The Other Covid Thread

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I would argue we don’t have enough data to make conclusive statements . From your link. 
 

Agreed, but there is more evidence than this one study.  It is confirmed by multiple studies, including lab results from the manufacturers which all point to the same conclusion.  It would be helpful to have more studies (it always it) but it is pretty strong evidence, if not conclusive. And it is the best evidence that we have to date.  

I would suggest that any blanket claim that you and others here have made about natural immunity being more protective than vaccination against Delta is also not conclusive, as I have demonstrated. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

natural immunity being more protective than vaccination against Delta is also not conclusive, as I have demonstrated. 

Well, the latest research is quite conclusive which was posted by the CDC. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would suggest that any blanket claim that you and others here have made about natural immunity being more protective than vaccination against Delta is also not conclusive, as I have demonstrated. 

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be an either/or situation.  We are all going to get both!

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be an either/or situation.  We are all going to get both!

Preferably the one (vaccination) before the other (natural immunity).  I highly doubt however, that all are going to get both - unless I am misunderstanding you. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Well, the latest research is quite conclusive which was posted by the CDC. 

I'm not sure why you think that it is quite conclusive.  I see several limitations with the studies.  The CDC data is based on 2 studies from May - November.  It did not stratify results into different age groups.  That seems like a critical error in understanding the intricacies of immunity on different populations.  The studies I linked to have shown that different age groups react differently to natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity.  In particular, older and more vulnerable people were shown to be better protected by vaccination than natural immunity, while people under 60 had better protection from natural immunity.  So, what were the demographics in these studies?  If they were predominantly under 60 years old, that is going to skew the results.  So, while the results of these studies may be accurate, they are limited in what they can tell us due to how they were set up. 

What seems most important to know is how to protect the older population - the more vulnerable ones.  From all data that actually studies different age groups, it appears that vaccination gave better protection to more vulnerable populations.

Edited January 20, 2022 by pogi

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Preferably the one (vaccination) before the other (natural immunity).  I highly doubt however, that all are going to get both - unless I am misunderstanding you. 

Since the vaccines don't seem to stop people from getting the disease, most people who have the vaccine will have the disease as well.

Many people got the vaccine had covid before they got the vaccine (it wasn't available).

I think in the end most of us will have both vaccinated immunity and natural immunity

The group that aren't going to be vaccinate will only have natural immunity, but in the end that will probably be a small group.

A smaller group will die from Covid and won't get any immunity and the rest of us will die of something else. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure why you think that it is quite conclusive.  I see several limitations with the studies.  The CDC data is based on 2 studies from May - November.  It did not stratify results into different age groups.  That seems like a critical error in understanding the intricacies of immunity on different populations.  The studies I linked to have shown that different age groups react differently to natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity.  In particular, older and more vulnerable people were shown to be better protected by vaccination than natural immunity, while people under 60 had better protection from natural immunity.  So, what were the demographics in these studies?  If they were predominantly under 60 years old, that is going to skew the results.  So, while the results of these studies may be accurate, they are limited in what they can tell us due to how they were set up. 

What seems most important to know is how to protect the older population - the more vulnerable ones.  From all data that actually studies different age groups, it appears that vaccination gave better protection to more vulnerable populations.

The only reason natural immunity matters is that we completely ignored it when instituting mandates. We should not be forcing people to get vaccinated.  By all means protect the elderly and vulnerable. We should have studies on which vaccine has been most helpful in doing that. We should be having a more targeted approach driven by data. People cannot get boosters every 3-4 months. We should not be changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. 

The study and numbers from Vermont are quite clear but that was against Delta. We are still waiting for data about Omicron and by the time it is compiled, this will all be over or we will be dealing with the next variant. We should not be making new policy mandates based on old data and old variants. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The only reason natural immunity matters is that we completely ignored it when instituting mandates. We should not be forcing people to get vaccinated.  By all means protect the elderly and vulnerable. We should have studies on which vaccine has been most helpful in doing that. We should be having a more targeted approach driven by data. People cannot get boosters every 3-4 months. We should not be changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. 

The study and numbers from Vermont are quite clear but that was against Delta. We are still waiting for data about Omicron and by the time it is compiled, this will all be over or we will be dealing with the next variant. We should not be making new policy mandates based on old data and old variants. 

So far, the soonest you can get a booster is 5 months.  I am guessing that a booster schedule will be determined by future variants and their threat level, and will likely only be annual shots after a while.  I would rather get a booster semi annually than Covid semiannually, because that is what may happen as natural immunity fades in a few months and as variants mutate.  

Quote

We should not be changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. 

We have to change definitions as we learn more about immunity.   Every vaccine uses different terminology.  With vaccines like MMR, Hep A/B, and varicella, fully vaccinated means one or two, or three doses and done, depending on the vaccine.  No boosters ever.  With Tdap, flu, typhoid, meningitis, and others, fully vaccinated means up-to-date (not one and done), some are annual, some are every 2 years, some are every 5 years, some are every 10, depending on the vaccine.   People who don't have a good comprehension of vaccines might be confused by all of this, but this is nothing new.  People are acting like these definitions are absolute - no, they aren't.  Every vaccine is different.  The schedule of booster and what is considered fully vaccinated changes with every vaccine and can change as new info presents itself. 

Quote

 The study and numbers from Vermont are quite clear but that was against Delta.

Again, do they take age demographics into account?  If not, it is not very clear. 

Quote

We should not be making new policy mandates based on old data and old variants. 

I am not aware of any new policy mandates.  It has already made it through the courts.  It's all said and done.   I will point out however, that when these mandates were made, the "very clear" information that you are talking about here was not known at the time and an abundance of caution was indicated. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by pogi

[Robert J Anderson]

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The only reason natural immunity matters is that we completely ignored it when instituting mandates. We should not be forcing people to get vaccinated.  By all means protect the elderly and vulnerable. We should have studies on which vaccine has been most helpful in doing that. We should be having a more targeted approach driven by data. People cannot get boosters every 3-4 months. We should not be changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. 

The study and numbers from Vermont are quite clear but that was against Delta. We are still waiting for data about Omicron and by the time it is compiled, this will all be over or we will be dealing with the next variant. We should not be making new policy mandates based on old data and old variants. 

I think this is where we are headed, given what the CDC director has been saying recently.  And it makes sense.  This is a disease that seriously affected less than 1% of the population and most of those had comorbidities or obesity.  

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not aware of any new policy mandates.  It has already made it through the courts.  It's all said and done.   I will point out however, that when these mandates were made, the "very clear" information that you are talking about here was not known at the time.  

Colleges should not have new booster requirements for their students. It's stupid and pointless. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Colleges should not have new booster requirements for their students. It's stupid and pointless. 

Why is that stupid?  What good is a primary series if your immunity has waned?  Why does it make sense to mandate a primary series but not boosters?  What good is a primary series of DTaP if you don't get your Tdap boosters?  The answer is - it is no good.   

This is not a public policy either.  Do you think it is stupid that private organizations have the right to mandate as they please?  That is a very un-republican stance, and one I wouldn't expect to hear from you.  Colleges have long had vaccine mandates for much less threatening diseases and with no outbreaks.  I was mandated to have MMR, Hep A, Hep B, Varicella, annual flu, and up-to-date with Tdap.  None of those come close to the threat that Covid poses on college campuses and outbreaks disrupting classes.  Do they completely prevent transmission?  No. Do they reduce it?  Yes.  Do they prevent students from being hospitalized, missing tons of class?  Yes.    When is the last time tetanus or measles disrupted studies?  Why don't people throw the same fit over those vaccine mandates?  The flu is sometimes less than 30% effective at preventing transmission (about the same as Covid with Omicron), why aren't people flipping out about that?  I just don't understand what it is about Covid that people like to pick on - these are not novel policies here.     

Missionaries are also mandated to have regular vaccines + Covid vaccines up-to-date.  I don't think it is stupid at all. I think it is quite wise of the church. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by pogi

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why is that stupid?  What good is a primary series if your immunity has waned?  Why does it make sense to mandate a primary series but not boosters?  What good is a primary series of DTaP if you don't get your Tdap boosters?  The answer is - it is no good.   

This is not a public policy either.  Do you think that private organizations shouldn't have the right to mandate as they please?  That is a very un-republican stance, and one I wouldn't expect to hear from you.  Colleges have long had vaccine mandates for much less threatening diseases and with no outbreaks.  I was mandated to have MMR, Hep A, Hep B, Varicella, annual flu, and up-to-date with Tdap.  None of those come close to the threat that Covid poses on college campuses and outbreaks disrupting classes.  Do they completely prevent transmission?  No. Do they reduce it?  Yes.  Do they prevent students from being hospitalized, missing tons of class?  Yes.    When is the last time tetanus or measles disrupted studies?  Why don't people throw the same fit over those vaccine mandates?  The flu is sometimes less than 30% effective at preventing transmission (about the same as Covid with Omicron), why aren't people flipping out about that?  I just don't understand what it is about Covid that people like to pick on - these are not novel policies here.     

Missionaries are also mandated to have regular vaccines + Covid vaccines up-to-date.  I don't think it is stupid at all. I think it is quite wise of the church. 

I think the difference between the COVID thing and the other diseases you mention is that the other diseases have been around and are well studied and the COVID thing is new.  

Give it some time and it should be less controversial. 

The other difference between COVID and the other diseases is that currently everyone is freaking out about COVID. Its not just a vaccine.  Its quarantining, masking up everywhere (except in restaurants, covid doesn't spread in restaurants), send the kids home, Test yourself every day, we don't require these measures for the other diseases. I don't have to test myself for varicella or flu or Hep B or HEP A every time I sneeze. 

The vaccines became controversial because all of the other government freak out measures that are associated with it.  Once the government stops freaking out about it, people are probably going to accept Covid Vaccines the same way they accept other vaccines. 

Its been obvious for some time that the health care community (which has somehow been made in charge of everything now days) doesn't really know what to do.

We are making it up as we go.

Until then, have another COVID Shot! Only 30% effected but we cant think of anything else.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Danzo

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why is that stupid? 

*College kids are very low risk

*Omicron is 99.5% of all cases

*Omicron is mild especially in this age group

*Omicron infects those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated and naturally immune

*vaccine and booster immunity wanes after 10 weeks. My booster has waned. 4th shots don't protect against Omicron. Multiple vaccines may weaken the immune system

*the vaccine is not without risk

Edited January 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

*college kids are very low risk

They are even lower risk for these other diseases currently.  College aged kids are hospitalized every day with Covid.  

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

*Omicron is mild especially in this age group

Not always.  Much higher risk than any of these other diseases.

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Omicron infects those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated and naturally immune

That is true with all vaccines and diseases.  

The vaccine offers more protection than no vaccine or natural immunity alone.  Period.

The vaccine offers as much protection as the flu shot, which is often mandated.  Not to mention severe disease, which does happen in this age group at higher numbers than other diseases.

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

vaccine and booster immunity wanes after 10 weeks. My booster has waned. 4th shots don't protect against Omicron. Multiple vaccines may weaken the immune system

10 weeks is better than 0 weeks.  Waning immunity doesn’t mean zero immunity.  It still protects against severe disease and death and may still prevent infection after 10 weeks.

Do you have any idea how many vaccines kids get?  Several primary series are 4 doses.  Tons are 3 doses within 6 months for all age groups. I’ve probably had over 30 flu shots in my lifetime.  They don't weaken the immune system.  I don’t buy it.
 

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

*the vaccine is not without risk

Neither is Covid, which you seem to downplay here against the vaccine.  Covid is WAY more dangerous than the vaccine, even for this age group. Period.  
risk vs benefit.

Most importantly this is a free market at work.  Let these institutions study and weigh the risks and benefits for themselves and decide what they think is best policy for their organization.  

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[Danzo]

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

*vaccine and booster immunity wanes after 10 weeks. My booster has waned. 4th shots don't protect against Omicron. Multiple vaccines may weaken the immune system

 

I got the omicron 6 weeks after boost

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

The vaccine offers more protection than no vaccine or natural immunity alone.  Period.

The problem with making statements like this is that often doesn't correspond with people's lived experience.

All of our family recently recovered from covid.   Everyone was vaccinated except our youngest son.  Guess who had the mildest case? Our youngest son.  Nobody knew he was sick until I randomly checked his temperature and found he had a mild fever.  He thought it was cool that he could be sick without obvious symptoms.  Fun fact, he was scheduled to get the vaccine this week, but he can't because he got sick last week. The clinic felt bad for us and someone delivered us a box of what looks like hazmat suits, gloves, wipes, etc. 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The problem with making statements like this is that often doesn't correspond with people's lived experience.

All of our family recently recovered from covid.   Everyone was vaccinated except our youngest son.  Guess who had the mildest case? Our youngest son.  Nobody knew he was sick until I randomly checked his temperature and found he had a mild fever.  He thought it was cool that he could be sick without obvious symptoms.  Fun fact, he was scheduled to get the vaccine this week, but he can't because he got sick last week. The clinic felt bad for us and someone delivered us a box of what looks like hazmat suits, gloves, wipes, etc. 

And the problem with this is that anecdotal data is not weak in making policy decisions.  We need to see the big picture to weigh risk vs benefit.  The data is beyond clear.

Who is to say that your son would have had even milder symptoms if he were vaccinated?  Many unvaccinated have zero symptoms, while their unvaccinated spouse is hospitalized or dies.  That is real life scenario.   

What if the one that died was vaccinated and the spouse wasn’t.  The one would still have zero symptoms while the spouse may have gotten really sick but was not even hospitalized.  Would it be safe to assume from this scenario that the vaccine didn’t live up to the data?  After all the unvaccinated spouse had no symptoms and the vaccinated one got really sick!

One night falsely concluded from this anecdote that Covid vaccines are fake news! 
 

Let the data talk.  The methodology has purpose. Anecdotes can’t be interpreted independent of the larger data and be trusted.

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[sunstoned]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

And the problem with this is that anecdotal data is not weak in making policy decisions.  We need to see the big picture to weigh risk vs benefit.  The data is beyond clear.

Who is to say that your son would have had even milder symptoms if he were vaccinated?  Many unvaccinated have zero symptoms, while their unvaccinated spouse is hospitalized or dies.  That is real life scenario.   

What if the one that died was vaccinated and the spouse wasn’t.  The one would still have zero symptoms while the spouse may have gotten really sick but was not even hospitalized.  Would it be safe to assume from this scenario that the vaccine didn’t live up to the data?  After all the unvaccinated spouse had no symptoms and the vaccinated one got really sick!

One night falsely concluded from this anecdote that Covid vaccines are fake news! 
 

Let the data talk.  The methodology has purpose. Anecdotes can’t be interpreted independent of the larger data and be trusted.

I make some excellent points.  And the data on vaccinations is beyond clear.  Just look and see who is taking up hospital beds right not.  It is not the vaccinated. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think the difference between the COVID thing and the other diseases you mention is that the other diseases have been around and are well studied and the COVID thing is new.  

And yet in the very short time it has been around, it has hospitalized and/or killed (nearly 1 million) more people than most of these other diseases that have mandated vaccines combined.

We know enough that the vaccine is safer than Covid. 

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

The vaccines became controversial because all of the other government freak out measures that are associated with it.  Once the government stops freaking out about it, people are probably going to accept Covid Vaccines the same way they accept other vaccines. 

It was controversial even when Trump was in office.  He admitted to downplaying the virus, so your argument doesn't square.

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Its been obvious for some time that the health care community (which has somehow been made in charge of everything now days) doesn't really know what to do.

We are making it up as we go.

Until then, have another COVID Shot! Only 30% effected but we cant think of anything else.

Why, oh why, would anyone think to place the healthcare community (experts in infectious disease, immunology, vaccinology, and a history of successfully combating outbreaks of communicable diseases and public health mitigation measures) at the helm of a deadly pandemic???  Maybe popular radio show hosts and politicians (without the guidance of healthcare community) would do a better job at knowing how to combat this. I am honestly flabbergasted by this comment Danzo.  Honestly, who could have done a better job???  The health care community has saved countless lives with their mitigation measures, vaccines, and contact tracing efforts.  The problem is that they have been lambasted with every step for political purposes.  Are they perfect?  No.  But they are our best hope and guide.  Politics has fractured this country and is responsible for more death and suffering in the last 2 years than I care to think about.  If everyone would have followed the recommendations from the beginning, we wouldn't be close to 1 million deaths.  

30% effective at reducing transmission.  Hospitalization and death (the more important factors) are almost completely eliminated with vaccination.  I will shout hallelujah and give thanks for the healthcare community that has saved countless lives and know what they are doing better than anybody else.   They have done more than every politician combined for the good of this nation in the last 2 years.  Politicians (or anyone else really), without the direction and expertise of the healthcare community, would have sunk this country into the ground with death.  There would be no vaccine.  No known mitigation measures.  Delta would have wiped out countless lives.  Give thanks for the healthcare community.  They are heroes. 

 

 

 

 

[bsjkki]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Why is that stupid? 

Following the science. Is she lying?

t lying?

[bsjkki]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you think it is stupid that private organizations have the right to mandate as they please?  That is a very un-republican stance, and one I wouldn't expect to hear from you. 

You have a way of assuming arguments from people that they have not made. 
 

At this point, I think it is stupid for colleges and universities to require it. They can do it. They have the right to do it. But, it’s stupid.

[pogi]

13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

You have a way of assuming arguments from people that they have not made. 

I guess I am following this conversation differently than you are.  I don't try to make assumptions, but I have to admit that you are hard to follow sometimes as you jump from one argument to a different one, mid-discussion, without any sort of bridge.   Based on our interactions, you were complaining about mandates - "people should not be forced to get vaccinated" - "people can't get boosters every 3-4 months", etc. 

19 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The only reason natural immunity matters is that we completely ignored it when instituting mandates. We should not be forcing people to get vaccinated.  By all means protect the elderly and vulnerable. We should have studies on which vaccine has been most helpful in doing that. We should be having a more targeted approach driven by data. People cannot get boosters every 3-4 months. We should not be changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. 

I responded:

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not aware of any new policy mandates.  It has already made it through the courts.  It's all said and done.   I will point out however, that when these mandates were made, the "very clear" information that you are talking about here was not known at the time and an abundance of caution was indicated. 

To my surprise, after I addressed your comment about "people should not be forced to get vaccinated" etc. you countered with this:

18 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Colleges should not have new booster requirements for their students. It's stupid and pointless. 

It seemed reasonable to conclude that your "Colleges should not have new booster requirements" was a continuation of your original comment, "people should not be forced to get vaccinated" and "people can't get boosters every 3-4 months (which is itself an argument that no one has made)".   Which surprised me.  It sounded like you were saying that Colleges should not be able to force these mandates. 

13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

At this point, I think it is stupid for colleges and universities to require it. They can do it. They have the right to do it. But, it’s stupid.

It is not stupid.  You just think it is.  Again, how is this different than other vaccine mandates?  Seems that the risk is greater with Covid than anything else?  Pretty much all of your complaints above can be equally applied to other vaccines/diseases that are mandated.  Why do you single out Covid?  Makes no sense. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seemed reasonable to conclude that your "Colleges should not have new booster requirements" was a continuation of your original comment, "people should not be forced to get vaccinated" and "people can't get boosters every 3-4 months

Your’re the one who made assumptions. I am against this vaccine mandate. In my opinion, it is stupid for colleges or anyone to require boosters.

Since the booster wanes at 10 weeks, and people are on to 4th shots, (shown not to help much), it is fair to question where this all goes. 

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Since the booster wanes at 10 weeks, and people are on to 4th shots, (shown not to help much), it is fair to question where this all goes. 

No problem questioning.  But what is wrong with requiring 10 weeks of maximum protection (actual protection is much longer lived than that)?

4th shots are not yet indicated for the general population in the states. We are not Israel.  Apples and oranges.  You can't criticize US colleges for what Israel is doing.   4th shots will undoubtedly be recommended at some point for the general population though.  There is no 3-4 month interval that you claim.  What is wrong with that?  People who have immunocompromising conditions are frequently recommended extra booster doses that is not recommended for the general population.  This is not a new concept with Covid shots.  There is history and reason to all of this.  People have been getting annual flu shots for decades, all the sudden 4 shots of a vaccine is too much!?  What gives?  As I've already stated, several vaccines have a 4 shot primary series followed by incremental boosters for life after that.  What is the problem?  The alternative of no boosters or 4 shot series is much worse.   The wheel has worked fabulously for decades, we don't need to rethink it.  There is no problem with boosters.      

Again, you are looking at their decision through a VERY short sighted lens (maybe a couple months into the future max, when Omicron will be all but history), these policies are in place for the unforeseeable threats in the future too.  Best to have the policies in place before something potentially really scary comes along. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

  But what is wrong with requiring 10 weeks of maximum protection (actual protection is much longer lived than that)?

Because Omicron is peaking, not a threat to most. Spring is coming Vaccines have some risk. The timing of a booster mandate does not match up. If you are in a high risk group, get it… but most likely they already have and its effectiveness is waning. I expect we will end up with an annual flu like shot timed for seasonal spread.