Jump to content

Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As does your board nannying.

From the OP (by Calm): 

Again, I'm on board with the general principle of vaccinations.  But the OP invited "touchy subjects." 

I am not board nannying.  I am fine with touchy subject.  That is not my beef with your post.  I am commenting on your posting style which is really difficult to follow.   If you are going to take the time to highlight specific quotes from an article, please specify your opinion.   Do you agree with it or not, or simply state that you have no opinion and are just posting for discussion.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, vaccines reduce the risk and severity of infection.  "Prevents" seems a bit off.

It does prevent infection smac.  Not "off" at all.  Natural immunity requires it. 

It also reduces severity of infection and prevents hospitalization.

It prevents death.

It is preventative medicine. 

 

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never been antagonistic towards masks or vaccines anywhere or at any time unless questioning is considered an expression of antagonism. 

Questioning as antagonism (and to generate FUD) is a method used on Tucker Carlson and on other conspiratorial media. I have seen the method replicated on this site.

I am not saying that is your intent. I am pointing to a scenario where folks who've been attacked this way might see similarities.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Things change as there was more info. This is after all a novel virus. Modifying advice as knowledge is accumulated does not equal inconsistancy.

That's a fair point, but "modifying advice as knowledge is accumulated" doesn't quite account for all the issues.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Data on disease progression for patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is necessary for informing decision making at the local, state, and federal levels. Without trustworthy data, our nation cannot truly operationalize a federally coordinated, locally executed approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have evolved throughout the pandemic, creating confusion around what data are required to enable decision making. Moreover, these reporting guidelines are primarily focused on mapping the evolution of coronavirus and managing its spread, and are not meant to help inform operational decision making by providers. In addition to shifting WHO and CDC guidelines, there has also been a glaring lack of consistent federal and state policy for data collection and reporting in the United States.

The result has been that state governments, health systems, and providers have been forced to develop their own methods and reporting requirements for tracking probable and confirmed COVID-19 infections. While these efforts can address issues at the local level, the inconsistencies in reported data fields result in confusion and create information voids. Secondly, these gaps may lead to deepening social disparities that have already been further exacerbated by the pandemic.

The absence of consistent federal guidelines has made it necessary for states to develop localized solutions and data reporting requirements. An example of the federal government’s inconsistencies in leading a coordinated effort is its abrupt announcement for hospitals to begin reporting coronavirus data to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, only to reverse the policy weeks later. The lack of consistent federal guidance forces states to create their own methods and requirements for tracking and reporting coronavirus infections. For example, Massachusetts uses lab data supplemented with hospital reported data, whereas Texas closely follows the CDC’s COVID-19 reporting guidelines. On the other hand, some states such as South Dakota, use a general communicable disease reporting form that does not collect any data on hospital utilization or symptom reporting, further complicating the effort to adequately respond to the pandemic. These three states illustrate the wide range of approaches for COVID-19 data reporting, and clearly demonstrate the information gaps that emerge when there are no consistent federal reporting standards.

And here:

Quote

The nation’s largest county is taking a step back, asking residents to wear a mask again while indoors, whether they’re vaccinated or not.

The move comes as the COVID-19 delta variant surges in Los Angeles and around the country among the unvaccinated.

However, the same day Los Angeles County officials announced its return to a mask mandate, Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told “NBC Nightly News” that her agency stands by its guidance that fully vaccinated people don’t need to wear a mask in most situations.

Earlier this month, the CDC advisedTrusted Source that unvaccinated students wear masks as they head back to in-person learning this fall.

At the same time, officials in Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Iowa have banned mask mandates in schools.

In April, the CDC changed its guidelines, saying domestic and international travel was allowed for fully vaccinated Americans. However, Walensky said she still did not recommend nonessential travel because of the uptick in COVID-19 cases.

Got whiplash yet? Confused?

It may be difficult to keep up as federal agencies say one thing then another, and local jurisdictions put their own rules in place.

And then there's the "noble lie" approach to masks:

Quote

In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public.

Although some have claimed that the evidence changed substantively in the early weeks of March, our assessment of the literature does not concur. We believe the evidence at the time of Fauci’s 60 Minutes interview was largely similar to that in April 2020. Thus, there are two ways to consider Fauci’s statement. One possibility is, as he says, that his initial statement was dishonest but motivated to avoid a run on masks needed by health care workers. The other is that he believed his initial statements were accurate, and he subsequently decided to advocate for cloth masks to divert attention from surgical or N95 masks, or to provide a sense of hope and control to a fearful and anxious public.

Additional evidence suggests that the second interpretation may be more accurate. In a lengthy commentary from July 2020, COVID expert Michael Osterholm wrote in detail about the continued scientific uncertainty regarding masks—even as he expressed support for their widespread public use as one measure among many. But Fauci’s reversal, which came at a time of political polarization, contributed to the evolution of masks from a basic, precautionary mitigation strategy to a badge of political allegiance. President Donald Trump was reluctant to wear a mask and justified his behavior by referring to Fauci’s comments from the 60 Minutes interview. The controversy continued into the presidential debates, with Trump mocking Joe Biden for donning the “biggest mask” he’d ever seen.

One thing is beyond a doubt, however: One of those two statements did not accurately reflect the evidence as Fauci saw it. Such high-profile mixed messages in a short time frame, without substantive new data to justify the change, generated confusion and a backlash from politicians, other experts, and the general public.

When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, often well-meaning agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure—for example, a feeling of urgency that behavioral change is needed among the lay public—the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science. During the first year of COVID-19, leaders were faced with an unknown disease amid a politically sensitive election in the era of social media, and the preconditions for noble lies became especially fertile. Not surprisingly, we witnessed several examples. More than anything, these examples illustrate the destructive potential of such lies.

Later in 2020, Fauci participated in a second noble lie. In December, he explained in a phone interview with then–New York Times reporter Donald McNeil that he had been moving the target estimate for herd immunity based in part on emerging studies. But he also said:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.

In his own words, he “nudged” his target range for herd immunity to promote vaccine uptake. Even though his comments were made to influence public actions to get more people vaccinated (a noble effort), the central dilemma remains: Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information, via nudges, to influence the public to take specific actions? The former fosters an open and honest dialogue with the public to facilitate democratic policymaking. The second subverts the very idea of a democracy and implies that those who set the rules or shape the media narrative are justified in depriving the public of information that they may consider or value differently.

That last paragraph is worth some real consideration, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, pogi said:

 I am commenting on your posting style which is really difficult to follow.   If you are going to take the time to highlight specific quotes from an article, please specify your opinion.  

I agree with this analysis of @smac97's posts.

I was working on a post to make the same point but couldn't get the wording quite right.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not obliged to engage if I do not wish to. Have a nice day.

Acknowledging you have nothing to say in response would be a nice admission from time to time. 
 

You do this a lot.  “I don’t have time” and when you clearly do, “I don’t have to talk to you if I don’t want to”.  
 

You reverting to a teenager when you’re asked to explain yourself on a discussion board becomes obnoxious and tiresome.  But have a nice day.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not board nannying. 

Seems like you are.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am fine with touchy subject.  That is not my beef with your post.  

So you have a "beef" with my "posting style," but you're not board nannying.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am commenting on your posting style which is really difficult to follow.

Then ignore my posts.  I'm not holding a gun to your head.  No need to nanny and hector.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you are going to take the time to highlight specific quotes from an article, please specify your opinion.  

I don't feel obliged to do that.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you agree with it or not, or simply state that you have no opinion and are just posting for discussion.

If you have a question, you can ask.  But quit nagging and hectoring.  

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

It does prevent infection smac.  Not "off" at all. Natural immunity requires it. 

Off a bit.  If the vaccine "prevent{s} infection," then why is the CDC saying stuff like "Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant. When these infections occur among vaccinated people, they tend to be mild."

I said that "vaccines reduce the risk and severity of infection," which I think is a more accurate statement than saying that vaccination "prevents" infection.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

It also reduces severity of infection

Yes, that's what I said.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

and prevents hospitalization.

Hmm.  From the CDC

Quote

Data from randomized clinical trials and real-world observational studies show that all three COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration* are safe and highly effective for preventing COVID-19–related serious illness, hospitalization, and death (1,2). 
...
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).

I guess medical folks use "prevent" in particularized ways.  In my view, to "prevent" something means "{to} keep (something) from happening or arising."  From a layman's perspective, if 1,271 fully vaccinated adults are still getting hospitalized with COVID (compared to 7,308 per 100K person-days for unvaccinated adults), then the vaccines are substantially reducing, but not "preventing," hospitalizations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The vaccines will not produce herd immunity.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-2048680

 

Herd immunity also can be reached when enough people have been vaccinated against a disease and have developed protective antibodies against future infection. Unlike the natural infection method, vaccines create immunity without causing illness or resulting complications. Using the concept of herd immunity, vaccines have successfully controlled contagious diseases such as smallpox, polio, diphtheria, rubella and many others.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We are all weary.  

Oh. Well, let me follow that up with still yet more exhausting covid speculation.

Here is some guy's observation:

Why admitting Covid is Airborne is so hard.

Why can’t the CDC and WHO just say “Covid is Airborne?”

The basic answer is simple: the reason authorities aren’t saying that Covid is Airborne is there is a strong bias against believing it to be true. That is, the public health and epidemiological literature almost uniformly says that airborne transmission is rare, so it’s very hard to believe that it’s actually happening at scale.

For virtually every disease you can think of, the guidance is that close contact with “respiratory droplets” and fomites - and not the air - are how infectious diseases transmit.

Take Mumps for example. The European CDC says it spreads via aerosols (and respiratory droplets), but the guidance from the CDC is still based on the idea that ballistic droplets and surfaces are the key mode.

Link to comment
On 9/7/2021 at 11:31 AM, MustardSeed said:

I really can’t tell Bernard where you honestly stand.  It seems to me that perhaps you find regulations in WA to be nonsense.  I think you find it to be nonsense because it’s ill informed. 
 

If your governor was insisting on N95 and the correct way of wearing them, would you be more supportive of the mask mandates?  If business signs on doors requested n95 be worn tightly in face and schools required the same, would we be more consistent with the level of danger we are dealing with? 
I tend to assume that anti maskers are all the same, calling for less stringent measures.  Less government.  Sounds like instead you are saying “hey, this is serious. We are doing it wrong.  Let’s start over and educate people better and provide more effective mask wearing and do more, not less”  Am I correct in my understanding? If so, you and I think alike.

I’m sorry to be such a source of confusion. For the record:

I have never ever been an anti-masker. I have complied with all state and church mandates regarding COVID whether or not I agree with them.

I am not anti-vaccine. I got mine at the first opportunity.

I have not called for less stringent measures. I have identified the hypocrisy and illogic of requiring masks but promoting the use of inferior masks and initials teaching the CDC guidelines for their use.   

I have not called for less government. I have not said that WA regulations are nonsense.  I have clearly stated many times here that our media and leaders have caused confusion, mistrust, and resistance with their inconsistent and confusing words and actions.

I do not find regulations to be ill-informed but I do find their implementation to be  inconsistent and confusing.

I am not a science denier, but I don’t believe scientists, those who cite their studies, and those who regulate them into law are infallible and above questioning. 

If the governor mandated n95 masks and correct implementation I would applaud him. 

I would cheer any efforts to encourage the correct use of the best masks. I have made it clear many times.

We are told we can kill or be killed by others if we don’t mask up. That sounds serious to me. If it is that dire, then I believe our media and government should do more than make cavalier social mandates to mask up. If we are told to believe the science, then we need the complete and correct scientific information.

If this is what you believe, then we are in cahoots! 🙂

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Acknowledging you have nothing to say in response would be a nice admission from time to time. 
 

You do this a lot.  “I don’t have time” and when you clearly do, “I don’t have to talk to you if I don’t want to”.  
 

You reverting to a teenager when you’re asked to explain yourself on a discussion board becomes obnoxious and tiresome.  But have a nice day.

Oh well.  And you are globalizing.  And sometime I do not have time. You really don't know my schedule and I certainly don't need to justify it to someone I do not even know on a message board.   And sometimes I don't have anything else to say. So there you go.  I have nothing else to say to you about this. Happy now?  If you don't like it don't engage with me. I won't miss you.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair point, but "modifying advice as knowledge is accumulated" doesn't quite account for all the issues.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And then there's the "noble lie" approach to masks:

That last paragraph is worth some real consideration, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

The first two items simply illustrate we had horrible federal leadership through all of this especially in 2020.  The last item made some very valid points. Thanks!

Link to comment
4 hours ago, juliann said:

Why the hell isn't this plain 'ol common sense?? How stupid are we going to look in hindsight as we wail about rising cases while we applaud people for wearing bad masks badly?

Makes sense to me, but I have been told I am uncommon. 😀

The example of classrooms vs sporting events comes to mind. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Seems like you are.

So you have a "beef" with my "posting style," but you're not board nannying.

To me "board nannying" implies trying to play moderator and calling people out for breaking board rules, instead of just reporting them.

If board nannying is as you imply, complaining about someone's posting style, then you are no less guilty, it seems.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Off a bit.  If the vaccine "prevent{s} infection," then why is the CDC saying stuff like "Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant. When these infections occur among vaccinated people, they tend to be mild."

You are thinking in terms of absolutes.  Covid vaccines do prevent infection.  They have been proven to do so.  Nothing wrong or "off" with what I said.  I never said it absolutely prevents infection in everyone who gets it. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I said that "vaccines reduce the risk and severity of infection," which I think is a more accurate statement than saying that vaccination "prevents" infection.

Why is that more accurate?

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  From the CDC

I guess medical folks use "prevent" in particularized ways.  In my view, to "prevent" something means "{to} keep (something) from happening or arising."  From a layman's perspective, if 1,271 fully vaccinated adults are still getting hospitalized with COVID (compared to 7,308 per 100K person-days for unvaccinated adults), then the vaccines are substantially reducing, but not "preventing," hospitalizations.

No, that's how common folk talk too.   It "substantially reduces" hospitalizations by "preventing" many from going to the hospital at all.  It is an effective preventative measure - not an absolute guarantee.  But I think you know that wasn't implied.     

Will you also argue with people who claim that "seat belts save lives".   Will you also object that that is not absolutely true for everyone?  

 

 

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh well.  And you are globalizing.  And sometime I do not have time. You really don't know my schedule and I certainly don't need to justify it to someone I do not even know on a message board.   And sometimes I don't have anything else to say. So there you go.  I have nothing else to say to you about this. Happy now?  If you don't like it don't engage with me. I won't miss you.

Ok…

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m sorry to be such a source of confusion. For the record:

I have never ever been an anti-masker. I have complied with all state and church mandates regarding COVID whether or not I agree with them.

I am not anti-vaccine. I got mine at the first opportunity.

I have not called for less stringent measures. I have identified the hypocrisy and illogic of requiring masks but promoting the use of inferior masks and initials teaching the CDC guidelines for their use.   

I have not called for less government. I have not said that WA regulations are nonsense.  I have clearly stated many times here that our media and leaders have caused confusion, mistrust, and resistance with their inconsistent and confusing words and actions.

I do not find regulations to be ill-informed but I do find their implementation to be  inconsistent and confusing.

I am not a science denier, but I don’t believe scientists, those who cite their studies, and those who regulate them into law are infallible and above questioning. 

If the governor mandated n95 masks and correct implementation I would applaud him. 

I would cheer any efforts to encourage the correct use of the best masks. I have made it clear many times.

We are told we can kill or be killed by others if we don’t mask up. That sounds serious to me. If it is that dire, then I believe our media and government should do more than make cavalier social mandates to mask up. If we are told to believe the science, then we need the complete and correct scientific information.

Ic this is what you believe, then we are in cahoots! 🙂

Seeing as we see eye to eye, its befuddling how it seemed we were not.  Thank you!

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are thinking in terms of absolutes. 

I'm thinking of the dictionary.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Covid vaccines do prevent infection. 

Except when they don't.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I said that "vaccines reduce the risk and severity of infection," which I think is a more accurate statement than saying that vaccination "prevents" infection.

Why is that more accurate?

"Prevents" seems, well, pretty absolute.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

Hmm.  From the CDC

I guess medical folks use "prevent" in particularized ways.  In my view, to "prevent" something means "{to} keep (something) from happening or arising."  From a layman's perspective, if 1,271 fully vaccinated adults are still getting hospitalized with COVID (compared to 7,308 per 100K person-days for unvaccinated adults), then the vaccines are substantially reducing, but not "preventing," hospitalizations.

No, that's how common folk talk too.   It "substantially reduces" hospitalizations by "preventing" many from going to the hospital at all. 

But not "preventing" others.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is an effective preventative measure - not an absolute guarantee.  But I think you know that wasn't implied.

I'm not sure about that.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Will you also argue with people who claim that "seat belts save lives".   Will you also object that that is not absolutely true for everyone?  

That's a pretty fair point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-2048680

 

Herd immunity also can be reached when enough people have been vaccinated against a disease and have developed protective antibodies against future infection. Unlike the natural infection method, vaccines create immunity without causing illness or resulting complications. Using the concept of herd immunity, vaccines have successfully controlled contagious diseases such as smallpox, polio, diphtheria, rubella and many others.

This vaccine doesn't stop transmission or infection. Could someone point to a vaccine induced herd immunity under those circumstances? Maybe natural immunity could eventually create herd immunity but we don't know how long natural immunity lasts or how it will protect against variants.

image.png.841b217bfdf2fd0e8eaf48ae19f0201b.png

 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Chum said:

What is your medical source that clearly and directly supports this assertion?

She partly right when it comes to the Delta variant, because Delta is so highly infectious herd immunity will require around 80%-90%+ (if I remember right) immunity in the community before it is achieved.  So, when a vaccine is only 60%-70% effective at preventing infection, then even if the entire population was vaccinated, there would not be enough immunity from vaccination alone to produce the effect of herd immunity.  

What it will do though is cripple transmission rates and reduce the burden on hospitals - it will reduce suffering, and it will significantly reduce death.  So, even if it doesn't achieve herd immunity (in and of itself), it will cripple the virus to levels we can cope with it without it affecting our economy and healthcare system, school system, etc.  

With the pre-Delta variants, the mRNA vaccines absolutely could have achieved herd immunity because the virus was much less infectious and the vaccine was much more (90%+) effective against it.  That was the hope initially.  Delta challenged our hopes.

Where her statement (which is often used by antivaxers) is misleading is that it doesn't take into account natural immunity.  We absolutely can reach herd immunity through vaccination which will cover around 60% of us, and the other 40% will be protected after natural immunity is acquired after a much more mild infection (thanks to the vaccine). 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Quote

 

3 hours ago, juliann said:

What I find very interesting is that those who have been antagonistic of masks and mandates from the very beginning are now hyper critical of those who wear imperfect masks, and criticize inconsistently executed mask mandates. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I presume this is directed at me. Just for the record, I have never been antagonistic towards masks or vaccines anywhere or at any time unless questioning is considered an expression of antagonism. 

That comment shouldn't have my name on it, I suspect Pogi said it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...