*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (26 Viewers)

[Terminalxylem]

Personal physicians are great, but not infallible, and subject to biases, just like everyone else. If my doctor’s (presumably a general internist or family practitioner) vaccine advice conflicted with professional societies comprised of immunologists, infectious disease experts and public health officials, I’d want a really good explanation why.

Then again, it’s a lot easier to comply with advice you want to hear, and inaction is simpler than getting a shot.

Public health officials and infectious disease experts re not infallible?

Of course they are. But if opinions conflict, and I personally lack the knowledge to make an educated decision (a big problem, as people tend to overestimate their understanding of esoteric topics like vaccine immunology), I’d err on the side of professional societies comprised of experts with special training in the topic at hand.

 

[Terminalxylem]

"Follow the experts."

Okay I'll consult with my doctor.

"No, not that expert. The ones that say the things we're saying."

If there were a single human making those 3 blanket statements, your point might be clever.

Surely you understand every physician isn’t qualified to opine on every medical topic? And no, I don’t consider rolling out new vaccine technology during a once-in-a-century pandemic to be among the topics covered in general medical training.

 

[Whyatt]

For perspective on the scope of the issue: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma...e-sales-falling-64-2023-paxlovid-declining-58

Pfizer expects 2023 to be a “transitional year,” for both Comirnaty and Paxlovid, CEO Albert Bourla explained. He said that the company expects both products to rebound beyond 2023.

In the U.S., the company expects 24% of the population to receive a COVID shot in 2023 as opposed to 31% in 2022. Pfizer expects the rate to increase to 30% and 40% in 2025 and 2026, assuming that a combined COVID/flu shot is developed.

"A Covid Shot" is any of the available options. While politics are unquestionably a factor, I think it's clearly beyond just that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I haven't even looked at booster recommendations since I got my last one back in August. I know boosters are recommended, but "recommended" ranges from "these probably won't hurt and might help so why not" (1) to "if you don't do this you will die tomorrow" (10). So I got curious about whether booster are kinda-sorta recommended, definitely recommended, or super-duper-recommended. That way I'll be better informed to know if I should pitch in on our attempts to demonize people who listen to MDs.

Here's what Mayo Clinic had to say on the subject as recently as this past December. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't know who wrote this. It might have been written by some run-of-the-mill Mayo physician, which I've been led to believe is roughly the equivalent of outsourcing your medical research to your janitorial staff. But let's imagine for a moment that Mayo Clinic employs people who have taken a class or two in immunology and/or biostatistics.

• Booster dose. These recommendations differ by age, what vaccines you have been given and the state of your immune system. But in general, people can get the booster shot at least two months after their last shot. People who recently had a positive COVID-19 test may think about waiting three months after their symptoms started to get the booster.
  Kids ages 6 months through 5 years who got the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine can get an updated, called bivalent, Moderna COVID-19 vaccine booster. The booster is based on the original virus strain and two omicron strains.
  Kids age 5 who got the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can only get the updated Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine booster. Kids age 6 and older can choose between the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 bivalent vaccine boosters.
  If you are age 18 or older, and got the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, you can get either of the mRNA vaccine bivalent boosters at least two months after your shot. People 18 and older may also get a Novavax booster based on the original virus strain as a first booster at least six months after their last shot.
  Pregnant people can also get a COVID-19 booster dose.
  People age 5 and older who have a weakened immune system and have had all recommended doses of the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech or Novavax COVID-19 vaccines can get a booster dose of the updated Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 bivalent vaccines.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how emphatically is Mayo Clinic recommending that we get boosted?

Now read it again. Is Mayo Clinic actually recommending boosters at all? Note the repeated use of the word "can" where "should" might have been used instead. That's more like giving permission than giving a recommendation. If you really thought that boosters were that important, would you write this advice this way?

Do you see how a family physician, who probably just barely graduated from high school and struggles to operate a manual transmission, might read this and conclude that he or she maybe shouldn't press this issue with everybody who passes through their office?

Here's the University of Maryland. They unambiguously recommend boosters, but their recommendation is written in anodyne CDC-speak, as if they were recommending that you not consume undercooked eggs. They're more emphatic than Mayo, but they're a long way away from "You absolutely need to do this."

Here's Johns Hopkins. Again, it's mainly just "The CDC recommends boosters," not "We recommend boosters." And obviously no med school, hospital, clinic, or whatever is going to say "Screw the CDC -- let's gambool!" on their website. Copying and pasting CDC recommendations is literally the very least they could do to encourage their patients to get boosted. And it's all they did.

I'm really not getting the impression that @jamny's doctor is a quack or anything. That doctor is obviously less of a proponent of boosters than the CDC, but it's not like people at Mayo, UM or JH are making a huge deal over them either. I'm boosted, and I'm tentatively assuming that I'll be getting annual boosters just like flu shots, but we don't hector other posters over not getting flu shots. We all recognize that flu shots are good but not worth fighting over.

As a semi-related datapoint, my doctor gave me the influenza vaccine at my last annual check-in. This was couched as "Hey, I don't know if you know this, but there's a vaccine for influenza now. We don't normally give it to people your age, but since you have asthma, you technically qualify and insurance will cover it. Do you want to get this while you're here?" Actually, my "doctor" is a PA, so I have to make a special point to speak slowly when we visit, but she's done me right so far. Regardless, she very gently suggested a vaccination and I could have simply shook my head and she would have moved on. I'm not reacting with surprise to learn that there are doctors out there who approach covid boosters the same way. That seems in line with the tone of the advice that's being presented to the public.

 

[nirad3]

Covid seems to have really wrecked a lot of you people.

Definitely a porlarizing event. Know several real life friends who have gotten more extreme.

I have a buddy who I swear is LawFitz. Not ripping on either one, but they just have the exact same schpiel.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

"Follow the experts."

Okay I'll consult with my doctor.

"No, not that expert. The ones that say the things we're saying."

If there were a single human making those 3 blanket statements, your point might be clever.

Surely you understand every physician isn’t qualified to opine on every medical topic? And no, I don’t consider rolling out new vaccine technology during a once-in-a-century pandemic to be among the topics covered in general medical training.

This is an odd conversation to be having considering our respective backgrounds, but this seems hard for me to believe. I now know from personal experience that I am 100% capable of picking up papers from the medical literature, reading them, and drawing reasonable conclusions from them. I might not know the first thing about cellular biology, and I just barely understand how viruses even operate, but I understand experimental design and hypothesis testing and I know how to put p < 0.05 into context. A quantitatively fluent layperson can handle this literature just fine even if you don't know much about the underlying science involved. This isn't any different from how I review internal grant proposals from people who study cows and cow-adjacent topics despite not knowing anything about cows other than that they taste good and are easily tipped over.

I get that that sort of thing isn't the key focus of med school. But don't most doctors take coursework in elementary statistics and infectious disease? At least up to the point that they understand how to test that two sample means are really different? I'm skeptical that I can look at the literature and independently reach what seems like a plausible view about vaccines, but my doctor can't.

 

[Battersbox]

I haven't even looked at booster recommendations since I got my last one back in August. I know boosters are recommended, but "recommended" ranges from "these probably won't hurt and might help so why not" (1) to "if you don't do this you will die tomorrow" (10). So I got curious about whether booster are kinda-sorta recommended, definitely recommended, or super-duper-recommended. That way I'll be better informed to know if I should pitch in on our attempts to demonize people who listen to MDs.

Here's what Mayo Clinic had to say on the subject as recently as this past December. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't know who wrote this. It might have been written by some run-of-the-mill Mayo physician, which I've been led to believe is roughly the equivalent of outsourcing your medical research to your janitorial staff. But let's imagine for a moment that Mayo Clinic employs people who have taken a class or two in immunology and/or biostatistics.

• Booster dose. These recommendations differ by age, what vaccines you have been given and the state of your immune system. But in general, people can get the booster shot at least two months after their last shot. People who recently had a positive COVID-19 test may think about waiting three months after their symptoms started to get the booster.
  Kids ages 6 months through 5 years who got the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine can get an updated, called bivalent, Moderna COVID-19 vaccine booster. The booster is based on the original virus strain and two omicron strains.
  Kids age 5 who got the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can only get the updated Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine booster. Kids age 6 and older can choose between the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 bivalent vaccine boosters.
  If you are age 18 or older, and got the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, you can get either of the mRNA vaccine bivalent boosters at least two months after your shot. People 18 and older may also get a Novavax booster based on the original virus strain as a first booster at least six months after their last shot.
  Pregnant people can also get a COVID-19 booster dose.
  People age 5 and older who have a weakened immune system and have had all recommended doses of the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech or Novavax COVID-19 vaccines can get a booster dose of the updated Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 bivalent vaccines.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how emphatically is Mayo Clinic recommending that we get boosted?

Now read it again. Is Mayo Clinic actually recommending boosters at all? Note the repeated use of the word "can" where "should" might have been used instead. That's more like giving permission than giving a recommendation. If you really thought that boosters were that important, would you write this advice this way?

Do you see how a family physician, who probably just barely graduated from high school and struggles to operate a manual transmission, might read this and conclude that he or she maybe shouldn't press this issue with everybody who passes through their office?

Here's the University of Maryland. They unambiguously recommend boosters, but their recommendation is written in anodyne CDC-speak, as if they were recommending that you not consume undercooked eggs. They're more emphatic than Mayo, but they're a long way away from "You absolutely need to do this."

Here's Johns Hopkins. Again, it's mainly just "The CDC recommends boosters," not "We recommend boosters." And obviously no med school, hospital, clinic, or whatever is going to say "Screw the CDC -- let's gambool!" on their website. Copying and pasting CDC recommendations is literally the very least they could do to encourage their patients to get boosted. And it's all they did.

I'm really not getting the impression that @jamny's doctor is a quack or anything. That doctor is obviously less of a proponent of boosters than the CDC, but it's not like people at Mayo, UM or JH are making a huge deal over them either. I'm boosted, and I'm tentatively assuming that I'll be getting annual boosters just like flu shots, but we don't hector other posters over not getting flu shots. We all recognize that flu shots are good but not worth fighting over.

As a semi-related datapoint, my doctor gave me the influenza vaccine at my last annual check-in. This was couched as "Hey, I don't know if you know this, but there's a vaccine for influenza now. We don't normally give it to people your age, but since you have asthma, you technically qualify and insurance will cover it. Do you want to get this while you're here?" Actually, my "doctor" is a PA, so I have to make a special point to speak slowly when we visit, but she's done me right so far. Regardless, she very gently suggested a vaccination and I could have simply shook my head and she would have moved on. I'm not reacting with surprise to learn that there are doctors out there who approach covid boosters the same way. That seems in line with the tone of the advice that's being presented to the public.

Also: it's not like every professional agency across the globe is in agreement anyway. As an example across much of the EU boosters were NOT recommended this fall outside of the immuno-deficient or the elderly. And I believe specific places went further and stopped endorsing any shots for anyone who was healthy and under 50 (Denmark perhaps).

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Why are we even debating this right now? Nobody is really getting a COVID shot/booster again from now until the fall. When there is new and real information, then talk about it. But this current "debate" in here is just a waste of time.

Covid is still a thing though. My 90+ year old grandmother has been in the hospital for over a week with it and is going to be released to a rehab facility soon. She resides in an independent/assisted living facility located in an area where people don't like to mask -- so it was not required in her facility . Will see how long she lasts now -- was very healthy for her age prior to this.

 

[jobarules]

Why are we even debating this right now? Nobody is really getting a COVID shot/booster again from now until the fall. When there is new and real information, then talk about it. But this current "debate" in here is just a waste of time.

Covid is still a thing though. My 90+ year old grandmother has been in the hospital for over a week with it and is going to be released to a rehab facility soon. She resides in an independent/assisted living facility located in an area where people don't like to mask -- so it was not required in her facility . Will see how long she lasts now -- was very healthy for her age prior to this.

Sorry to hear about your grandmother

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

published today

One-Year Adverse Outcomes Among US Adults With Post–COVID-19 Condition vs Those Without COVID-19

This cohort study aims to quantify 1-year outcomes among individuals meeting a post–COVID-19 condition definition compared with a control group of individuals without COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Key Points

Question Do postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 increase risks of 1-year adverse outcomes?​

​

Findings In this case-control study of 13 435 US adults with post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) and 26 870 matched adults without COVID-19, the adults with PCC experienced increased risks for a number of cardiovascular outcomes, such as ischemic stroke. During the 12-month follow-up period, 2.8% of the individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of the individuals without COVID-19 died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.​

​

Meaning Individuals with PCC may be at increased risk for adverse outcomes in the year following initial infection.​

Abstract

Importance Many individuals experience ongoing symptoms following the onset of COVID-19, characterized as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 or post–COVID-19 condition (PCC). Less is known about the long-term outcomes for these individuals.​

​

Objective To quantify 1-year outcomes among individuals meeting a PCC definition compared with a control group of individuals without COVID-19.​

​

Design, Setting, and Participants This case-control study with a propensity score–matched control group included members of commercial health plans and used national insurance claims data enhanced with laboratory results and mortality data from the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and Datavant Flatiron data. The study sample consisted of adults meeting a claims-based definition for PCC with a 2:1 matched control cohort of individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 during the time period of April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.​

​

Exposures Individuals experiencing postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–based definition.​

​

Main Outcomes and Measures Adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes and mortality, for individuals with PCC and controls assessed over a 12-month period.​

​

Results The study population included 13 435 individuals with PCC and 26 870 individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 51 [15.1] years; 58.4% female). During follow-up, the PCC cohort experienced increased health care utilization for a wide range of adverse outcomes: cardiac arrhythmias (relative risk [RR], 2.35; 95% CI, 2.26-2.45), pulmonary embolism (RR, 3.64; 95% CI, 3.23-3.92), ischemic stroke (RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.98-2.52), coronary artery disease (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.70-1.88), heart failure (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.84-2.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.88-2.00), and asthma (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.86-2.03). The PCC cohort also experienced increased mortality, as 2.8% of individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of controls died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.​

​

Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study leveraged a large commercial insurance database and found increased rates of adverse outcomes over a 1-year period for a PCC cohort surviving the acute phase of illness. The results indicate a need for continued monitoring for at-risk individuals, particularly in the area of cardiovascular and pulmonary management.​

 

[The Commish]

I haven't been boosted outside ther first three shots and dont plan to be. To batterbox post above we DO need to keep in mind that our country is where all these pharma companies get to make up the profits from other countries forcing them to act responsibly towards their citizens. So for me, the only way i am getting another booster is if there's a major change in the virus that causes it to be more deadly. And no, i don't typically get a flu vaccine either.

 

[Scoresman]

published today

One-Year Adverse Outcomes Among US Adults With Post–COVID-19 Condition vs Those Without COVID-19

This cohort study aims to quantify 1-year outcomes among individuals meeting a post–COVID-19 condition definition compared with a control group of individuals without COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Key Points

Question Do postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 increase risks of 1-year adverse outcomes?​

​

Findings In this case-control study of 13 435 US adults with post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) and 26 870 matched adults without COVID-19, the adults with PCC experienced increased risks for a number of cardiovascular outcomes, such as ischemic stroke. During the 12-month follow-up period, 2.8% of the individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of the individuals without COVID-19 died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.​

​

Meaning Individuals with PCC may be at increased risk for adverse outcomes in the year following initial infection.​

Abstract

Importance Many individuals experience ongoing symptoms following the onset of COVID-19, characterized as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 or post–COVID-19 condition (PCC). Less is known about the long-term outcomes for these individuals.​

​

Objective To quantify 1-year outcomes among individuals meeting a PCC definition compared with a control group of individuals without COVID-19.​

​

Design, Setting, and Participants This case-control study with a propensity score–matched control group included members of commercial health plans and used national insurance claims data enhanced with laboratory results and mortality data from the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and Datavant Flatiron data. The study sample consisted of adults meeting a claims-based definition for PCC with a 2:1 matched control cohort of individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 during the time period of April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.​

​

Exposures Individuals experiencing postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–based definition.​

​

Main Outcomes and Measures Adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes and mortality, for individuals with PCC and controls assessed over a 12-month period.​

​

Results The study population included 13 435 individuals with PCC and 26 870 individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 51 [15.1] years; 58.4% female). During follow-up, the PCC cohort experienced increased health care utilization for a wide range of adverse outcomes: cardiac arrhythmias (relative risk [RR], 2.35; 95% CI, 2.26-2.45), pulmonary embolism (RR, 3.64; 95% CI, 3.23-3.92), ischemic stroke (RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.98-2.52), coronary artery disease (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.70-1.88), heart failure (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.84-2.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.88-2.00), and asthma (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.86-2.03). The PCC cohort also experienced increased mortality, as 2.8% of individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of controls died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.​

​

Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study leveraged a large commercial insurance database and found increased rates of adverse outcomes over a 1-year period for a PCC cohort surviving the acute phase of illness. The results indicate a need for continued monitoring for at-risk individuals, particularly in the area of cardiovascular and pulmonary management.​

Right but don't you have a youtube video or twitter that backs this up? Otherwise, whatever man.

 

[growlers]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

Before I recently retired, I had literally dozens of negative interactions with patients when I asked them if they had been vaccinated. Some extremely contentious. And this was immediately when I asked the question, in people presenting with covid symptoms to the ER (because I didn't ask anyone else). This never happened once in 20 years when asking about the influenza vaccine.
I eventually quit asking, unless it was a rare situation where it would change my management.

 

[Terminalxylem]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

I almost posted this exact point. I believe the answer is an emphatic YES.

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

 

[Terminalxylem]

For perspective on the scope of the issue: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma...e-sales-falling-64-2023-paxlovid-declining-58

Pfizer expects 2023 to be a “transitional year,” for both Comirnaty and Paxlovid, CEO Albert Bourla explained. He said that the company expects both products to rebound beyond 2023.

In the U.S., the company expects 24% of the population to receive a COVID shot in 2023 as opposed to 31% in 2022. Pfizer expects the rate to increase to 30% and 40% in 2025 and 2026, assuming that a combined COVID/flu shot is developed.

"A Covid Shot" is any of the available options. While politics are unquestionably a factor, I think it's clearly beyond just that.

Yep. It will be interesting to see how a combination flu/Covid vaccine influences compliance, especially in doctors who recommend flu but not Covid boosters.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

This is sad as hell. People who didn't have to will suffer and die. Hell, they already are and have been. All because of politics.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

This is sad as hell. People who didn't have to will suffer and die. Hell, they already are and have been. All because of politics.

To be fair, it’s not all political. Messaging has been inconsistent, and the internet allows every self-assured Joe Schmo to delude themselves into thinking they’re an expert.

 

[fatness]

Covid was top line-of-duty death for US police for third year running in 2022​

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

I almost posted this exact point. I believe the answer is an emphatic YES.

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

I cited three major medical centers that all seemed to be pretty meh about boosters. That lines up with my recollection for how the ACIP deliberations went. Those folks also landed in what I would characterize as a moderately pro-booster spot. The experts on that body did not unanimously agree among themselves, and I don't think it was because the voices of caution were cranks or political extremists. It's just that as the cost-benefit ratio of a treatment approaches one, you're going to see more reasoned disagreement about whether the treatment is worthwhile.

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus among undisputed experts that boosters are a no-brainer for people who are otherwise healthy and not especially old. I think you guys are way out of line for jumping down people's throats on this issue, especially when they actually followed their own doctor's advice. Like I said before, this conversation has become deeply weird when we're now telling people to ignore their doctor if he disagrees with folks at football guys dot com.

Edit: I'm just skimming large chunks of this thread, because there are a few items under discussion that I don't care much about. So if this was all about some other issue, like primary vaccination as opposed to boosters, feel free to disregard. I just can't get over the fact that you guys all jumped down jamny's throat a year ago for listening to his doctor, and then you turned around and jumped down his throat all over again when he reminded you of your bad behavior. This is a first for me.

 

[ZADO]

Not everyone participates in the negative feedback loop of the coronavirus which outrages people inside the loop who believe they are not being socially responsible. Treatment of the fear of the COVID-19 is therefore more complicated than treatment of other phobias.

Keep this in mind, you might believe wearing masks outside is socially responsible and in some cities, it is required by law, but if you happen to cross paths with another person not wearing a mask, there is no reason to obsess about catching the virus, even if they cough. Why? Because coughing is normal and occurs all the time for many reasons, the coronavirus statistically being the least likely. Based on the infection fatality rate as well as the research on how the virus is transmitted, you are better off focusing your attention on living your life, instead of dwelling on scary scenarios in your imagination and performing safety behaviors that maintain anxiety, like wearing masks when it is unnecessary or performing elaborate cleaning rituals.

Flatten the Fear with Facts: What is an

I recently had a Zoom call with a patient who leaves deliveries on her porch for a week and then disinfects the packages before opening them. Another

adaa.org

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Actually, now that I think about it, it was a very open question as to whether healthy adults would even be allowed to get boosters. I had forgotten about this, but I got mildly criticized a year or so ago because I was travelling overseas, wanted to get a booster before going, and wasn't eligible to do so, so I lied about being HIV+ to get the guy at my local pharmacy to boost me up. "The experts" were actively trying (in an admittedly half-assed manner) to prevent people like me from getting boosters not that long ago. And now we're calling somebody's doctor a quack for telling him that they're not a huge priority.

 

[Terminalxylem]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

I almost posted this exact point. I believe the answer is an emphatic YES.

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

I cited three major medical centers that all seemed to be pretty meh about boosters. That lines up with my recollection for how the ACIP deliberations went. Those folks also landed in what I would characterize as a moderately pro-booster spot. The experts on that body did not unanimously agree among themselves, and I don't think it was because the voices of caution were cranks or political extremists. It's just that as the cost-benefit ratio of a treatment approaches one, you're going to see more reasoned disagreement about whether the treatment is worthwhile.

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus among undisputed experts that boosters are a no-brainer for people who are otherwise healthy and not especially old. I think you guys are way out of line for jumping down people's throats on this issue, especially when they actually followed their own doctor's advice. Like I said before, this conversation has become deeply weird when we're now telling people to ignore their doctor if he disagrees with folks at football guys dot com.

Edit: I'm just skimming large chunks of this thread, because there are a few items under discussion that I don't care much about. So if this was all about some other issue, like primary vaccination as opposed to boosters, feel free to disregard. I just can't get over the fact that you guys all jumped down jamny's throat a year ago for listening to his doctor, and then you turned around and jumped down his throat all over again when he reminded you of your bad behavior. This is a first for me.

To be clear, nobody jumped down jamny’s throat, then or now. Just like no one is advocating mask mandates, including the poster you called a liar. So please stop mischaracterizing (projecting?) intent of posts in this thread.

My exact words:

Personal physicians are great, but not infallible, and subject to biases, just like everyone else. If my doctor’s (presumably a general internist or family practitioner) vaccine advice conflicted with professional societies comprised of immunologists, infectious disease experts and public health officials, I’d want a really good explanation why.

Then again, it’s a lot easier to comply with advice you want to hear, and inaction is simpler than getting a shot.

I said this after he and joba shared anecdotes about their booster-avoidant doctors, and a surgeon renown is some circles for “debunking covid myths.” While I don’t believe I’ll change their minds, it’s important to let posters on the sidelines know the official guidance. And yes, advice to defer to experts pertains to more than just covid boosters.

There’s a lot more I could say about alternative standards of care, including circumstances contributing to vaccines being underutilized, as well as jamny’s case specifically. But I’d probably ruffle some feathers, and potentially earn a time out.

So back to boosters. Every site you cherry-picked recommended up-to-date vaccination, yet you’re convinced their verbiage isn’t compelling enough? More importantly, why are you ignoring position statements from experts in the field? By and large, the health center websites you checked uniformly defer to groups like ACIP and IDSA for vaccine care standards, and it’s typical to do so without much fanfare. Moreover, the timing of future boosters has yet to be determined, so they probably are intentionally more vague than advice about established vaccines.

 

[jamny]

Yeah, to be fair, I never felt anyone was "jumping down my throat" I didn't agree with their thinking, especially after saying to trust your doctor, but it was just an opinion. To me, my doctor was correct in his thinking and ahead of the curve, especially since he gave me the physical, but at the time boosters were all the rage and it's understandable that some were convinced it was the thing to do. I do think though that there needs to be some admitting now that it wasn't as cut and dried as many thought. Boosters weren't and aren't needed for all.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Here is the IDSA’s (the largest professional society for infectious disease practitioners in the US) booster guidance:

COVID-19 Bivalent Booster Vaccine FAQs

1. Is getting a booster necessary? Everyone seems to have had COVID — CDC estimates that 95% of people over 16 have had some form of COVID-19. Do we really need another shot?

• The bivalent boosters target the highly contagious Omicron subvariants that are currently circulating in the United States — BA.4 and BA.5.
• Previous COVID-19 infection can provide some immunity, but that immunity wanes quickly. For people who have recovered from COVID-19 infection, getting the bivalent booster provides added protection.
• The best way for people to protect themselves against serious illness, hospitalization and death is to be up to date with COVID vaccinations. Now, that means getting the bivalent booster when eligible.
• Going into the fall and winter — when there tend to be higher rates of respiratory illnesses — getting vaccinated and receiving an updated booster is something everyone can do to protect themselves.

2. Who should get the bivalent booster?

• Bivalent boosters are recommended for everyone ages 12 and older who has already been vaccinated or received an earlier version of the COVID- 19 booster.

3. Should children get the bivalent booster?

• Everyone who is eligible should get the bivalent booster. Bivalent boosters were authorized and recommended for everyone ages 12 and older on September 1.
• On October 12, FDA and CDC authorized bivalent boosters for children ages 5-11.
• Children and teens ages 5-17 can receive the Pfizer- BioNTech bivalent booster.
• Children and teens ages 6-17 can receive the Moderna bivalent booster.
• Children who have not yet received any COVID-19 vaccines should get vaccinated — everyone ages 6 months and older is eligible to be vaccinated.
• Being sick with COVID-19 can lead to disruptions in schooling and activities, and it can potentially infect adults and other family members. COVID-19 can cause severe illness in children.

4. When should I get the bivalent booster?

• You can get the bivalent booster if it’s been at least 2 months since your last COVID-19 vaccine.
• If you haven’t been vaccinated against COVID-19 yet, don’t wait! There are many COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States. Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated.

5. What if I recently had COVID-19? Do I still need an updated booster?

• Everyone should get the bivalent booster, even people who have had COVID-19. Previous COVID-19 infection can provide some immunity, but that immunity wanes quickly. For people who have recovered from COVID-19 infection, getting the bivalent booster provides added protection.
• After having COVID-19, you may want to wait 3 months before getting the bivalent booster. Talk to your medical provider about the best timing for you.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Actually, now that I think about it, it was a very open question as to whether healthy adults would even be allowed to get boosters. I had forgotten about this, but I got mildly criticized a year or so ago because I was travelling overseas, wanted to get a booster before going, and wasn't eligible to do so, so I lied about being HIV+ to get the guy at my local pharmacy to boost me up. "The experts" were actively trying (in an admittedly half-assed manner) to prevent people like me from getting boosters not that long ago. And now we're calling somebody's doctor a quack for telling him that they're not a huge priority.

They just wanted those with the most risk to go first. Obviously everyone eventually was eligible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Actually, now that I think about it, it was a very open question as to whether healthy adults would even be allowed to get boosters. I had forgotten about this, but I got mildly criticized a year or so ago because I was travelling overseas, wanted to get a booster before going, and wasn't eligible to do so, so I lied about being HIV+ to get the guy at my local pharmacy to boost me up. "The experts" were actively trying (in an admittedly half-assed manner) to prevent people like me from getting boosters not that long ago. And now we're calling somebody's doctor a quack for telling him that they're not a huge priority.

They just wanted those with the most risk to go first. Obviously everyone eventually was eligible.

This isn't true. There was real debate about whether to recommend boosters for healthy adults, and there was real debate over whether to even authorize them for kids.

At the time I got boosted, there was absolutely no shortage of vaccines. My "booster" was a full-on third dose of Moderna. They were going bad before they go into arms.

 

[Doug B]

There was real debate about whether to recommend boosters for healthy adults, and there was real debate over whether to even authorize them for kids.

I think you're framing this in vague terms that sound good superficially, but aren't meaningful upon some reflection.

"Real debate": This could mean multiple things.

1) The various authorizations were never going to be waved through -- trials/studies were going to have to be done and results and evidence collected and analyzed. Then, regardless of the strength of the evidence, the conclusions were going to have to be presented and defended. In that sense, you can't hold "real debate" against the proposition of booster shot authorizations as if it's some kind of "weakness" -- "real debate" is an integral part of the authorization process.

2) Another thing "real debate" could mean is that there has always been -- then and today -- some number of dissenting public voices against whatever the FDA ended up authorizing. In today's media environment, it's trivial to collect a number of maverick takes and erroneously conclude that the powers that be made some arbitrary 50-50 calls -- and then to make the short leap that those "50-50 calls" were not ultimately evidence-based at all. What's ignored, though, is that existence of maverick takes should not outweigh the consensus. And it's not just a matter of counting opinions -- rather than a bunch of people guessing in unison, the consensus is a shared conclusion shaped by a large amount of corroborating support. The mavericks may have loud megaphones, but they don't have that support for their positions ("support" here meaning "replicated and corroborated experimental support", not "supporting opinions").

Anyway, in debating whether or not "real debate" took place, all you have to do is show that some dissenting voices existed to win the point. You're debate opponent is in the position of having to prove a negative -- that NO dissenting voices existed.

"Healthy adults": Sounds simple -- "C'mon! Healthy adults! You know ... healthy people!" But there's no bright line. So in debating this topic, you can always define "healthy adults" however is necessary to win the point.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

I almost posted this exact point. I believe the answer is an emphatic YES.

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

I cited three major medical centers that all seemed to be pretty meh about boosters. That lines up with my recollection for how the ACIP deliberations went. Those folks also landed in what I would characterize as a moderately pro-booster spot. The experts on that body did not unanimously agree among themselves, and I don't think it was because the voices of caution were cranks or political extremists. It's just that as the cost-benefit ratio of a treatment approaches one, you're going to see more reasoned disagreement about whether the treatment is worthwhile.

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus among undisputed experts that boosters are a no-brainer for people who are otherwise healthy and not especially old. I think you guys are way out of line for jumping down people's throats on this issue, especially when they actually followed their own doctor's advice. Like I said before, this conversation has become deeply weird when we're now telling people to ignore their doctor if he disagrees with folks at football guys dot com.

Edit: I'm just skimming large chunks of this thread, because there are a few items under discussion that I don't care much about. So if this was all about some other issue, like primary vaccination as opposed to boosters, feel free to disregard. I just can't get over the fact that you guys all jumped down jamny's throat a year ago for listening to his doctor, and then you turned around and jumped down his throat all over again when he reminded you of your bad behavior. This is a first for me.

To be clear, nobody jumped down jamny’s throat, then or now. Just like no one is advocating mask mandates, including the poster you called a liar. So please stop mischaracterizing (projecting?) intent of posts in this thread.

My exact words:

Personal physicians are great, but not infallible, and subject to biases, just like everyone else. If my doctor’s (presumably a general internist or family practitioner) vaccine advice conflicted with professional societies comprised of immunologists, infectious disease experts and public health officials, I’d want a really good explanation why.

Then again, it’s a lot easier to comply with advice you want to hear, and inaction is simpler than getting a shot.

I said this after he and joba shared anecdotes about their booster-avoidant doctors, and a surgeon renown is some circles for “debunking covid myths.” While I don’t believe I’ll change their minds, it’s important to let posters on the sidelines know the official guidance. And yes, advice to defer to experts pertains to more than just covid boosters.

There’s a lot more I could say about alternative standards of care, including circumstances contributing to vaccines being underutilized, as well as jamny’s case specifically. But I’d probably ruffle some feathers, and potentially earn a time out.

So back to boosters. Every site you cherry-picked recommended up-to-date vaccination, yet you’re convinced their verbiage isn’t compelling enough? More importantly, why are you ignoring position statements from experts in the field? By and large, the health center websites you checked uniformly defer to groups like ACIP and IDSA for vaccine care standards, and it’s typical to do so without much fanfare. Moreover, the timing of future boosters has yet to be determined, so they probably are intentionally more vague than advice about established vaccines.

This is all fine, and I am happy to agree to disagree. I am not trying to change your mind.

I do want to note for the record, though, that these are the sources that I "cherry picked:" Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. These are not four pre-prints by four individual authors. These are four institutions staffed by folks who are experts by anybody's standards, who looked at the literature as a whole and distilled it down into a message for the general population. I'm very comfortable with my evidentiary standards on this topic, and I trust third-party readers to see what's happening here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2) Another thing "real debate" could mean is that there has always been -- then and today -- some number of dissenting public voices against whatever the FDA ended up authorizing. In today's media environment, it's trivial to collect a number of maverick takes (snip)

Again, the "maverick takes" here are those of people who voted on ACIP recommendations. I'm not citing Alex Berenson.

 

[Doug B]

Actually, now that I think about it, it was a very open question as to whether healthy adults would even be allowed to get boosters. I had forgotten about this, but I got mildly criticized a year or so ago because I was travelling overseas, wanted to get a booster before going, and wasn't eligible to do so, so I lied about being HIV+ to get the guy at my local pharmacy to boost me up. "The experts" were actively trying (in an admittedly half-assed manner) to prevent people like me from getting boosters not that long ago. And now we're calling somebody's doctor a quack for telling him that they're not a huge priority.

I want to address your post above when you write:

"Again, the 'maverick takes' here are those of people who voted on ACIP recommendations."

... but I want to make sure we're talking about a common time frame. When you wrote above:

"There was real debate about whether to recommend boosters for healthy adults, and there was real debate over whether to even authorize them for kids."

... you were still talking about the time frame of your Greece trip in September 2021, correct? That establishes that the ACIP meetings we want to look at are NOT the one(s) in 2022 that recommended the bivalent booster, but the ones in 2021 that recommended the 'regular' booster for adults and for children 5 and up (I believe these were two separate ACIP meetings in 2021).

I want to nail this down in advance because I want to specifically address the 2021 ACIP meetings downthread and not conflate with them anything that happened in the the 2022 ACIP meetings.

 

[Doug B]

There was real debate about whether to recommend boosters for healthy adults, and there was real debate over whether to even authorize them for kids.

the "maverick takes" here are those of people who voted on ACIP recommendations.

All right. The ACIP committee voted unanimously on 11/2/2021 to approve boosters for ages 5-11. Whatever real debate there was in advance of this vote, the committee members all came together as one here.

About two weeks prior to that, on 10/21/2021, the ACIP unanimously added COVID vaccines (including the first booster for those eligible) to the recommended vaccination schedules to everyone six months of age and older.

Going back about a month more: On 9/22/2021, the ACIP met to endorse a set of then-recent FDA COVID booster authorizations. Here were the vote counts on 9/22/2021:

- Booster for people 65 or older and long-term care facility residents at least six months after they were fully vaccinated (Approve 15-0)
- Booster for people 50 and older with underlying medical conditions that might put them at higher risk of severe disease (Approve 13-2)
- Booster for people 18-49 who have underlying health conditions (Approve 9-6)
- Booster for people whose occupations put them at high risk of infection (Reject 6-9)

What's interesting to me were the reasons given when the dissenting ACIP members spoke:

After long arguments, they voted against recommending boosters for people whose occupations put them at high risk of infection. It was a rare break with the FDA’s advice.

“We may just as well say give it to everyone 18 and older,” said Dr. Pablo Sanchez, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University.

“I feel very uncomfortable about this,” said Dr. Wilbur Chen, a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “The implementation part of this is going to be fraught with such complexity that the people with the best health literacy will get boosters.”

Not that the booster wouldn't be of medical benefit, or that the cost-benefit ratio isn't great enough -- but social concerns. Additionally:

While they voted easily to recommend boosters for the older age groups, members of the committee worried that they were sending the wrong message.

“I worry we’re getting distracted by the question of boosters and Pfizer when we have bigger and more important things to do in the pandemic,” Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, told the meeting.

“And along those lines – we’re fighting a pandemic and it’s not because people got two doses of vaccine. It’s because people are unvaccinated,” she added.

“And I really feel like yes we may move the needle a little bit by giving a booster dose,” Talbot said in comments given before ACIP voted on the question. “But the real fact of the matter is this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” she said.

“I feel like we are putting lipstick on frogs….This is not going to solve the pandemic.”

And one more ACIP member, Dr. James Loehr echoed Talbot's concern (though ultimately voting in favor of the measures):

“Even if we gave boosters to all 13 million people over 65 who have had the Pfizer vaccine in the past, that might be about 200 fewer hospitalizations a day, which is a lot,” he added. But the bigger goal, he said should, be keeping the unvaccinated, especially children, out of the hospital.

“However, having said that, we shouldn’t let the perfect be in the way of the good. And if we can do a little bit of good by giving boosters to people over 65 I’m in favor of that,” Loehr said.

 

[Terminalxylem]

FYI I went for my annual physical recently and my doctor asked me if I got my flu shot. Never asked me if I got my covid booster. I think most doctors realize most people don't need one.

This is similar to my child's doctor who was adamant he got the flu shot but indifferent on the covid shot.

An alternative to the bolded has occurred to me that may or may not apply to your specific interactions:

I wonder if some doctors just don't broach COVID anymore if their patients don't bring it up? Maybe too much of a contentious topic? A handful of negative interactions with patients could be enough for a family-practice doctor to just adopt a "hands off" COVID approach.

I almost posted this exact point. I believe the answer is an emphatic YES.

IMO Covid is pretty much the medical equivalent of climate change. An overwhelming majority of experts in infectious disease, immunology and public health are on the same page regarding vaccination, yet a few outspoken, somewhat credible “experts” have created a sense of uncertainty, while simultaneously pandering to political tribalism. And since their solutions are less disruptive to the status quo, people quickly accept them and never look back. It’s fairly obvious revisiting the topic won’t likely change anyone’s mind, so why bother?

I cited three major medical centers that all seemed to be pretty meh about boosters. That lines up with my recollection for how the ACIP deliberations went. Those folks also landed in what I would characterize as a moderately pro-booster spot. The experts on that body did not unanimously agree among themselves, and I don't think it was because the voices of caution were cranks or political extremists. It's just that as the cost-benefit ratio of a treatment approaches one, you're going to see more reasoned disagreement about whether the treatment is worthwhile.

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus among undisputed experts that boosters are a no-brainer for people who are otherwise healthy and not especially old. I think you guys are way out of line for jumping down people's throats on this issue, especially when they actually followed their own doctor's advice. Like I said before, this conversation has become deeply weird when we're now telling people to ignore their doctor if he disagrees with folks at football guys dot com.

Edit: I'm just skimming large chunks of this thread, because there are a few items under discussion that I don't care much about. So if this was all about some other issue, like primary vaccination as opposed to boosters, feel free to disregard. I just can't get over the fact that you guys all jumped down jamny's throat a year ago for listening to his doctor, and then you turned around and jumped down his throat all over again when he reminded you of your bad behavior. This is a first for me.

To be clear, nobody jumped down jamny’s throat, then or now. Just like no one is advocating mask mandates, including the poster you called a liar. So please stop mischaracterizing (projecting?) intent of posts in this thread.

My exact words:

Personal physicians are great, but not infallible, and subject to biases, just like everyone else. If my doctor’s (presumably a general internist or family practitioner) vaccine advice conflicted with professional societies comprised of immunologists, infectious disease experts and public health officials, I’d want a really good explanation why.

Then again, it’s a lot easier to comply with advice you want to hear, and inaction is simpler than getting a shot.

I said this after he and joba shared anecdotes about their booster-avoidant doctors, and a surgeon renown is some circles for “debunking covid myths.” While I don’t believe I’ll change their minds, it’s important to let posters on the sidelines know the official guidance. And yes, advice to defer to experts pertains to more than just covid boosters.

There’s a lot more I could say about alternative standards of care, including circumstances contributing to vaccines being underutilized, as well as jamny’s case specifically. But I’d probably ruffle some feathers, and potentially earn a time out.

So back to boosters. Every site you cherry-picked recommended up-to-date vaccination, yet you’re convinced their verbiage isn’t compelling enough? More importantly, why are you ignoring position statements from experts in the field? By and large, the health center websites you checked uniformly defer to groups like ACIP and IDSA for vaccine care standards, and it’s typical to do so without much fanfare. Moreover, the timing of future boosters has yet to be determined, so they probably are intentionally more vague than advice about established vaccines.

This is all fine, and I am happy to agree to disagree. I am not trying to change your mind.

I do want to note for the record, though, that these are the sources that I "cherry picked:" Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. These are not four pre-prints by four individual authors. These are four institutions staffed by folks who are experts by anybody's standards, who looked at the literature as a whole and distilled it down into a message for the general population. I'm very comfortable with my evidentiary standards on this topic, and I trust third-party readers to see what's happening here.

Unless I missed something, all recommended eligible people (children and adults) get boosted. You just didn’t like the strength of their wording. Would you have preferred a mandate?

For those on the sidelines, what’s happening here : Ivan is nitpicking, to make the specious point vaccination consensus is lacking, as defense against imaginary “attacks”, targeting those straying from standards of care. His evidence? Medical websites stipulating everyone may get boosted, rather than DEMANDING they do. And discussions during the vaccine approval process, where pros and cons must be vetted, by design.

Ignoring Ivan’s reluctance to utilize the actual vaccine guidelines, let’s see what the weakest messenger of the bunch, mayoclinic.org, has to say about the utility of any covid vaccination:

A COVID-19 vaccine might:

• Protect you from getting COVID-19
• Prevent you from becoming seriously ill, becoming hospitalized or dying due to COVID-19
• Limit the spread of COVID-19

Stop the presses! Why did they choose might, instead of will? And notice they said a (singular) covid-19 vaccine. If they really wanted you to get the full series, including boosters, shouldn’t they say so explicitly? Plus, I could’ve sworn I’ve seen a YouTube video showing vaccines don’t limit infectious spread. And they said it with a lot more conviction than Mayo Clinic.

All that’s ridiculous, of course, but this the level of discussion we‘ve chosen in this thread. I’m just as guilty of engaging as anyone, but seriously, can’t we do better?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Not that the booster wouldn't be of medical benefit, or that the cost-benefit ratio isn't great enough -- but social concerns. Additionally:

This is the real problem with the appeal to authority.

These "experts" frequently drive right into other lanes because they think that they are judging social concerns properly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When "I agree to disagree" begets treatises on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Not that the booster wouldn't be of medical benefit, or that the cost-benefit ratio isn't great enough -- but social concerns. Additionally:

This is the real problem with the appeal to authority.

These "experts" frequently drive right into other lanes because they think that they are judging social concerns properly.

Fair enough. But we’re all human, so who can you ever trust?

 

[Terminalxylem]

When "I agree to disagree" begets treatises on a Sunday afternoon.

If u want twitter style brevity, I can do that. Let’s drop it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Not that the booster wouldn't be of medical benefit, or that the cost-benefit ratio isn't great enough -- but social concerns. Additionally:

This is the real problem with the appeal to authority.

These "experts" frequently drive right into other lanes because they think that they are judging social concerns properly.

Fair enough. But we’re all human, so who can you ever trust?

Not many.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Evidence for Biological Age Acceleration and Telomere Shortening in COVID-19 Survivors - PMC

The SARS-CoV-2 infection determines the COVID-19 syndrome characterized, in the worst cases, by severe respiratory distress, pulmonary and cardiac fibrosis, inflammatory cytokine release, and immunosuppression. This condition has led to the death of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

cc: @Doug B
digging through my bookmarks re: immune aging

n=117 Covid positive

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Viruses Hiding Out in Patients Hold Long Covid Answers

Scientists track mutants from one manhole cover to the next; others scan patients’ bodies for signs of hidden infections.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

interesting Tweet thread about the lab leak COVID origin theory:

Thread by @JoshRosenau on Thread Reader App

@JoshRosenau: This by @KatzOnEarth makes a crucial point that gets glossed over in 99% of #OriginsOfCovid discourse. There’s no unitary “lab leak theory.” There’s nothing that generates testable predictions (a neces...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[jobarules]

Yikes Dr Fauci

House committee says Fauci 'prompted' drafting of medical paper to 'disprove' COVID lab leak theory

Majority staff from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic said via memo Dr. Fauci "prompted" the drafting of a publication that would "disprove" the lab leak theory.

www.google.com

 

[IvanKaramazov]

interesting Tweet thread about the lab leak COVID origin theory:

Thread by @JoshRosenau on Thread Reader App

@JoshRosenau: This by @KatzOnEarth makes a crucial point that gets glossed over in 99% of #OriginsOfCovid discourse. There’s no unitary “lab leak theory.” There’s nothing that generates testable predictions (a neces...…

threadreaderapp.com

Many of us who think that covid probably escaped from a lab have pointed to "researcher infection" as a likely vector. This guy is agreeing with us and is too stupid to realize it.

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

 

[The Commish]

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

To be fair, this was one of the very first theories floated out there. At the time it was tough to tell if it was merely political talking points or if someone really believed it. Once disproven, those that saw the light backtracked to the "caught by a person in a lab who infected others" theory which is clearly more plausible. It's one of the two most likely scenarios IMO and has been from the beginning. Of course, there are still those who believe it was created in a lab and they showed themselves when COVID balloon became a thing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

To be fair, this was one of the very first theories floated out there. At the time it was tough to tell if it was merely political talking points or if someone really believed it. Once disproven, those that saw the light backtracked to the "caught by a person in a lab who infected others" theory which is clearly more plausible. It's one of the two most likely scenarios IMO and has been from the beginning. Of course, there are still those who believe it was created in a lab and they showed themselves when COVID balloon became a thing.

Sure, but there's something weird about still being hung up on the "bioweapon" angle in 2023. It would be like out of nowhere posting an article showing that actually jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel beams under the right conditions. Nobody disagrees, but like, why are you reading that stuff today?

 

[Terminalxylem]

interesting Tweet thread about the lab leak COVID origin theory:

Thread by @JoshRosenau on Thread Reader App

@JoshRosenau: This by @KatzOnEarth makes a crucial point that gets glossed over in 99% of #OriginsOfCovid discourse. There’s no unitary “lab leak theory.” There’s nothing that generates testable predictions (a neces...…

threadreaderapp.com

Many of us who think that covid probably escaped from a lab have pointed to "researcher infection" as a likely vector. This guy is agreeing with us and is too stupid to realize it.

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

Is the distinction between a bioengineered vs. natural virus infecting the lab worker important?

For me the answer is yes. The former scenario calls into question all the issues with GOF research, and possibly bioterrorism, while the latter could’ve simply resulted from sloppy isolation protocols/human error. I also think it matters if an infected lab worker spread it human-to-human, as opposed to infected animals finding their way to the wet markets.

Seems like most of the more outspoken proponents of lab leak imply it was an engineered virus.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

interesting Tweet thread about the lab leak COVID origin theory:

Thread by @JoshRosenau on Thread Reader App

@JoshRosenau: This by @KatzOnEarth makes a crucial point that gets glossed over in 99% of #OriginsOfCovid discourse. There’s no unitary “lab leak theory.” There’s nothing that generates testable predictions (a neces...…

threadreaderapp.com

Many of us who think that covid probably escaped from a lab have pointed to "researcher infection" as a likely vector. This guy is agreeing with us and is too stupid to realize it.

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

Is the distinction between a bioengineered vs. natural virus infecting the lab worker important?

For me the answer is yes. The former scenario calls into question all the issues with GOF research, and possibly bioterrorism, while the latter could’ve simply resulted from sloppy isolation protocols/human error. I also think it matters if an infected lab worker spread it human-to-human, as opposed to infected animals finding their way to the wet markets.

I agree.

Seems like most of the more outspoken proponents of lab leak imply it was an engineered virus.

Engineering a virus for research purposes isn't the same thing as engineering a virus for weaponization purposes. Those two things should not be conflated. When people conflate them, we should notice that they're doing so and ask why.

 

[The Z Machine]

It's just that the circumstantial evidence in favor of a lab accident has caused me to dramatically change my priors to something more like 70-30 in favor of the lab leak.

You sounded way more certain than 70-30 when you were spiking the football earlier. The circumstantial evidence is important and cannot be dismissed. But it is certainly not conclusive.

Also, i think the overiding perspective you have brought is one of anti-academia and suspicion of the motives of researchers. I can understand this perspective as you've seen how the sausage gets made up close in academia and sometimes it's not pretty. My bias is likely the opposite, as i know people in these fields and trust them. But let's recognize our own biases and how that may color our interpretation of facts and rumors.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's just that the circumstantial evidence in favor of a lab accident has caused me to dramatically change my priors to something more like 70-30 in favor of the lab leak.

You sounded way more certain than 70-30 when you were spiking the football earlier. The circumstantial evidence is important and cannot be dismissed. But it is certainly not conclusive.

You just refuted an argument that you acknowledge I didn't make.

I've never said I was certain that covid leaked from a lab. What I'm certain about is that (a) that's plausible, (b) that line of argument should never have been suppressed, and (c) the people who suppressed it must never again be allowed to drive any important conversation.

In some ways, (c) is the most important part here. I am okay with people getting things wrong. That's bound to happen, and it's no big deal. What I have a big problem with is people who are aggressively wrong, in the sense that not only are they wrong, but they're very insistent on making other people shut up. We should insist that people like Apoorva Mandavilli look for alternative lines of employment, for example. Failing that, we should pay very careful attention to which media outlets choose to employ these folks. FBG did not ban people for discussing the lab leak theory, but platforms that did so should have to answer to their users for their moderation decisions, which resulted in their users being disinformed. Again, it's not the wrongness here that I'm primarily concerned about. It's the drive to shut down debate on a live issue. That should not be acceptable, and it should work to discredit the people who make that move.

The fact that they turned out to probably be wrong is just icing on the proverbial cake.

 

[The Commish]

(He has successfully refuted people who think that covid was engineered to be a bioweapon, and for that I suppose he deserves a participation trophy.)

To be fair, this was one of the very first theories floated out there. At the time it was tough to tell if it was merely political talking points or if someone really believed it. Once disproven, those that saw the light backtracked to the "caught by a person in a lab who infected others" theory which is clearly more plausible. It's one of the two most likely scenarios IMO and has been from the beginning. Of course, there are still those who believe it was created in a lab and they showed themselves when COVID balloon became a thing.

Sure, but there's something weird about still being hung up on the "bioweapon" angle in 2023. It would be like out of nowhere posting an article showing that actually jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel beams under the right conditions. Nobody disagrees, but like, why are you reading that stuff today?

It's terribly weird and if they are talking about it, it's because it's something they see all the time on social media etc. That's what they want to see and that's what they are given to farm their time. And let me be clear...in my view the "bioweapon" part isn't the weird part. To me, the weird part is the "created" part in the first place. Bioweapons would just be the motivation for the creation part.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Adherence to Healthy Lifestyle Prior to Infection and Risk of Post–COVID-19 Condition

This prospective cohort study investigates the association between healthy lifestyle factors prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of post–COVID-19 condition.

jamanetwork.com

Findings In this prospective cohort study of 1981 women who reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test from April 2020 to November 2021, adherence to a healthy lifestyle prior to infection was inversely associated with risk of PCC in a dose-dependent manner. Compared with those who did not have any healthy lifestyle factors, those with 5 or 6 had half the risk of PCC.