVID is unquestionably, demonstrably, uncontroversially more lethal than the vaccine, and acting like they have anywhere near similar rates is so factually inaccurate that one could argue that you *have* to be lying about it to make such a connection.

    Yet there's also the fact that most of the vaccines have required multiple shots. We could also factor the sheer number of vaccines administered. There have been over 366 million shots given. If we want to measure it that way, that would that the vaccine-related death rate is even lower. The vaccines have been so safe that the difference here is in the ten thousandths (0.0017% if measuring just population who received a shot to 0.0014% if measuring the total number doses administered.) Again, this is a world of difference to either the 0.1% of total population deaths or 1.7% deaths of infected.

    And of course, none of this gets into the untallied costs as well. We don't have good data - and we might never, though I hope someone is able to piece it together - of unnecessary deaths from other causes, that occurred because hospitals were full and so they couldn't treat a patient for something else like a stroke or heart attack. (Was just reading about someone whose mother died from a stroke because the hospital couldn't accommodate her since COVID rates were pretty bad.)



    Aaaaaanyway: TL; DR - that meme is so disingenuous that it's intellectually insulting. It's not as outwardly insulting as the abuse wheel being used to perpetuate national-level abuse (it's a meme that itself does some pretty heavy gaslighting). But it's really just dumb. I hope you can at least understand why those numbers themselves are either made up or manipulated for your point, and also completely fail to provide anywhere near the complete story of the pandemic and the damage of this virus.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    The CDC.


    Link Please.

    I never made that claim, so your point is moot. My claim was that there is a demonstrated risk of ADE, especially when anitbodies produced from the wuhan-based vaccine encounter the delta variant.


    Yes you did. You said: "Orrrr... the "vaccine" will cause ADE, which will make certain variants have an easier time of entering your cells."

    Worrying about COVID-19 when your age group has an 0.05% death rate is absolutely dumb.


    No it is not. Just because I wont die from it doesn't mean I wouldn't pass it to someone else who could or would. Thinking of only yourself in this Pandemic is selfish and short sighted.

    No, my point stands that if a "vaccine" doesn't provide solid immunity (as traditional vaccines tend to) or prevent spread, then there's no sense in mandating them in order to prevent spread.


    First off, that is not what you said. You said: "A better question is, "Why mandate the vaccine for public venues, when vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission?"." That is different than not providing solid immunity, so if you are going to back track then make sure you conceed your original point. That is now twice you've tried to back track. 2nd, some immunity is almost always better than no immunity.

    It doesn't make sense to use a preventative product that has no reliable data on its safety or effectiveness, in order to prevent a disease with a 99.95% survival rate.


    Oh boy, I sure feel like that number is being pulled from your ass. Do you have a link to back up that shitty smelling number? WHile you are searching for a source to corroborate your made up number, you should read this:
    https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
    Would you like to actually debunk anything I said? Here, I'll make it easier for you.......Choose wisely.


    Actually, I thought you might try to pull some nonsense like this so I already did. if you were to watch the video I just linked above with John Oliver you will find what you seek.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    I don't think the 0.1% thing was ever meant as a scientifically accurate projection that makes vaccine deaths and covid deaths equal; it was meant to show the hypocrisy of ignoring vaccine deaths and injuries while also ignoring the high survivability of the virus.

    As far as vaccine usage goes, people should be able to make their own informed choices -- if your age group has a 9% death rate and you're reasonably unhealthy, then yeah, the tiny chance of dying or getting thrombosis or whatever from the vaccine is worth the risk. However if you have a very high chance of covid survival (and have avoided it so far) then those risks are more pronounced; you're risking illness for no reason.

    If the evidence was solid, the focus would be on education rather than censorship and force. But it seems to get worse the deeper you go.



    Over 1 Year ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    There's a lot of misunderstanding about these vaccines, the nature of them, and what exactly they were designed to do. To some extent, undoubtedly, that speaks to many experts' ability (or rather, inability) to explain these things in ways that aren't particularly difficult to understand. In terms of the expectations, there's also the issue of some buck wild expectations of what the vaccine will itself do. That, too, speaks to experts' and reporters' ability (or again, inability) to temper expectations. And, of course, there's also the fact that the situation is evolving and we're still learning.

    But one thing that has been blown out of proportion is the argument that these vaccines are "experimental" or "rushed." It is true that these are the first mRNA vaccines to be made widely available to the general public, this is a technology that has been around and studied for literally years. This technology was not made overnight, or even over the course of the last year and a half. This technology already existed. They simply tailored it for COVID.

    As for it being "rushed," I'm not even sure how to really respond to it because it's such a contrived argument. It had become somewhat common knowledge fairly early in the pandemic that, generally speaking, it can take up to a year and a half to create a vaccine. With literally the entire world working tirelessly to create something that could stymie the tide of the virus - a feat that frankly should be celebrated more than we have, truly one of the greatest scientific endeavors at least of my lifetime - they were able to create a vaccine that demonstrably helps both prevent infection and absolutely reduces chances of severity and death in about 10-11 months. That isn't unreasonably sooner than the 18 months people were saying it *could* take up to in order to get made and put out there. Like, if you order a meal at a place that you usually expect to take 30 minutes to get you your food, but they have a ton of staff on that day so they get you your meal in 10, are you really not going to eat it because "it was rushed"?

    But also, what the hell does anyone know about what is and isn't rushed for a vaccine? I'm not sure why we can't trust the scientists who know how these vaccines work, but I'm supposed to believe that you have a genuinely good reason to think this was rushed.

    Not sure what it being an election year matters, except to evoke a reaction in conspiracy-happy minds. The person who was in charge while these vaccines were being developed lost the election, even while constantly telling us there would be a vaccine "very soon." You can't simultaneously hold that the vaccine is "rushed" whilst also making an argument that somehow the vaccine development was being used in the election for electioneering purposes. Why wouldn't Trump reveal more if he knew it was coming? How could Biden have possibly used a vaccine he had no connection to during the election? Why wouldn't the FDA approve the vaccine until they reached their required number of months of data, if there was some vast conspiracy?

    As for the expectations: this is where there has been some miscommunication and misunderstandings that merit criticism and I can understand giving people some pause. These vaccines are incredibly safe and effective at both preventing the risk of infection to begin with, and the risk of severe infection and death. But by and large, they were being designed with the emphasis on limiting severity, not specifically the risk of infection to begin with. That said, the vaccines have been proven to do both incredibly well. Unfortunately, the situation evolved and a few new strains of the virus emerged. We don't know enough yet to know if delta is a deadlier version of the virus, but we do know it is discernibly more contagious.

    Part of this is that we tend to think of vaccines as a magic cure-all. And to be sure, it is really important we don't make that assumption with COVID for a number of reasons. While time and time again, we know the vaccines are safe and effective, we also still have questions. For example, we don't really know quite yet how long they tend to be effective for. There is soooooome data that suggests immunity wanes after a period of time, but we still don't know that yet. We also obviously can't predict what will happen next. Who knows if a new strain might emerge that finds a way to render the vaccine totally useless (both Pfizer and Moderna have proven to retain a solid efficacy rate against delta, but J&J drops considerably. Not hard to imagine a new strain emerging at some point that could do the same for all of them.)

    It should be noted that no one here, and no one really advocating for vaccinations, is arguing that you get the vaccine and everything is over and we don't study things. On the contrary, I and many others understand that we *need* to continue to study things. That said, there really isn't that much data to suggest that vaccination isn't effective, and while it's not the only thing we must do to stymie this virus, it's also hands down the single most important tool in our toolkit. It is incredibly short-sighted and ill-informed argument against vaccines. Virtually no vaccine is 100% effective, all the time, forever, for everybody. But also it is completely incorrect to view vaccines as a purely "personal choice." The reality of how every single vaccine works is this: it helps you individually a bunch if you get it, but it helps you individually even more if everyone gets it. That's how literally every vaccine works. I think we do a bad job explaining why vaccines are effective. Often, it seems like people think it's just this thing that puts antibodies in your body so that when you get the virus or disease, your body can fight it. And so it's kind of a magic cure-all. But the reality is: the more people around are exposed to a virus or disease, the more at risk you are even if you got the vaccine. We would likely still have COVID around if even every single person eligible for the vaccine got the shot, but it would absolutely be substantially smaller in cases and severity.

    Put bluntly: "if it doesn't grant me perfect immunity all the time, then it's pointless" is completely predicated on a total lack of understanding of what vaccines are and how they work.

    Which then brings up the Israel question. There are a number of things to take away from what's going on in Israel, as well as some pockets of the US. It is absolutely fair to have concerns, particularly since Israel's data does suggest a waning efficacy of vaccines (the country has been doing a better job vaccinating Israelis and we're now around 8 months in, which some data suggests is when efficacy starts to dip - this also coincides with the emergence of delta as the dominant strain). It's also a story in which the percentages don't tell the whole story. One thing to keep in mind with any news story you see that says "X% of COVID cases/hospitalizations are fully vaccinated!" is that you need to look at the total numbers, too. In areas like Israel or Massachusetts, it stands to reason that a higher percentage of new cases and hospitalizations would be fully vaxxed because those are regions that have a discernibly higher percentage of the total population vaccinated. There was a story not that long ago about new cases in Massachusetts being mostly vaccinated. And that was true! But the total numbers were also way down from the last peak when there were no vaccinations, or the vaccination numbers were very low.

    There's also the issue of, again, no singular number tells a complete story. In Israel, the bulk of those hospitalizations are also people over the age of 60, a demographic already at increased risk. But also, only half of those hospitalizations are considered severe infections. Yes, it is definitely scary to read an article like that and it's easy to jump to the conclusion that vaccines are pointless or don't matter. Conversely, though, that doesn't mean the vaccine isn't helping. Imagine what the number of severe cases and new COVID deaths would be of those hospitalizations if 60% *weren't* vaccinated.

    Because if you want us to answer for Israel and explain that, and that's your smoking gun evidence that the vaccines are pointless, you have to then answer for why in the US, the *overwhelming* majority of new COVID cases, hospitalizations, severe infections, and deaths are occurring from those who are completely unvaccinated. What's the reason for that, do you supposed?

    Finally, as to the point of "ever changing recommendations," I mean, I definitely understand the frustration, but that's also how learning works. Something that was true a year ago doesn't mean it's definitely going to be true today. We learn things all the time. Initially, for example, the CDC thought the primary mode of transmission was via touch, which was why they then didn't recommend masking up. But a month later, they learned that it's actually an airborne virus, so then they did. That's not that confusing, to be honest. We thought one thing because we had limited data. Then we got more data and learned more. So we think something else now. Similarly, initial data from the impact of vaccinations in terms of preventing infection in the first place looked good, so they dropped mask recommendations in certain contexts. But again, as we learn more about both vaccines and the virus, it seems like that might not be the case.

    This is what science is, and this is also kinda just what life is. You might know something to be true today (for example, that I'm comparatively healthy and my body will probably hold up against COVID) might not be true in a few years (for example, I'll definitely wind up with diabetes and have additional concerns and my body might not hold up against COVID or even the flu.) I definitely sympathize with the frustration, but not listening just because things are evolving is a somewhat immature response, in my book.


    And all the government stuff, well, I dunno. That's a you issue, really. Your freedom never matters to me if it impairs my health and safety. The things we've supported that has been asked of the general public are so small-scale, it's almost laughable to think this country ever won a war at all. We want to take credit for all the sacrifices for WWII, but those people who take that credit can't even be bothered to wear a mask while in a grocery store for 30 minutes. The reaction to a mask mandate for a business is akin to a child throwing a temper-tantrum because they just don't like being told what to do. There's value in individualism, but we're at the point where that self-absorbed obsession with individualism has literally gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed. Like in all your railing about how stupid it is to be concerned about getting COVID when you're young and relatively healthy because you're almost certainly going to be fine only makes sense if you are almost exclusively able to see the world through the Lens of Me. Yes, I know that almost certainly, I'll be fine. (Though I don't know that. I've had some reeeeeeally bad bouts of the flu where I should have been hospitalized, to be honest. And the older I get, the less certain I feel in my body.) But I think more in terms of like, I don't want to get it explicitly because I don't want to pass it on!

    Just because *I* might be fine, doesn't mean the person I pass it onto will be. And I dunno. I guess I'm dumb for caring about my parents and my immunocompromised friends and my cancer-patient cousins and the customers, most of whom skew older, at my job.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto
    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    And also this about why there certainly are questions and concerns, but that it's incorrect to act like vaccines don't help.
    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628471/highly-vaccinated-israel-is-seeing-a-dramatic-surge-in-new-covid-cases-heres-why



    I'll also note in terms of vaccine mandates: this country has literally been doing so for decades. Ever meet someone with polio? Ever worry about catching mumps? Have to think about meningitis recently? Well, there's a reason why.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    Link Please.


    Oh boy, I sure feel like that number is being pulled from your ass. Do you have a link to back up that shitty smelling number?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-020-00698-1
    You said: "Orrrr... the "vaccine" will cause ADE, which will make certain variants have an easier time of entering your cells."


    Right, because the word "Or" demonstrates that there are other possibilities. The science isn't settled.

    Just because I wont die from it doesn't mean I wouldn't pass it to someone else who could or would. Thinking of only yourself in this Pandemic is selfish and short sighted.


    Since the "vaccines" still allow for transmission of the virus, your point is moot. Many places have restarted mask mandates independent of vaccination status, for this very reason.
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/mask-mandates-return-local-level-officials-defy-state/story?id=79072477
    You said: "A better question is, "Why mandate the vaccine for public venues, when vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission?"." That is different than not providing solid immunity


    Reducing infection isn't the same thing is preventing infection. My point stands.

    If this were a traditional vaccine, that conferred long-lasting immunity, then vaccine mandates would at least make sense in their own internal logic. If everyone at a public venue was vaccinated with one of these, it's extremely extremely unlikely that the virus will be transmitted. Instead, the mRNA vaccines seem to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for the vaccined but don't give immunity, don't prevent transmission (they probably reduce it), and so make their mandates pointless.

    The CDC even recommends wearing a mask while vaccinated. What precisely are vaccine mandates doing that mask mandates weren't?

    Just remember kids,



    Over 1 Year ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    The CDC even recommends wearing a mask while vaccinated. What precisely are vaccine mandates doing that mask mandates weren't?


    Did you even watch the video I linked? I really feel like you haven’t. You mentioned having a focus on education when we are clearly showing that it doesn’t matter how much you try to educate someone on a subject they will still believe what they want to believe, ignore the facts presented to them and try to make cherry pick old or irrelevant information to try be right. In this case, both basic reading and basic math have failed you.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    Did you even watch the video I linked? I really feel like you haven’t.


    I'd rather spend 22 minutes of my time responding to someone who made the points themselves, like Jet Presto.

    that it doesn’t matter how much you try to educate someone on a subject they will still believe what they want to believe


    Oh, by "education" I meant "free access of information", not "telling people what to believe".

    Over 1 Year ago
    Xhin
    Sky's the limit

    I'd rather spend 22 minutes of my time responding to someone who made the points themselves, like Jet Presto.


    Oh, I see. But you want other people to watch videos you post about mass psychosis when it fits your argument. Interesting how that works.

    Oh, by "education" I meant "free access of information", not "telling people what to believe".


    I honestly doubt you know what you meant.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    A better question is, "Why mandate the vaccine for public venues, when vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission?".


    But they do prevent infection and minimize transmission. This is very much present both in the data and what is observable in the country. The vaccines are effective at preventing infection and are especially effective at minimizing severity and death. But I'm also happy to go back to mask mandates if you would prefer.

    It makes more sense to wait until after the clinical trials have completed. Check back in 2022-2023.


    My dude, the Pfizer vaccine has completed clinical trials. They're continuing to monitor it, potentially through 2023, which is fairly common practice, but the clinical trials are completed.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    The actual hesitancy has more to do with the experimental nature of the "vaccine", its rushed development in an election year


    These things, as I mentioned, are all predicated on ignorance. Completely understandable ignorance, to be sure! No one ever really had to even kinda think about this stuff prior to last year. But it's also not hard or terribly time consuming to learn about this.

    But the other thing is: even if the vaccine were "rushed," it still cleared the animal and human testing. Like it wasn't rushed in such a way that they skipped either. They still tested on humans for months before releasing it to the general public. It might have been "rushed" in terms of time crunch, but it wasn't "rushed" in terms of ensuring its safety for the masses.

    And like, I dunno, man. This stuff is pretty outside the norm for almost all of us, and certainly outside our expertise, but like, it doesn't take *that* much effort to read up on this stuff. And I don't mean people's Facebook posts or click-bait-y news articles with a clear political agenda.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines/corrected-fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-experimental-and-they-have-not-skipped-trial-stages-idUSL1N2M70MW

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    It makes more sense to get the current vaccine, and then when a new one comes out to then get that one too. Kind of like the flu vaccine.


    People should get the flu shot every year, but just for some clarity: the flu shot is an almost completely different process and technology. Those are notoriously hit or miss because they are a little more predictive in nature rather than specifically reactive. (And also because so few people wind up getting the flu shot.)

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    You know what’s crazy to me? Jimmy Kimmel made a video about anti-Vaxers in 2015 and the stuff he said back then are just as relevant as today:
    https://youtu.be/QgpfNScEd3M

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    Entire Texas town essentially closes with nearly half its people hit by COVID-19:
    https://trib.al/AYbvWJf?fbclid=IwAR1ILpdxrraxyyD4j7MaLwYHRwdox6lB7GWgEhiTfYqpkVX4IOw9tKeafNU

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    If this were a traditional vaccine, that conferred long-lasting immunity, then vaccine mandates would at least make sense in their own internal logic. If everyone at a public venue was vaccinated with one of these, it's extremely extremely unlikely that the virus will be transmitted. Instead, the mRNA vaccines

    Just a friendly reminder that there are traditional alternatives such as J&J and Astrazeneca, which are not mRNA vaccines. But tbh mRNAs show a lot of promise.

    It is also worth remembering that while vaccines don't inherently prevent transmission, they do decrease the chance of contracting it in the first place, which means more vaxxed people lessens risk of the virus spreading en masse in a crowded environment. This is why vaccines are useful in achieving herd immunity.

    Over 1 Year ago
    pacman

    However if you have a very high chance of covid survival (and have avoided it so far) then those risks are more pronounced; you're risking illness for no reason.


    Except you're risking illness for no reason by *not* getting the vaccine, too. In fact, your chances of infection skyrocket by going out in public unvaccinated than they are getting vaccinated. You really can't argue otherwise. If you're a relatively healthy 30-something year old dude and only about 1% of cases from your demographic have died, that doesn't suddenly equate to the *substantially* fewer numbers and lower percentage of people in your demographic who have died from the vaccine.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    Since the "vaccines" still allow for transmission of the virus, your point is moot.


    The point isn't moot just because the vaccine isn't perfect. No one has argued that the *only* thing to do here is get vaccinated. I certainly haven't made that argument, and indeed I do always mask up out of an abundance of caution and care for the people I might interact with.

    However, the vaccines *do* still dramatically reduce my chances of becoming infected in the first place. And if there are more people around me who are *also* vaccinated, then their chances of becoming infected are also decreased. In a scenario where more people are fully vaccinated, it becomes much harder to transmit the virus. The more people go unvaccinated, the easier it is to spread. It really is that simple.

    Again, no one is suggesting the "vaccine" (also, why the heck are you putting that in quotations, bud? Like, even if it's not as effective as anyone would like it to be, it doesn't make it not a real vaccine) is a perfect piece of technology, and no one has suggested that the *only* thing we need to do is get vaccinated. I've even talked openly here about some of the concerns about the vaccines in terms of long-term effectiveness, which indeed are questions we don't yet have the answers to.

    But by every objective metric, and even just by common sense and what is observable before us in this country, these vaccines are *clearly* offering a layer of protection that is greater than the level of protection from no vaccine. It's bonkers to suggest otherwise, and I hope you're not so far gone that you think no vaccine is better than vaccine right now.

    It's like, I know that when I put on my seat belt, that doesn't mean I'm not going to get into a car accident in which I don't get hurt. But wearing my seat belt does increases the likelihood that A) I'll survive and B) the damage I receive from the accident might be minimized because I was wearing the seat belt. You wouldn't argue that the seat belt is pointless because I can still get hurt from a car accident, would you?

    The vaccines as we currently have them aren't as effective as some classically ignored vaccines, like the polio vaccine. But it still provides a level of shielding for my body. It still gives my body a tool to use against infection if I ever do get infected. The more people have that tool, the less we need to rely on it, because our bodies will be better able to fight off infection in the first place, thus minimizing the spread and - more importantly - severity of it.

    Now yes, there are questions: again, waning efficacy is a concern and we still don't know, which is why we need to keep studying it, and why those companies will continue to monitor things for several years. But that doesn't suddenly mean these vaccines offer nothing. You can't seriously make a case that you're better off *not* getting vaccinated than you are getting vaccinated. The chances of infection are higher and the chances of severe illness are higher. It's not even close.

    I guess it's also like...we're making a movie and I need to push you off a table. You're gonna be fine and it's not high enough to really do any major damage to you. I offer you a mat to help mitigate the impact of the fall. Why *wouldn't* you take the mat?

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    The CDC even recommends wearing a mask while vaccinated. What precisely are vaccine mandates doing that mask mandates weren't?


    You want me to wear my seatbelt while my car already has an airbag? What precisely are the airbags doing that seatbelts weren't?

    Hyperbole aside, I don't think it's *that* difficult to understand having multiple tools in our tool kit here. The vaccine is helpful for reducing transmission and is definitely useful at reducing severity and death from infection, and the masks are an added layer of protection.

    It's all armor. Each thing is an added layer. And not for nothing, but the CDC has rarely, if ever, suggested that our understanding of things is truly final.


    Instead, the mRNA vaccines seem to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for the vaccined but don't give immunity


    Sorry, help me understand: that's....still good though, right? Am I missing something where reducing hospitalizations - especially at a time when so many parts of the country are being overwhelmed with hospitalizations to the point they are struggling to treat patients for other things - is a good thing?

    I mean, hear me out: if we can render COVID to *actually* be sort of like the flu, that's...still good... Am I missing something where having 5,000 hospitalizations in a region versions 30,000 hospitalizations in a region or 200 deaths versus 1,000 deaths is somehow not good?

    I'm sort of struggling to understand why immunity is the only part of this that matters to you. Like if we can't ever get rid of AIDS/HIV, but we can create vaccines that dramatically reduce the severity and death toll from AIDS/HIV, that's not a pointless vaccine, right?

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    A good way to think about the vaccine is: ok, so you get the vaccine and your body comes up with a response to the virus. So if you are exposed to a little bit of the virus, your body has a response already to help fight and repel it, so you don't become infected. But if you're around a bunch of people who are infected (most likely unvaccinated people), then you might become exposed to so much of the virus that your body becomes overwhelmed and *can't* react to it all, thus causing you to become infected. So it's not that you *can't* become infected, but it is that if you are vaccinated and more people in your area are vaccinated, your body is better prepared. The more unvaccinated people there are around you, the more exposure you have to the virus. The more exposure you have to the virus, the more likely you are to become infected.

    As for the "personal choice" thing, I dunno. I guess I just don't care. "Personal choice" is such a warped way to examine a contagious public health issue, because inevitably, *someone* is losing their "choice." If I choose to get vaccinated and then have to be around people who choose not to, that fundamentally increases my level of risk. In a way that my getting vaccinated does *not* have a negative impact on those people who make the opposite choice. So the argument isn't that it should be everyone's choice: the argument is that it should be the anti-vaxxer's choice.

    It's kind of like how I choose not to smoke because I don't want to have the increased risk of negative health effects from smoking. But if we're in a public space, whose choice takes precedence? Your choice to smoke fundamentally increases my risk of health problems. So, in that public space, does my choice to not smoke take precedence, so you can't smoke there and you lose your choice? Or does your choice to smoke take precedence, so my choice is undercut?

    The reason why I'll always support the vaxxers (and anti-smoking contingent) is there is one choice that fundamentally exposes others around you to risk, and the other choice does not. You might feel some anxiety or stress if you have an addiction, but by and large, you are not hurt by being prohibited from smoking. And even though you are consistently exaggerating the risk of these vaccines, you are substantially less likely to be hurt by getting the vaccine than not.


    I can't really explain any of this stuff further. Pretty exhaustive in my responses (obviously). But can I ask: are you supportive of mask mandates in lieu of proof of vaccinations? Or are you against both?

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    But tbh mRNAs show a lot of promise.


    Speaking of, was reading that they are probably close to an mRNA vaccine for HIV. That would be really impressive if they do manage to make that.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    @Riven

    FDA Approval for COVID Vaccine:
    https://youtu.be/eBsMrvVSw_o
    Surgeon General message to Vaccinated people:
    https://youtu.be/cwsIDNDu5-k
    Surgeon General message to unvaccinated people:
    https://youtu.be/uKxaFihoXCo
    Surgeon General message about Delta Variant:
    https://youtu.be/xbTDtXI-tnI
    US Department of Health on why young and healthy people still need to get Vaccine:
    https://youtu.be/7cExMEDFjFE
    US Department of Health on Vaccine side effects:
    https://youtu.be/fSM4VNXYMaM
    I still want to know what the government stands to gain by having everyone get the vaccine other than getting rid of the virus

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    @Riven

    Bill Burr with Conan about anti-vaxers:
    https://youtu.be/znI046F4FKg

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     



    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    Riven: I'd rather talk with people who defend their own posts than watch a video
    Q2: *Dumps a hundred youtube links and @s Riven*

    lol

    Over 1 Year ago
    Axem Great Water

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    Riven: I'd rather talk with people who defend their own posts than watch a video
    Q2: *Dumps a hundred youtube links and @s Riven*


    Other than the John Oliver, Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Burr links, the rest were all from the same sources that both Riven and I (mostly me) have been sourcing for our arguments. John Oliver, Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Burr make good points though which is why I linked them.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    I'm not convinced that anyone gives a shit about what Riven wants anymore.


    I do.

    Over 1 Year ago
    chiarizio
     

    [scrubbed]

    Over 1 Year ago
    [scrubbed]

    From today's NYT Morning Newsletter (which is behind a paywall on the site for some stupid reason):

    The booster-industrial complex
    Late last month, researchers in Israel released some alarming new Covid-19 data. The data showed that many Israelis who had been among the first to receive the vaccine were nonetheless catching the Covid virus. Israelis who had been vaccinated later were not getting infected as often.

    The study led to headlines around the world about waning immunity — the idea that vaccines lose their effectiveness over time. In the U.S., the Israeli study accelerated a debate about vaccine booster shots and played a role in the Biden administration’s recent recommendation that all Americans receive a booster shot eight months after their second dose.

    But the real story about waning immunity is more complex than the initial headlines suggested. Some scientists believe that the Israeli data was misleading and that U.S. policy on booster shots has gotten ahead of the facts. The evidence for waning immunity is murky, these scientists say, and booster shots may not have a big effect.

    After returning from an August break last week, I have spent time reaching out to scientists to ask for their help in understanding the current, confusing stage of the pandemic. How worried should vaccinated people be about the Delta variant? How much risk do children face? Which parts of the Covid story are being overhyped, and which deserve more attention?

    I will be trying to answer these questions in the coming weeks. (I’d also like to know what questions you want answered; submit them here.)

    One of the main messages I’m hearing from the experts is that conventional wisdom about waning immunity is problematic. Yes, the immunity from the Covid vaccines will wane at some point. But it may not yet have waned in a meaningful way.

    “There’s a big difference between needing another shot every six months versus every five years,” Dr. David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “So far, looking at the data we have, I’m not seeing much evidence that we’ve reached that point yet.”

    Simpson strikes again
    At first glance, the Israeli data seems straightforward: People who had been vaccinated in the winter were more likely to contract the virus this summer than people who had been vaccinated in the spring.

    Yet it would truly be proof of waning immunity only if the two groups — the winter and spring vaccine recipients — were otherwise similar to each other. If not, the other differences between them might be the real reason for the gap in the Covid rates.

    As it turns out, the two groups were different. The first Israelis to have received the vaccine tended to be more affluent and educated. By coincidence, these same groups later were among the first exposed to the Delta variant, perhaps because they were more likely to travel. Their higher infection rate may have stemmed from the new risks they were taking, not any change in their vaccine protection.

    Statisticians have a name for this possibility — when topline statistics point to a false conclusion that disappears when you examine subgroups. It’s called Simpson’s Paradox.

    This paradox may also explain some of the U.S. data that the C.D.C. has cited to justify booster shots. Many Americans began to resume more indoor activities this spring. That more were getting Covid may reflect their newfound Covid exposure (as well as the arrival of Delta), rather than any waning of immunity over time.

    ‘Where is it?’
    Sure enough, other data supports the notion that vaccine immunity is not waning much.

    The ratio of positive Covid tests among older adults and children, for example, does not seem to be changing, Dowdy notes. If waning immunity were a major problem, we should expect to see a faster rise in Covid cases among older people (who were among the first to receive shots). And even the Israeli analysis showed that the vaccines continued to prevent serious Covid illness at essentially the same rate as before.

    “If there’s data proving the need for boosters, where is it?” Zeynep Tufekci, the sociologist and Times columnist, has written.

    Part of the problem is that the waning-immunity story line is irresistible to many people. The vaccine makers — Pfizer, Moderna and others — have an incentive to promote it, because booster shots will bring them big profits. The C.D.C. and F.D.A., for their part, have a history of extreme caution, even when it harms public health. We in the media tend to suffer from bad-news bias. And many Americans are so understandably frightened by Covid that they pay more attention to alarming signs than reassuring ones.

    The bottom line
    Here’s my best attempt to give you an objective summary of the evidence, free from alarmism — and acknowledging uncertainty:

    Immunity does probably wane modestly within the first year of receiving a shot. For this reason, booster shots make sense for vulnerable people, many experts believe. As Dr. Céline Gounder of Bellevue Hospital Center told my colleague Apoorva Mandavilli, the C.D.C.’s data “support giving additional doses of vaccine to highly immunocompromised persons and nursing home residents, not to the general public.”

    The current booster shots may do little good for most people. The vaccines continue to provide excellent protection against illness (as opposed to merely a positive Covid test). People will eventually need boosters, but it may make more sense to wait for one specifically designed to combat a variant. “We don’t know whether a non-Delta booster would improve protection against Delta,” Dr. Aaron Richterman of the University of Pennsylvania told me.

    A national policy of frequent booster shots has significant costs, financially and otherwise. Among other things, the exaggerated discussion of waning immunity contributes to vaccine skepticism.

    While Americans are focusing on booster shots, other policies may do much more to beat back Covid, including more vaccine mandates in the U.S.; a more rapid push to vaccinate the world (and prevent other variants from taking root); and an accelerated F.D.A. study of vaccines for children.

    As always, we should be open to changing our minds as we get new evidence. As Richterman puts it, “We have time to gather the appropriate evidence before rushing into boosters.”

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    @Jet Presto:
    That might be right.
    Even if it isn’t, it might be that vaccination of those still unvaccinated is more crucial to everyone else’s safety from COVID than booster shots for the already fully-vaccinated; and this will remain true until 4/5 to 5/6 of everybody is immunized, or if a more contagious variant emerges, an even higher fraction.
    Surely we need 1/2 to 2/3 of everyone immunized before we can relax, even a little bit, about that.

    I think it’s quite possible the remarks of the director of WHO are perfectly correct, yet still the US govt’s ideas for using our present supplies of vaccines on booster shots is not a proper target for his criticisms.
    As I understand it (and I could have misunderstood or this info could be wrong in the first place), the US has already given other countries as much vaccine as it can right now; and the vaccine the USG is planning to use on booster shots would otherwise just expire and go to waste.
    Which doesn’t mean that in the near future we shouldn’t keep trying to help the rest of the world vaccinate; and so should other countries, especially including those who have vaccines the US doesn’t have.
    I do not know which, if any, countries’ current behavior currently deserves the criticism from the WHO director. I kinda suspect Israel does, maybe; and I don’t suspect any others, unless I should suspect Russia and/or China, though I doubt them less than I doubt Israel right at this moment about just this one thing. Anyway I’m not sure the WHO director’s remarks aren’t better treated as a warning than as a criticism.

    Over 1 Year ago
    chiarizio
     

    @chiarizio

    How are you such a voice of reason in all of this chaos? I wish other people, myself included, would handle things so calmly and look at things from a rational point of view. I know I’ve come across in the past as an jerk towards you and I am sorry for that. Please continue to contribute as much as you can/want as right now you are one of the few good reasons to still come to this site.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    Even if it isn’t, it might be that vaccination of those still unvaccinated is more crucial to everyone else’s safety from COVID than booster shots for the already fully-vaccinated


    Oh, that's absolutely the case. More people getting vaccinated at all is definitely more helpful than getting already vaccinated a booster shot. I maintain that if we really wanted to, we could be producing vaccines at an even greater level so we could do both, but definitely increasing the number of vaccinated is the more significant and important step.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Jet Presto

    @Q2:
    I know I’ve come across in the past as an jerk towards you and I am sorry for that.

    That was only once, and I’m pretty sure that was my error. Riven explained it to me.

    How are you such a voice of reason in all of this chaos?

    It doesn’t come naturally!
    I’m not sure how; I’m not even sure that!

    But maybe these have something to do with it:

  • Age. That’s essentially a cop-out. I used to be much less reasonable; now I’m more reasonable than I was then; and I don’t know why. So I just blame it on time.

  • Not being afraid to say “I don’t know”, and stick to my guns about that. When I’m picking out the best-informed among others, I find that the ones who are the least certain are often the ones with the most and best data. And I have an unfortunate “air of authority” which I have had to guard against, because other people sometimes believe my best guesses are revealed knowledge or gospel truth, and I worry that might be to their detriment.

  • My father was, and my brother is, a physician. I’ve picked up certain habits from them. At the same time, I trained as a mathematician. I know I need more exercise, but I don’t think “jumping to conclusions” is the kind of exercise I need.

    ….

    Thank you for the compliment! I’m not sure I deserve it, but if you say so, then maybe I do!

  • Over 1 Year ago
    chiarizio
     

    @chiarizio

    That was only once, and I’m pretty sure that was my error. Riven explained it to me.


    Well, either way I still feel bad about how I came off towards you in that post. I saw you revive that old post, and because I didn't understand why someone would want to do that I feel I reacted in a way that was not respectful to you. Since that time I have tried to be better understanding and think about how my comments could be seen in a negative way that was not intended.


    It doesn’t come naturally!
    I’m not sure how; I’m not even sure that!


    Well, for a long time now I can see that I have never seen you disrespect anyone who didn't deserve it or comment in a respectful manner. Which is another reason I felt so bad after coming off as a jerk towards you.

    * Age. That’s essentially a cop-out. I used to be much less reasonable; now I’m more reasonable than I was then; and I don’t know why. So I just blame it on time.


    Perhaps it's not right to blame time but to actually thank time because as much as I like to think now that I am in my late 30's that I am more level-headed and reasonable than I was in my early and mid 20's though I can tell that this isnt always the case.

    * Not being afraid to say “I don’t know”, and stick to my guns about that. When I’m picking out the best-informed among others, I find that the ones who are the least certain are often the ones with the most and best data. And I have an unfortunate “air of authority” which I have had to guard against, because other people sometimes believe my best guesses are revealed knowledge or gospel truth, and I worry that might be to their detriment.


    I like a couple points you made here and would like to comment on them. The point you made about how the ones who are the least certain have the most and usually the best data - This is totally correct. And I think it's because those people who are willing to take the time and research and collect that data realize that more they know, the more things can change on that subject. Like people who complain that scientists are always changing their theories on how things work such as physics and blackholes, and that's because those that dont want to learn more are always more sure of how things work than those who want to learn more.

    The other point you made is about how you say things that people might take as fact. This is probably because as you get older, you generally get more confident, or stop worrying about how you say things which comes off as more confident. And also probably because being an older gentleman automatically gives you an air of respect and authority (whether you like it or not lol) so I can understand wanting to watch what you say so younger people dont misunderstand it and run off half-cocked as my dad and grandfather would often say. Infact, as a kid my grandfather's nickname for me was Pistol because i'd always be loaded and ready for action (honestly i'm still like that in most ways).

    * My father was, and my brother is, a physician. I’ve picked up certain habits from them. At the same time, I trained as a mathematician. I know I need more exercise, but I don’t think “jumping to conclusions” is the kind of exercise I need.


    To me it sounds like you come from a very intelligent and successful family. How I see it is Math is all about using logic and reasoning to solve both rational as well as irrational equations to solve simple and complex problems. One thing I learned from taking calculas way back in the day is the you often have to take a larger problem and break it down into smaller problems that are easier to solve, this allowing you to solve the main problem as a whole. So I can see why you'd be able to develop and, probably, unknowingly integrate those problem solving techniques into both your personality and your approach to everyday situations. I honestly wish I was more like that. I am sure that, if you do have kids, that they have learned alot from you. And if you never had kids then how did such a suave Casanova like you manage that?

    Thank you for the compliment! I’m not sure I deserve it, but if you say so, then maybe I do!


    Well, I think you do. One is becuase I want to make sure that you know how other's view you and also because there isnt really many other users, who stll post on this site, that are as respectful as you are. Honestly, I am not sure there were too many like this back in the heyday of this site either. I know I sure wasn't.

    Over 1 Year ago
    Q2
     

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    Ivermectin shouldn't be called horse medicine or unsafe.


    No one has said that it is only for Horses and that it is unsafe. There are different forms of this medication that are designed for use in large animals and not humans.

    The media shamelessly falsified these facts, they've constructed false narratives, downplayed the truth, and are gaslighting us. Keep a critical eye on anything you read........Isn't it interesting how disinformation spreads so easily when a single "journalist" or multiple journalists lie or misrepresent something?

    https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp https://www.sunherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253630293.html https://www.wkrg.com/alabama-news/calls-in-alabama-over-ivermectin-poisoning-on-track-to-nearly-triple-in-2021-poison-center-says/ https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2021-08-27-cdc-alerts-clinicians-surge-ivermectin-poisoning-during-pandemic
    You are right, maybe it is a tad silly that 1 doctor making a false claim about overdoses blocking help for other emergencies, but with a tad bit of googling you can plainly see that people overdosing on Ivermectin isn't fake news.

    11 Months ago
    Q2
     

    No one has said that it is only for Horses and that it is unsafe. There are different forms of this medication that are designed for use in large animals and not humans.


    Yeah, they literally put a picture of farm animals on the bottle and say "Not for human use" or whatever. We're talking about people taking the form that is explicitly made for horses. It's 100% accurate to point out people are taking something made for horses.

    But also, there's literally nothing about the *human* form of the thing that actually shows to be effective against COVID either. So it's idiotic no matter how you break it down.

    11 Months ago
    Jet Presto

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    What sold me on getting the vaccine was that being magnetized is a superpower.
    It comes in real handy when I'm working on the car.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    Don't worry, the unvaccinated are being Ruptured to Heaven.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    I wish I could say I haven't lost anyone to COVID.
    Best of luck to you.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    So you are caught up the political drama.
    In my part of the country you can't even get a minimum wage job without being vaccinated.
    But your priorities are your own.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    I've never heard of Jeanine Reiter Kolkemo and google says she lives roughly 160 miles from me.
    But yeah, anti-vaxers are clogging up the hospitals because of their own negligence.

    I got a phone call last week with my daughter screaming at me from a Seattle emergency room.
    She was brought in by ambulance with a back injury and spent the day in the waiting room because of all the stupid anti-vaxers choosing to die of covid then begging to be saved.
    My daughter ended up going home that night and had to travel out of the Seattle area to find a hospital that had room and time to take x-rays. Obviously my daughter would side with this Jeanine Reiter Kolkemo person at the moment.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    But you have no problem with the fascist right and their hate speach?

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    [scrubbed]

    11 Months ago
    [scrubbed]

    "I don't like what big tech has been doing, banning people for conservative views"

    I left GTX0 a few years back because of the right wing Nazis as did many others. Look what's left of this place now, its a ghost town.
    Not good for business and big tech doesn't want to go broke because of your fallacious crazy views.
    But don't worry there are lots of sites out there that cater to the crazies.
    But I didn't come back to say I told you so. Just to wish everyone the best and a tribute to the GTX0 legacy.

    11 Months ago
    Psygnosis

    This thread is archived