Can We Civilly Discuss Thoughts On Vaccination? A Poll. (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

I think this has been one of the most ridiculous and perplexing failures of the vaccine rollout. It does not make me question the safety. 

There is no answer there.  Does anyone know why this is?

"Sure, SuperMike -- I can tell you little kids aren't given the COVID vaccine yet."

"Lights, please."

...

Vaccine manufacturers have to complete juvenile trials before infants and small kids can take the vaccines. With younger children, there have to be multiple dosing schemes worked out by age and/or weight so there's an extra layer of complexity above what's entailed in adult and adolescent trials.

Meanwhile, from Pharmacy Times (and Reuters) -- reports are from late July:

... [G]overnment agencies have urged Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech to expand the size their clinical trials among children 5 to 11 years of age. According to reporting by The New York Times, this expansion is part of an effort to detect rare adverse effects in this patient population, including heart inflammation problems that have been seen in individuals 30 years of age and younger.

According to the report, officials at the FDA believe that the scope of the original trials was inadequate to detect the adverse effects. Because of this, the FDA has asked the companies to include 3000 children between 5 and 11 years of age, which is approximately double the original number of study participants planned.

Moderna’s clinical trial in children began enrolling participants in March, with the goal of enrolling 6795 participants between the ages of 6 months and less than 12 years. According to the Times, the company hopes to seek emergency authorization in this age group toward the end of 2021 or beginning of 2022.

Pfizer and BioNTech may be able to accomplish these clinical trials sooner, possibly filing a request to expand the emergency use authorization of its vaccine by the end of September. The company previously planned to have results for children 5 to 11 years of age in September, followed shortly after by results for children ages 2 to 5. Results for children between the ages of 6 months and 2 years are expected in October or November.

 

[Doug B]

There is no answer there.  Does anyone know why this is?

The FDA is incompetent.  

Not in this case, unless you disagree with the FDA asking the mRNA vaccine manufacturers to expand their Phase III juvenile trials. But otherwise, I'm not aware that the FDA has been given juvenile trial data yet to evaluate.

 

[Dickies]

It’s likely a dosing issue that they didn’t want to hold up the initial approval. At 18 or 16 you can pretty much consider them adults and dosing adjustments wouldn’t likely be needed. It might end up being the same dosing for the younger kids but if they did all ages at once they run the risk of delaying the approval. Just think if Pfizer or Moderna were delayed 3 or 6 months not old from the business standpoint but also the lives likely saved. The same is true about storage conditions and expiration dates, the companies went conservative on all of that to avoid delaying approval and gradually gotten more favorable conditions approved.

You're way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, so I appreciate the response.  This makes some sense to me.  My question is whether we were testing the dosing on all age groups from the start, or did we delay the children until after they dialed in the adults?  We're approaching the point where the vaccine has been readily available to most adults for 50% of the pandemic.  To me it feels like they basically ignored the dosing for children.

 

[Dickies]

The FDA is incompetent.  

That's literally it.  That's the same reason why don't have cheap, ubiquitous at-home covid testing like they do in every other advanced country.  The FDA just refuses to do its job.

I am well aware of your disdain for the FDA, and I get it, but are we even at the point where the vaccine manufacturers are ready to roll this out to children, and it's just the FDA holding it up?  That isn't the impression I'm getting.

 

[Manster]

The definitive answer to the original question is NO!  

 

[jobarules]

You're way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, so I appreciate the response.  This makes some sense to me.  My question is whether we were testing the dosing on all age groups from the start, or did we delay the children until after they dialed in the adults?  We're approaching the point where the vaccine has been readily available to most adults for 50% of the pandemic.  To me it feels like they basically ignored the dosing for children.

The latter 

 

[Biff84]

You're way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, so I appreciate the response.  This makes some sense to me.  My question is whether we were testing the dosing on all age groups from the start, or did we delay the children until after they dialed in the adults?  We're approaching the point where the vaccine has been readily available to most adults for 50% of the pandemic.  To me it feels like they basically ignored the dosing for children.

As far as I remember they did not start the juvenile trials until after the initial approval, maybe just prior. The one exception was Pfizer and 12-15 year olds. I think it all comes down the dosing and how far they extend the age down without changing the dose. Not sure if there’s a good reason for not running separate trials simultaneously for the kids  - maybe needing the adult dosing first, I don’t know.

 

[supermike80]

"Sure, SuperMike -- I can tell you little kids aren't given the COVID vaccine yet."

"Lights, please."

...

Vaccine manufacturers have to complete juvenile trials before infants and small kids can take the vaccines. With younger children, there have to be multiple dosing schemes worked out by age and/or weight so there's an extra layer of complexity above what's entailed in adult and adolescent trials.

Meanwhile, from Pharmacy Times (and Reuters) -- reports are from late July:

Thank you for the links.   Not sure this makes me any more confident, but I can see at least WHY they aren't given to children.  Because they have not been deemed to be safe.

 

[The Commish]

So we're back to "You can't push this experimental vaccine on me!!!  It's not proven!!!!!  Oh, hey, look at this experimental drug, let's try that!!!"

So dishonest. And NONE of those doing that nonsense have ever answered my question about what they'd do if they got covid so bad they had to go to the hospital where they'd assuredly be treated with experimental treatments.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

An unvaccinated teacher started a delta variant outbreak in students and parents in Marin County, CDC study shows

So incredibly selfish, reckless and stupid. 

 

[LawFitz]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital

By Meredith WadmanAug. 26, 2021 , 8:00 PM

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

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. And they caution that intentional infection among unvaccinated people would be extremely risky. “What we don’t want people to say is: ‘All right, I should go out and get infected, I should have an infection party.’” says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who researches the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and was not involved in the study. “Because somebody could die.”

The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated. The new work could inform discussion of whether previously infected people need to receive both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the similar mRNA vaccine from Moderna. Vaccine mandates don’t necessarily exempt those who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection already and the current U.S. recommendation is that they be fully vaccinated, which means two mRNA doses or one of the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus-based vaccine. Yet one mRNA dose might be enough, some scientists argue. And other countries including Germany, France, Italy, and Israel administer just one vaccine dose to previously infected people.

The study, conducted in one of the most highly COVID-19–vaccinated countries in the world, examined medical records of tens of thousands of Israelis, charting their infections, symptoms, and hospitalizations between 1 June and 14 August, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel. It’s the largest real-world observational study so far to compare natural and vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, according to its leaders.

The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19.”

Still, Thålin and other researchers stress that deliberate infection among unvaccinated people would put them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid. The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point,” says Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. COVID-19 has already killed more than 4 million people worldwide and there are concerns that Delta and other SARS-CoV-2 variants are deadlier than the original virus.

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

“The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.

No one in the study who got a new SARS-CoV-2 infection died—which prevented a comparison of death rates but is a clear sign that vaccines still offer a formidable shield against serious disease, even if not as good as natural immunity. Moreover, natural immunity is far from perfect. Although reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 are rare, and often asymptomatic or mild, they can be severe.

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

“We continue to underestimate the importance of natural infection immunity … especially when [infection] is recent,” says Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. “And when you bolster that with one dose of vaccine, you take it to levels you can’t possibly match with any vaccine in the world right now.”

Nussenzweig says the results in previously infected, vaccinated people confirm laboratory findings from a series of papers in Nature and Immunity by his group, his Rockefeller University colleague Paul Bieniasz and others—and from a preprint posted this month by Bieniasz and his team. They show, Nussenzweig says, that the immune systems of people who develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and then get vaccinated produce exceptionally broad and potent antibodies against the coronavirus. The preprint, for example, reported that people who were previously infected and then vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine had antibodies in their blood that neutralized the infectivity of another virus, harmless to humans, that was engineered to express a version of the coronavirus spike protein that contains 20 concerning mutations. Sera from vaccinated and naturally infected people could not do so.

As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.

She adds: “The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.

Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose.

For many infectious diseases, naturally acquired immunity is known to be more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity and it often lasts a lifetime. Other coronaviruses that cause the serious human diseases severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome trigger robust and persistent immune responses. At the same time, several other human coronaviruses, which usually cause little more than colds, are known to reinfect people regularly.

 

[djmich]

A series of unfortunate events and odd correlations

1. In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19.
   
2. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. (my commentary:  a pandemic of the vaccinated)
   
3. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized (so the vaccine is not preventing a lot of COVID...but most don't even realize they have it and the vaccine is probably part of that...thats great)
   
4. This surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities (but why given #3...only a small number of people even know they have it!  Zero hospitalizations.  It is the flu...but better).
   
5. Masks are required on the Duke campus in all indoor and outdoor locations (but why given #3...and outside?  and back to virtual learning?)
   

 

[Rich Conway]

A series of unfortunate events and odd correlations

1. In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19.
   
2. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. (my commentary:  a pandemic of the vaccinated)
   
3. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized (so the vaccine is not preventing a lot of COVID...but most don't even realize they have it and the vaccine is probably part of that...thats great)
   
4. This surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities (but why given #3...only a small number of people even know they have it!  Zero hospitalizations.  It is the flu...but better).
   
5. Masks are required on the Duke campus in all indoor and outdoor locations (but why given #3...and outside?  and back to virtual learning?)
   

One note re: the bolded.  Per the article, 98% of students are vaccinated along with 92% of staff.  Calling this a pandemic of the vaccinated is inaccurate, given those numbers.  8 unvaxxed out of 364 = ~2.2%, or pretty similar numbers to the vaxxed/unvaxxed population (not accounting for rounding or staff/student breakdown).

 

[djmich]

One note re: the bolded.  Per the article, 98% of students are vaccinated along with 92% of staff.  Calling this a pandemic of the vaccinated is inaccurate, given those numbers.  8 unvaxxed out of 364 = ~2.2%, or pretty similar numbers to the vaxxed/unvaxxed population (not accounting for rounding or staff/student breakdown).

I meant that the pandemic (the people getting sick) are...the vaccinated.

Note:  I support vaccinations and think the lack of severity of symptoms (and even recognition of symptoms) is a positive attribute of vaccination.

 

[Rich Conway]

I meant that the pandemic (the people getting sick) are...the vaccinated.

Note:  I support vaccinations and think the lack of severity of symptoms (and even recognition of symptoms) is a positive attribute of vaccination.

Call this quibbling if you must, but the implication (at least to me) when someone refers to it as a "pandemic of the vaccinated" is that the vaccines make it more likely that one catches COVID, when that's not the case in this specific instance (or generally).  That is, our goal should be that 100% of infections are in vaccinated people, by getting 100% of people vaccinated.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A series of unfortunate events and odd correlations

1. In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19.
   
2. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. (my commentary:  a pandemic of the vaccinated)
   
3. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized (so the vaccine is not preventing a lot of COVID...but most don't even realize they have it and the vaccine is probably part of that...thats great)
   
4. This surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities (but why given #3...only a small number of people even know they have it!  Zero hospitalizations.  It is the flu...but better).
   
5. Masks are required on the Duke campus in all indoor and outdoor locations (but why given #3...and outside?  and back to virtual learning?)
   

With regard to #4, it's important to realize that the group that used to be known as "covid hawks" (loosely speaking) has since broken up into two distinct groups since vaccines became available.  People like me, who saw vaccination as an off-ramp away from covid restrictions, are still rabidly pro-vaccine but otherwise we've psychologically adjusted to covid becoming endemic. Other folks missed their exit and crossed state lines over to zero-covid fanaticism.  

There's absolutely no logical reason why covid spreading among a vaccinated population should put stress on any university resources.  Universities have little outbreaks of stuff like the flu all the time -- it's no big deal and generally people don't even know that they're occurring, because why would you?  It's not newsworthy.  "Common but mostly harmless disease spreads among college students" doesn't make for a gripping headline, and it shouldn't.  

But some folks are still clinging to the idea that we can completely eradicate covid-19 by having vaccinated people wear masks and get tested all the time.  (They're wrong.  They're definitely wrong in the near term because it's going to be years before we get vaccines out to the whole planet, and they're probably wrong in the long term because it sounds like delta may make it mathematically impossible to achieve herd immunity ever).  Regardless, though, these people have an out-sized role in policy making in some areas.

So basically we now have a world where some people are governed by people like Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, and Kristi Noem (YOLO!!!1!) and everybody else is governed by people who want to wrap everyone in bubble wrap.  And this has become a political tribal issue so nobody wants to give an inch.    

 

[song]

An unvaccinated teacher started a delta variant outbreak in students and parents in Marin County, CDC study shows

So incredibly selfish, reckless and stupid. 

2Squirrels, because i have no doubt about your sincere good intentions in posting, i'm going to be silly and respond.

It may be likely that every word in the link you provide (except the CDC study part, and that's close enough) is true.

But to my eye, the article linked is a blatantly inflammatory piece of propaganda of the sort that contributes to the skepticism of those suspicious of the dominant narrative around Covid-19.

Here are a few reasons i say that:

1st about the CDC study part.  The article linked refers to it as a CDC study, but later states it was "produced by a Marin County health official and researchers from" three CA universities, "and was published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report".  Like i said, close enough perhaps, but deceptive.  If you click on the link in the article that says CDC study, you can see the study as published in the MMWR, as well as the disclaimer in fine print at page bottom that says (reasonably) that MMWR is not responsible for the information from non-CDC sites.

The fact that the 2nd word in the headline is unvaccinated, when that may or may not be relevant to possibility of transmission, in a particular case, as even the CDC has acknowledged, reveals the article's primary goal of focusing negatively on vaccine status, whether relevant in this case or not.

Now as for the 4th word in the headline "started", stated as fact. Right beneath the headline the article says the teacher was "presumed" to have started an outbreak.  And though both the study and the article about it refer to the teacher as the "index patient" (initiator of chain of transmission), both also refer to the transmission chain as "assumes" and "thought to be". 

In the discussion section of the study the reason for hedging is clarified as it states,  "The findings of the study are subject to at least three limitations. First, the teachers specimen was unavailable for WGS" (turns out that's whole genetic sequencing) "which prevented phylogenetic identification of the outbreak's index patient".

Interestingly, the article states that four of the  student's parents tested positive.  It then makes a point of saying "one of them was unvaccinated".                                                                                                                                                             

So, teacher may well be guilty as charged, but that kind of slanted, deceptive article does a disservice to anyone hoping to build trust.  And CDC, really?  smh

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized, according to the university.

I mean, how is the correct response to something like this anything other than "so what?"  Why is it a news story that a small number of people are suffering from cold symptoms?  Who cares?

This is a good landing spot for us.  When SARS-CoV-2 hits a highly-vaccinated population, it makes a few people under the weather.  That is a huge success story for vaccines and science in general.  It makes covid a non-story, unless we insist on viewing it like the Mark of Cain or something that needs to be eradicated at all costs.

 

[Max Power]

A series of unfortunate events and odd correlations

1. In the first week of classes, 304 undergraduates, 45 graduate students and 15 employees tested positive for COVID-19.
   
2. All but eight of these individuals were vaccinated, and the vast majority of them are asymptomatic. (my commentary:  a pandemic of the vaccinated)
   
3. A small number have minor, cold- and flu-like symptoms, and none have been hospitalized (so the vaccine is not preventing a lot of COVID...but most don't even realize they have it and the vaccine is probably part of that...thats great)
   
4. This surge is placing significant stress on the people, systems and facilities (but why given #3...only a small number of people even know they have it!  Zero hospitalizations.  It is the flu...but better).
   
5. Masks are required on the Duke campus in all indoor and outdoor locations (but why given #3...and outside?  and back to virtual learning?)
   

These are the type of numbers that the NFL is sweating right now.

The vaccine doesn't stop the spread. Treating it like it does is counter productive. 

 

[Rich Conway]

With regard to #4, it's important to realize that the group that used to be known as "covid hawks" (loosely speaking) has since broken up into two distinct groups since vaccines became available.  People like me, who saw vaccination as an off-ramp away from covid restrictions, are still rabidly pro-vaccine but otherwise we've psychologically adjusted to covid becoming endemic. Other folks missed their exit and crossed state lines over to zero-covid fanaticism.

Would it be fair to insert a third group here in between those two, consisting of "rabidly pro-vaccine who also have children under 12"?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would it be fair to insert a third group here in between those two, consisting of "rabidly pro-vaccine who also have children under 12"?

Maybe, but this was in the context of fully vaccinated college students.  I know this sounds callous, but none of us should care if some of those folks test positive for covid.  They're fine.

 

[Rich Conway]

Maybe, but this was in the context of fully vaccinated college students.  I know this sounds callous, but none of us should care if some of those folks test positive for covid.  They're fine.

Fair enough.  I thought you were making more of a general comment about "COVID hawks".

 

[AAABatteries]

Maybe, but this was in the context of fully vaccinated college students.  I know this sounds callous, but none of us should care if some of those folks test positive for covid.  They're fine.

On some weird level we should be "happy" - they are mostly isolated on campus with other vaccinated people.  Hopefully they all get it and stay away from old people.  We are all going to get it at some point.  The sooner we get somewhat close to her immunity the better.

In general though, the number of deaths is still WAY too high because we have so many morons that won't get vaccinated.

 

[The Z Machine]

In general though, the number of deaths is still WAY too high because we have so many morons that won't get vaccinated.

There's also the issue of waning immunity from vax or NI.  That will put some people at greater risk than we'd like.

 

[Max Power]

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization drops, CDC says

The COVID-19 vaccines' ability to keep people out of the hospital appears to be dropping slightly, particularly for those 75 and older, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Monday during an advisory panel.

The CDC has previously estimated that 97% of people in the hospital being treated for COVID-19 are unvaccinated, but that data was collected before the spread of delta, a hyper-transmissible variant that many doctors have warned appears to be making people sicker.

The latest CDC analysis estimates that the ability of the COVID vaccines to keep a person out of the hospital is now between 75% to 95%.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization drops, CDC says

I don't know where you got this, but it doesn't seem very credible.

The COVID-19 vaccines' ability to keep people out of the hospital appears to be dropping slightly, particularly for those 75 and older, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Monday during an advisory panel.

The CDC has previously estimated that 97% of people in the hospital being treated for COVID-19 are unvaccinated, but that data was collected before the spread of delta, a hyper-transmissible variant that many doctors have warned appears to be making people sicker.

The latest CDC analysis estimates that the ability of the COVID vaccines to keep a person out of the hospital is now between 75% to 95%.

The reason why I say this isn't credible is because it frames the blue statement as an "post-delta update" to the red statement, but those two sentences have literally nothing to do with one another.  There is no relationship between vaccine efficacy and the share of hospitalized people who are vaccinated.  I think the author is probably committing the "base rate fallacy" which is a great reason for disregarding the rest of his or her analysis.

 

[jobarules]

I don't know where you got this, but it doesn't seem very credible.

The reason why I say this isn't credible is because it frames the blue statement as an "post-delta update" to the red statement, but those two sentences have literally nothing to do with one another.  There is no relationship between vaccine efficacy and the share of hospitalized people who are vaccinated.  I think the author is probably committing the "base rate fallacy" which is a great reason for disregarding the rest of his or her analysis.

Here's the article

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/health/booster-shots-acip-discussion/index.html

 

[Max Power]

I don't know where you got this, but it doesn't seem very credible.

The reason why I say this isn't credible is because it frames the blue statement as an "post-delta update" to the red statement, but those two sentences have literally nothing to do with one another.  There is no relationship between vaccine efficacy and the share of hospitalized people who are vaccinated.  I think the author is probably committing the "base rate fallacy" which is a great reason for disregarding the rest of his or her analysis.

it was from ABC.  I read it as more the whole 97% of the hospital beds for COVID are the vaccinated has been updated to about 75% unvaccinated and 25% vaccinated. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/coronavirus-delta-variant-latest-news/?id=79720727#79723614

 

[AAABatteries]

it was from ABC.  I read it as more the whole 97% of the hospital beds for COVID are the vaccinated has been updated to about 75% unvaccinated and 25% vaccinated. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/coronavirus-delta-variant-latest-news/?id=79720727#79723614

No, it's saying that 75-95% of cases won't require hospitalization.  Theoretically you could have just about any % of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated based on how many folks are vaccinated or not.  The number of folks in the hospital with Covid that are unvaccinated is still really high and the number that subsequently die is even higher.

 

[the rover]

I'm a statistic now.  Fully vaccinated (Moderna) in April, covid positive as of today.  Good thing is that it appears that I have a relatively mild case, which means it feels like when i got bacterial pneumonia.  It isn't pleasant.  Get vaccinated. 

 

[Max Power]

I'm a statistic now.  Fully vaccinated (Moderna) in April, covid positive as of today.  Good thing is that it appears that I have a relatively mild case, which means it feels like when i got bacterial pneumonia.  It isn't pleasant.  Get vaccinated. 

Sorry to hear.  Get some rest and I hope you feel better soon. 

 

[jobarules]

I'm a statistic now.  Fully vaccinated (Moderna) in April, covid positive as of today.  Good thing is that it appears that I have a relatively mild case, which means it feels like when i got bacterial pneumonia.  It isn't pleasant.  Get vaccinated. 

You feel like you have pneumonia? That's mild?

 

[Max Power]

We're working on covid guidelines for the unit and ran into a debatable question.

Is Fully Vaccinated a permanent status? Meaning once you are considered fully vaccinated for COVID, you will always be considered fully vaccinated.

 

[The Z Machine]

We're working on covid guidelines for the unit and ran into a debatable question.

Is Fully Vaccinated a permanent status? Meaning once you are considered fully vaccinated for COVID, you will always be considered fully vaccinated.

Right now, yes, but I bet that changes when boosters become a normal, regular thing.  Just like an annual flu shot.

 

[Rich Conway]

We're working on covid guidelines for the unit and ran into a debatable question.

Is Fully Vaccinated a permanent status? Meaning once you are considered fully vaccinated for COVID, you will always be considered fully vaccinated.

This may not be what you want to hear in a "we're developing policies and need answers" kind of way, but the real answer is "we don't know yet".  Most experts think that vaccine protection will wane over time, but there is no current clarity on exactly how much it wanes, how quickly, if all vaccines wane at the same rate, or if waning protection is a constant for all people or if it's different for different people, and if so, exactly how to determine the differences.

 

[Max Power]

Right now, yes, but I bet that changes when boosters become a normal, regular thing.  Just like an annual flu shot.

And that's our holdup.  We're trying to write guidelines, but if people are moving between fully and partially vaccinated throughout the year, we have to be careful with our wording. 

 

[Max Power]

This may not be what you want to hear in a "we're developing policies and need answers" kind of way, but the real answer is "we don't know yet".  Most experts think that vaccine protection will wane over time, but there is no current clarity on exactly how much it wanes, how quickly, if all vaccines wane at the same rate, or if waning protection is a constant for all people or if it's different for different people, and if so, exactly how to determine the differences.

I agree with you and Z's replies.  We're probably going to have to take a chop at these guidelines again in 3-4 months.  There are some people dug in that Fully Vaccinated means you're always Fully vaccinated.  I don't think everyone has accepted the possibility of boosters yet. 

Which throws into question some of our current policies. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I agree with you and Z's replies.  We're probably going to have to take a chop at these guidelines again in 3-4 months.  There are some people dug in that Fully Vaccinated means you're always Fully vaccinated.  I don't think everyone has accepted the possibility of boosters yet. 

Which throws into question some of our current policies. 

You may have to parse some of your language a bit.  Use phrases like "Based on current data available as of [insertdate], ..." or include expiration and automatic review/update after N months in your guidelines?

 

[The Z Machine]

My company (Fortune 500) with tens of thousands of employees in the US and even more worldwide just updated their covid policies. 

-------------------

These safety protocols apply to U.S. employees and offices at this time:

Internal Meetings: Starting Sept. 7, any employee attending in-person internal meetings of 10+ people must be fully vaccinated and take an FDA emergency-use authorized COVID-19 test* within 48 hours of the meeting start date and again 24 hours after the meeting end date. Internal meetings should be limited to strategic, business-critical imperatives. This does not apply to meetings of on-site critical employees in plants, distribution centers or security monitoring locations and branches.

External Meetings: Starting Sept. 7, any employee traveling by air or participating in partner meetings and events with 10+ people must be fully vaccinated. This does not currently apply to field technicians, though some of our customers may have additional vaccine requirements.

Company Office Buildings: By Nov. 1, any employee accessing a U.S.-based company office building must be fully vaccinated. Limited exceptions will be reviewed and assessed by HR, in accordance with state and federal laws

---------------

 

[The Z Machine]

We may end up losing some good people because of this, but overall I think it's a good policy to try and promote a healthy workforce that doesn't miss time due to illness. Also local morale would take a big hit if an anti-vaxxer employee died. Much more so than having someone quit. 

The company is headquartered up in New England with significant office presence in the mid-Atlantic. We also have quite a few people working in assembly plants around the US, and from what I've seen those folks have the lowest vaccination rates in the company.  Not sure how this affects them since the policy specifically calls it offices, not production facilities. 

 

[ProstheticRGK]

A friend of mine has been a RN for over 25 years. She is Puerto Rican and smart, saucy, strong willed, compassionate and will work to help anyone.  She's now been on medical leave for a month and sadly no return in sight after having a nervous breakdown because of treating so many Covid patients.  She was fine pre-vaccine but things have changed in the last 6 months caring for hundreds of people that have chosen not to get vaccinated. I get it.  :(

I feel her pain. Just about everyone I work with feels her pain. I just finished 5 straight 12-hour shifts in 5 days. I am going back in tonight for 6 hours, just so the people I work with get to take breaks. I am bone weary and all of us are just kind of dumbstruck to be back in this place after the harrowing hell of the last 18 months.

I am tired of watching death come in incremental doses, as people I get to know inch closer and closer to drowning from the inside out. What's different this time is I am seeing young kids: we got a 19-year-old, a 22-year-old and a 23-year old in our ward. I swear I have PTSD, and am patching myself up with emotional bubblegum and duct tape.

 

[The Commish]

Vincent Racaniello: Viruses and Vaccines | Lex Fridman Podcast #216

Time well spent IMO if you genuinely want to understand viruses, how they work and their role in the world.  It's broken into chunks so you can go to the areas of interest, but the entire thing is great.

 

[Sabertooth]

I feel her pain. Just about everyone I work with feels her pain. I just finished 5 straight 12-hour shifts in 5 days. I am going back in tonight for 6 hours, just so the people I work with get to take breaks. I am bone weary and all of us are just kind of dumbstruck to be back in this place after the harrowing hell of the last 18 months.

I am tired of watching death come in incremental doses, as people I get to know inch closer and closer to drowning from the inside out. What's different this time is I am seeing young kids: we got a 19-year-old, a 22-year-old and a 23-year old in our ward. I swear I have PTSD, and am patching myself up with emotional bubblegum and duct tape.

The one thing this pandemic has shown me is people will most certainly put themselves ahead of all others.  

 

[ProstheticRGK]

The one thing this pandemic has shown me is people will most certainly put themselves ahead of all others.  

Yeah, but not all of them. I guess there truly is nothing new under the sun- people are always gonna be people. But it does seem particularly onerous at the moment: the selfishness, self-absorption and self-involvement that is rampant right now.

 

[supermike80]

I'm a statistic now.  Fully vaccinated (Moderna) in April, covid positive as of today.  Good thing is that it appears that I have a relatively mild case, which means it feels like when i got bacterial pneumonia.  It isn't pleasant.  Get vaccinated. 

Why? It didn't help you.  At all

 

[Max Power]

My company (Fortune 500) with tens of thousands of employees in the US and even more worldwide just updated their covid policies. 

-------------------

These safety protocols apply to U.S. employees and offices at this time:

Internal Meetings: Starting Sept. 7, any employee attending in-person internal meetings of 10+ people must be fully vaccinated and take an FDA emergency-use authorized COVID-19 test* within 48 hours of the meeting start date and again 24 hours after the meeting end date. Internal meetings should be limited to strategic, business-critical imperatives. This does not apply to meetings of on-site critical employees in plants, distribution centers or security monitoring locations and branches.

External Meetings: Starting Sept. 7, any employee traveling by air or participating in partner meetings and events with 10+ people must be fully vaccinated. This does not currently apply to field technicians, though some of our customers may have additional vaccine requirements.

Company Office Buildings: By Nov. 1, any employee accessing a U.S.-based company office building must be fully vaccinated. Limited exceptions will be reviewed and assessed by HR, in accordance with state and federal laws

---------------

Seems extreme.  How often do you have 10+ person meetings?

 

[the moops]

I'm a statistic now.  Fully vaccinated (Moderna) in April, covid positive as of today.  Good thing is that it appears that I have a relatively mild case, which means it feels like when i got bacterial pneumonia.  It isn't pleasant.  Get vaccinated. 

Why? It didn't help you.  At all

A relatively mild case seems prety helpful compared to death or a much worse case

 

[the rover]

Why? It didn't help you.  At all

It probably kept me out of the hospital. 

 

[the rover]

A relatively mild case seems prety helpful compared to death or a much worse case

unfortunately, uninformed conspiracy theorists will never understand this.   

 

[supermike80]

It probably kept me out of the hospital. 

You can guess that.  It is actually more likely, in fact highly more likely that you would not have ended up in the hospital anyway.   You know, statistics and what not.