Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If we already know BA5 is going to be the dominate strain by winter, we should be trying to get ahead of that one. There are already articles that protection from original omicron isn't effective against BA.5, I struggle to see why we're trying to build out the original omicron variant vaccine still.
We can't expect society-level changes to stop and go on the dime. And at this point, whatever mandates remain have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Private mandate at a mom-&-pop shop? Can't do much about that. Mandate at a 200-person white-collar employer? Maybe could fight that ... is it worth it to the holdouts? Mandate at Boeing or Exxon or GM? Probably dropped like a hot potato by now.
We don't know this. It's going to dominant, but when and for how long aren't known precisely.
BA.5 can surely transmit at some level through people with natural immunity to BA.1 and BA.2. IMHO, that's not particularly problematic so long as the general infirmity rates don't spike. I think a lot of recent popular media articles about BA.5 are puffing it up to make it look like the next big society-affecting spike. I doubt that personally.
The federal government still has a paused mandate. The DOD still has a mandate for all new recruits and is actively out processing active duty. Some colleges still have mandates and even requiring boosters.
You're right, I'll say BA5 is currently the odds on favorite to be the dominate strain in fall/winter.
I think this is fine -- it's exactly the annual flu vaccine model. My baseline is that the mRNA vaccines are essentially harmless (Blood clots!, I know, I know. Seen the data and remain unmoved).
And we're still giving out vaccines under an emergency use that in our population's eyes are basically yearly flu shots. Might be time to reevaluate how we're using EUA. This is part of what the article is touching on. A year or two ago, comparing covid to the flu was faux pas.
Not a problem whatsoever IMHO.
Agree -- but I think the current batch of vaccines should get summary full approval. IMHO, they're beyond proven at bare minimum for safety (don't care that they don't stop Omicron transmission cold).
Things change ... and they SHOULD change. Expected to change. The ethic and suggestions of 2020 weren't expected to hold for all time. Unsure why this is pointed out as a problem.
Sad how many people won't read for themselves and will instead buy into posts like this to make themselves feel assured.
Good luck, fellas. Sincerely. I can assure you, I am not your enemy, but your friend - even if I am guilty of not always being a good one.
RIP Jaylon Ferg. And Demaryius. And MBIII. And Tony Goose. And Shane Olivea.
We don't know what the new boosters do and the FDA has basically given them a green light without trials. You can just put me in the camp that doesn't like how that is going to be rolled out. "We'll let you know how the trial data goes after you take the product."
Even if it has been SADS why are you applying that to this topic? For someone questioning (railing against) inaccurate medical information it’s pretty hypocritical to do the exact same thing in the same post.
These things were suggested early on, when no one was quite sure what we were dealing with. As more research was conducted, these recommendations went away. This is what bothers me so much about these arguments. It's like you're supposed to stake out a position and defend it at all costs, completely oblivious to new information.
Read it. It's a bunch of malarkey.Sad how many people won't read for themselves and will instead buy into posts like this to make themselves feel assured.
Good luck, fellas. Sincerely. I can assure you, I am not your enemy, but your friend - even if I am guilty of not always being a good one.
RIP Jaylon Ferg. And Demaryius. And MBIII. And Tony Goose. And Shane Olivea.
EXACTLY. Speculation. Yet you casually implied something while railing against what you think is inaccurate or speculative science. Can you see how you did exactly what you’re angry about?
We don't? How do you mean? I feel like I know -- they elicit an immune response to an early-variant COVID spike protein.
That's fair, but on the other end, there were many months during 2021 where things like >80% effectiveness against transmission was touted as well as vaccination as the end of the pandemic. As that effectiveness number has dropped, the data have become more and more hard to come by. UK NHS famously stopped publishing their weekly breakdown by vaccination status as omicron took over and the data started looking less good for vaccines. Obviously the conspiracy folks had a field day with that, which is regrettable, but somewhat understandable. What is the current effectiveness of the vaccine vs. transmission of BA.5. 50%, 20%? Where do I find the data? I think a lot of people in their mind are still thinking of the vaccine as 80%+ effective, and it's probably directly tied to messaging that has really not been updated at all in communication with the general public post-Delta. I attended a concert with a vaccine mandate last month, and it just seemed like a pointless hassle to make people show their cards when they could be infectious anyway.
I agree with this and hope you are right. I was glad to see that the fall booster will be based on the more recent strains. The one thing that does kind of bother me is that other than ease, why are they going to base effectiveness on antibody titers? Wouldn't a RCT with symptomatic, confirmed PCR infection as the metric be a better way to assess real world effectiveness?
As you've pointed out, mandatory boosters for low-risk people attending college, and vaccines for toddlers based on extremely limited effectiveness per the trial data seem pretty hard to square with solid science.
Just because a booster elicits an immune response that isn't data for efficacy. How well will they work against BA5? We dont know, the trials they are going to look at are for BA1. Pretty crazy the FDA is saying that outloud.
Yes, the things I mentioned were early, but any "expert" in viruses should have known (and probably did know) that COVID was not even remotely likely to spread in such ways. Some of the same "experts" were talking about death rates in excess of 20% and even after it was known that was not even close to accurate the fear mongering was still used to justify widespread shut downs and school closures. This fear mongering from the media and their experts is how you get a poll where over 30% of the people questioned thought that 50% of COVID infections result in hospitalization.
Also all those pushing ivermectin…disappeared from that thread when it was shown to be ineffective. Every single one of them.
I think they've risked their careers because they're not very wise (and because they think they're smarter than everyone else).
To me, the bolded is worth quite a lot.
Just as an aside: My wife and I attended a some public events in summer and fall 2021 (and a museum exhibit in March 2022) that "required proof of vaccination". All but one never actually asked to be shown the vaccination card -- we'd brought the cards for nothing.
Interesting. At the 2 events I attended with the requirement, there was a separate checkpoint before the ticket checkpoint where you had to show a photo ID and a vaccine card (or photo of vaccine card). No idea if they would catch if you were using a doctored card or a card with someone else's name on it, but they were definitely checking everyone. As another aside, the one event only announced the mandate like 5 days before the show, which I thought was fairly poor form. Didn't affect us, but I'm sure some people were ticked.
I'll defer to @Terminalxylem, @gianmarco, @ProstheticRGK, @growlers and the other medical FBGs for a more learned discussion on these points. But I'll offer a layman's take.
I'm the other end of the spectrum for the bolded. I dont see a delay in catching covid to be worth additional risks and unknown long term issues.
My counter thoughts are that NONE of the major medical organizations agree with you or the individual doctors you continue to cite. It's amazing how this Neurosurgeon is so smart and right--but the American Association of Neurological Surgeons don't agree with him. Surely if he's so smart and so right--he'd have convinced the rest of these smart people--and there would be consensus among them. And there is consensus. 99.99% of physicians regardless of specialty disagree with you.
This reads backwards to me. It looks to me like the prophylactics and the Paxlovid (maybe**) did do their job. Fauci is still upright and wasn't apparently fighting for his life in an ICU or something like that. I don't expect Fauci to be immune to COVID any more than I'd expect General Patton to be bulletproof.
Thanks for pinging some of the medical folk, as I would be very much interested in their take. Hopefully they don't
from the thread in general. I'm an interested layman, so anything I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Understood. I feel that the bolded items barely exist (nothing alarms me about the clot data I've seen), and make decisions accordingly.
When studies are showing Paxlovid doesn't have a statistical benefit in the low risk vaccinated population, I'm not sure how Fauci can claim that kept him out of the hospital.
The hero? IMHO, it doesn't matter. Throw everything you've got at it.
Although people were taking the potential for transmission to an extreme, I don’t recall the CDC, WHO or infectious disease experts claiming the measures you’re describing were mandatory. But early in the pandemic, we didn’t know all the ways the virus was transmitted. In the absence of definitive evidence, what do you believe should had be said about appropriate precautions?
Agreed, which is why it's important for the media, the CDC and their experts to be credible and provide relevant, meaningful information. I've just lost a lot of faith and trust in the media and the CDC due to COVID after trying to do my own research.
Did you just bump a post pimping HCQ and ivermectin and you still think thats a good thing?
