WHO Are You? (1 Viewer)

[woodstock]

The WHO says we should hold off on booster shots until after September. What about the elderly, who got theirs in February. Let's count: March 1, April 2, May 3, June 4, July 5, August 6. 

Pfizer had made early overtures about boosters in September, which would be month six of the vaccine. Now the WHO steps in and uses the "underserved country" argument. 

I say #### that. The WHO can go talk a long walk off a short pier. 

What say you? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/who-calls-for-moratorium-on-covid-vaccine-boosters-at-least-through-september.html

Before you weight in, check the language and their goal. 

• "The agency said the halt should last at least two months, to give the world a chance to meet the director-general’s goal of vaccinating 10% of the population of every country by the end of September."
  
• “We need an urgent reversal from the majority of vaccines going to high income countries, to the majority going to low income countries,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu
  

 

[Amused to Death]

I woke up in a Soho doorway, a policeman knew my name.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The WHO says we should hold off on booster shots until after September. What about the elderly, who got theirs in February. Let's count: March 1, April 2, May 3, June 4, July 5, August 6. 

Pfizer had made early overtures about boosters in September, which would be month six of the vaccine. Now the WHO steps in and uses the "underserved country" argument. 

I say #### that. The WHO can go talk a long walk off a short pier. 

What say you? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/who-calls-for-moratorium-on-covid-vaccine-boosters-at-least-through-september.html

Before you weight in, check the language and their goal. 

• "The agency said the halt should last at least two months, to give the world a chance to meet the director-general’s goal of vaccinating 10% of the population of every country by the end of September."
  
• “We need an urgent reversal from the majority of vaccines going to high income countries, to the majority going to low income countries,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu
  

Is there specific evidence supporting the six-month timeframe? I'm not aware of any.

But I do think that, with Delta rampaging and news of breakthrough infections, it will probably create a huge amount of pressure, especially because, as you say, it is the elderly who will be the furthest out from their second shots.

So unless the science turns hard against them (which doesn't seem to be happening), I expect many of us will be getting boosters in the near future, particularly because, if you trust in the science behind vaccines, there's no real reason not to.

As I mentioned in another thread, the cynic in me is suspicious that this is a ploy by Big Pharma to sell more expensive shots to the First World instead of selling first shots at cost to the Third (and maybe that's what's motivating the WHO announcement). But I also know that if we reach a point where doctors are recommending boosters for the general population, I will almost certainly get one.

 

[woodstock]

Is there specific evidence supporting the six-month timeframe? I'm not aware of any.

I'll leave that to Doug B and the guys over in the COVID threads on the main page of the FFA. They seem to do the best job with sussing out the evidence. All I know is that about two or three months ago, even, the head of Pfizer made headlines for saying boosters in September. That was when we thought the Israeli studies were going to show six months or something like that. 

I don't have much of a domestic political fight to pick about vaccines because my position is that everyone should be vaccinated, that carrots and sticks should be used, and that is how we should proceed. 

I am not skeptical of the difference in the shot expense from the First to the Third World, nor am I skeptical of Big Pharma's role in providing the shots. I am also very much in favor of pouring resources into the Third World to get vaccination rates up to as high as possible because of the thought of variants and, more simply and altruistically, the humanitarian aspects of stopping COVID. 

But the WHO stepping in and making these recommendation seems premature and foolhardy. 

 

[The Z Machine]

I haven't looked at the stats, nor do I have access to them, but from a ethical standpoint, I think the US should be doing ever possible to get vaccines to the developing world. 

Label them "Amerivax" and let everyone know we've bankrolled their shot.

 

[The Z Machine]

But the WHO stepping in and making these recommendation seems premature and foolhardy

That's their job though, isn't it? It's the World Health Organization, not the OECD or G6 Health Organization. 

 

[woodstock]

That's their job though, isn't it? It's the World Health Organization, not the OECD or G6 Health Organization. 

Which is why a well-intentioned, well thought-out, dismissal of them should come into play here. Not a Trumpian display of unreflective stupidity, but a display of a thoughtful, "Thank you but no thank you. We're not abiding by your recommendation." That Trump ignored the WHO put the WHO in the weirdly bureaucratic desirable position of authority without responsibility. They were able to not put their money where their mouth was and sat on the side saying, "I told you so." They were right.

They have no controlling legal authority over the U.S., but are left with the power to release recommendations as a political pressure cooker whereby their imbued authority puts pressure upon politicians to act a certain way. That we resist those pressures seems appropriate in this case.

Nothing more than that will suffice. 

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'll leave that to Doug B and the guys over in the COVID threads on the main page of the FFA. They seem to do the best job with sussing out the evidence. All I know is that about two or three months ago, even, the head of Pfizer made headlines for saying boosters in September. That was when we thought the Israeli studies were going to show six months or something like that. 

I don't have much of a domestic political fight to pick about vaccines because my position is that everyone should be vaccinated, that carrots and sticks should be used, and that is how we should proceed. 

I am not skeptical of the difference in the shot expense from the First to the Third World, nor am I skeptical of Big Pharma's role in providing the shots. I am also very much in favor of pouring resources into the Third World to get vaccination rates up to as high as possible because of the thought of variants and, more simply and altruistically, the humanitarian aspects of stopping COVID. 

But the WHO stepping in and making these recommendation seems premature and foolhardy. 

We're mostly in agreement. And for the record, I'm not saying I'm all in on the Pharma conspiracy theory, just that it's something I'm keeping an eye on.

I'm sure the WHO does lots of good throughout the world, but at the end of the day, they're a feckless bureaucracy. That was the weird thing about Trump picking a fight with them last year; they don't have any power beyond what their biggest funders grant them, and the US is the biggest of all. Without knowing all the details of today's announcement, it sounds to me like an attempt to exert influence through public pressure precisely because they can't do it bureaucratically. If the CDC decides to recommend boosters, we're going to have boosters regardless of what the WHO wants.

ETA: Just read your latest post and it sounds like we're on the same page. I find that reassuring since I have zero expertise in this area and was mostly talking out of my a##. Maybe you are, too, but at least we're doing our collective a##-talking in unison.

 

[The Z Machine]

Which is why a well-intentioned, well thought-out, dismissal of them should come into play here. Not a Trumpian display of unreflective stupidity, but a display of a thoughtful, "Thank you but no thank you. We're not abiding by your recommendation." That Trump ignored the WHO put the WHO in the weirdly bureaucratic desirable position of authority without responsibility. They were able to not put their money where their mouth was and sat on the side saying, "I told you so." They were right.

They have no controlling legal authority over the U.S., but are left with the power to release recommendations as a political pressure cooker whereby their imbued authority puts pressure upon politicians to act a certain way. That we resist those pressures seems appropriate in this case.

Nothing more than that will suffice. 

 But why should the US resist?  I'd let the epidemiologists battle this one out.  Wild ### guess, but those doses would probably save 10x the lives of injected into unvaxxed arms than giving a 3rd shot to elderly Americans. 

 

[Dickies]

As long as we have people ready, willing and able to take the boosters, the WHO can pound sand.

That said, the stats posted in the other thread indicate that around 75% of unvaccinated have little interest in ever getting vaccinated. I do strongly feel that once we have exhausted efforts here that we should be doing everything in our power to ensure no vaccines go to waste and send them to other countries. 

 

[woodstock]

 But why should the US resist?  I'd let the epidemiologists battle this one out.  Wild ### guess, but those doses would probably save 10x the lives of injected into unvaxxed arms than giving a 3rd shot to elderly Americans. 

That's also a utile concern that seems to see a world without borders. If we could save 10x the American lives, then sign me up. But I don't think that's what will happen. We'll save 10x the lives of people living in El Salvador or India. 

A little provincialism might serve us well here. 

 

[woodstock]

As long as we have people ready, willing and able to take the boosters, the WHO can pound sand.

That said, the stats posted in the other thread indicate that around 75% of unvaccinated have little interest in ever getting vaccinated. I do strongly feel that once we have exhausted efforts here that we should be doing everything in our power to ensure no vaccines go to waste and send them to other countries. 

I agree with you. 

 

[The Z Machine]

That's also a utile concern that seems to see a world without borders. If we could save 10x the American lives, then sign me up. But I don't think that's what will happen. We'll save 10x the lives of people living in El Salvador or India. 

A little provincialism might serve us well here. 

There's a tipping point though, isn't there? What's the value of one American life saved vs X number of lives saved in the developing world?

I'd like to see the epi modeling on that to better judge the decision making in the US.

 

[woodstock]

ETA: Just read your latest post and it sounds like we're on the same page. I find that reassuring since I have zero expertise in this area and was mostly talking out of my a##. Maybe you are, too, but at least we're doing our collective a##-talking in unison.

I am talking out of my ###, and you might be, too, but that's how international agencies tend to work. We tend to fund them, they apply the intellectual capital and expertise that they accrue through the aforementioned funding, a capital that grows when coupled with our willingness to listen and abide by their decisions (in general). They use this intellectual capital to put political pressure on us to do right by the world, albeit freely and without domestic electoral accountability. I'm not hostile to them and they serve their purpose and do good things, but in this instance, it seems like the political pressure brought to bear is distinctly against our own interest and we should feel free to take the advice or leave it. 

The WHO has no real authority other than that which we give it. I do not know about Europe or other nation-states. 

 

[woodstock]

There's a tipping point though, isn't there? What's the value of one American life saved vs X number of lives saved in the developing world?

I'd like to see the epi modeling on that to better judge the decision making in the US.

Fair enough, and fair questions and fair point, IMO.  

 

[woodstock]

I woke up in a Soho doorway, a policeman knew my name.

This guy totally got it. 

 

[Max Power]

I posted this earlier in the covid thread and it didnt get much traction, but I do think I side with the WHO here and I'm frankly shocked to see some people actually prioritize Americans getting a third shot before the rest of the world's most vulnerable people get a single one.

Biden has already purchased enough boosters "should we need them" which he also says we don't right now. The Pfizer CEO says Americans will need boosters after 6 months.

So now we have the US sitting on extra vaccines with no direction, and these vaccines could be put to better use.

But look at the facts. Vaccinated people are SAFE! You don't need a booster to survive getting covid.

Unvaccinated people are "Variant Factories" meaning the more unvaccinated people living in poor conditions, the longer the WORLD has to deal with this. 

It makes perfect sense for the WHO to make that statement. 

 

[dkp993]

I posted this earlier in the covid thread and it didnt get much traction, but I do think I side with the WHO here and I'm frankly shocked to see some people actually prioritize Americans getting a third shot before the rest of the world's most vulnerable people get a single one.

Biden has already purchased enough boosters "should we need them" which he also says we don't right now. The Pfizer CEO says Americans will need boosters after 6 months.

So now we have the US sitting on extra vaccines with no direction, and these vaccines could be put to better use.

But look at the facts. Vaccinated people are SAFE! You don't need a booster to survive getting covid.

Unvaccinated people are "Variant Factories" meaning the more unvaccinated people living in poor conditions, the longer the WORLD has to deal with this. 

It makes perfect sense for the WHO to make that statement. 

Well said.  I agree.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am hugely in favor of the US providing vaccines to the developing world.

I am hugely not in favor of listening to WHO on this topic.

So I guess I'm conflicted now.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

To clarify something, in my earlier post I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive. Yes, I absolutely agree we should be prioritizing first shots in the Third World over boosters in the US. But realistically, if the CDC recommends us needing boosters to protect ourselves from breakthrough infections and waning effectiveness against new variants, we're getting boosters (myself included).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I posted this earlier in the covid thread and it didnt get much traction, but I do think I side with the WHO here and I'm frankly shocked to see some people actually prioritize Americans getting a third shot before the rest of the world's most vulnerable people get a single one.

Biden has already purchased enough boosters "should we need them" which he also says we don't right now. The Pfizer CEO says Americans will need boosters after 6 months.

Maybe an imperfect analogy but how many times has something along the lines of "a CEO or corporate board's responsibility is to doing what is right for stock holder (usually financially) as opposed to doing what is right?  I think that is roughly where Biden and others fall here.  But of course getting the world vaccinated is in the best interest of Americans, I just don't know...
 

There's a tipping point though, isn't there? What's the value of one American life saved vs X number of lives saved in the developing world?

...if there are enough vaccinated Americans to receive a booster for the above to cross the threshold where those X number of lives elsewhere benefit Americans more than saving one American.   And despite how selfish and wrong that sounds to me (and I presume you guys) I think it loses when we are evaluating what the president and other government leaders will do.

 

[Witz]

Who, who, who, who?

 

[Phil Elliott]

The WHO says we should hold off on booster shots until after September. What about the elderly, who got theirs in February. Let's count: March 1, April 2, May 3, June 4, July 5, August 6. 

Pfizer had made early overtures about boosters in September, which would be month six of the vaccine. Now the WHO steps in and uses the "underserved country" argument. 

I say #### that. The WHO can go talk a long walk off a short pier. 

What say you? 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/who-calls-for-moratorium-on-covid-vaccine-boosters-at-least-through-september.html

Before you weight in, check the language and their goal. 

• "The agency said the halt should last at least two months, to give the world a chance to meet the director-general’s goal of vaccinating 10% of the population of every country by the end of September."
  
• “We need an urgent reversal from the majority of vaccines going to high income countries, to the majority going to low income countries,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu
  

WHO should check the language?

 

[rockaction]

My friend here saw the recommendation coming months ago. Good for the little bird. Now if he can just get Snoopy to dance.

 

[rockaction]

Really, what you have is the WHO affecting science. There is no real scientific quibble with a third booster shot per what I can make of the Israeli studies.

More WHO nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/health/covid-booster-shot-data.html

 

[djmich]

I posted this earlier in the covid thread and it didnt get much traction, but I do think I side with the WHO here and I'm frankly shocked to see some people actually prioritize Americans getting a third shot before the rest of the world's most vulnerable people get a single one.

Biden has already purchased enough boosters "should we need them" which he also says we don't right now. The Pfizer CEO says Americans will need boosters after 6 months.

So now we have the US sitting on extra vaccines with no direction, and these vaccines could be put to better use.

But look at the facts. Vaccinated people are SAFE! You don't need a booster to survive getting covid.

Unvaccinated people are "Variant Factories" meaning the more unvaccinated people living in poor conditions, the longer the WORLD has to deal with this. 

It makes perfect sense for the WHO to make that statement. 

This really helps bring to life the "What does it mean to be American / Do you value American lives more" discussion.  Throw in capitalism too.

What's the Venezuelan lives saved to American lives saved equilibrium point?