Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

For me, the thing with mask mandates is it's really not that big an inconvenience.  Far too many people are acting like wearing a mask is some massive burden that completely ruins their lives.  My kids wear one for hours a day at school and I've never heard a single complaint.  It's really just not that big a deal.

It's annoying, and I am for not on board with it.    Personally, my breaking point will be if schools try going to virtual again, especially for my son's age that have had a chance of getting the vaccination.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why wouldn't these variants feast on the vaccinated too ? 

Because the vaccinated have antibodies to combat the virus.  The only time this reality changes is if/when the spike protein of this virus strand changes and renders the vaccines ineffective.  And that WILL happen if given enough opportunities to mutate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Biden's own Secretary of Defense doesn't approve vaccine mandates for the military until they receive full FDA approval.  :shrug:

In theory, I know this is a good talking point.  The FDA is doing a really good job of providing bulletin board material for anti-vaxxers by dragging its feet on full approval.   But let's be honest -- we all know that the vaccines are safe and extremely effective.  The problem is that the FDA is a broken bureaucracy that was not up to the challenge of the pandemic. 

Biden obviously doesn't take the FDA seriously.  Neither did Trump.  Neither does Pelosi, McConnell, or most of our governors.  We should stop taking the FDA seriously too.  Or, at least, stop pretending like full approval really means anything and stop using the FDA's incompetence as an excuse to slow down vaccination.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In line with what Ivan K just wrote ... this post from another board makes a lot of sense to me regarding what affects FDA approval:

Quote

Matt Yglesias made a good point recently in an article (NYT, 7/20/2021, paywalled) that the FDA, like many agencies, is somewhat susceptible to lobbying and pressure from drug manufacturers, and that in this case, the various vaccine manufacturers are not really putting that much pressure on the FDA to speed up full approval.

Right now the vaccines are all supply constrained, so while full approval might be nice to have, it won’t meaningfully expand their market. They can already trivially sell every dose they can manage to make, and that’s not likely to change any time soon. They can’t really raise the price for PR reasons. So just let the process happen. They’re currently investing their institutional bandwidth in getting Delta/etc. variant boosters approved. Because that might actually result in a bigger market/higher prices.

I share your desire to see meaningful mandates put in place, and the fact that no one in a position to do something about it seems to treat full approval as an urgent problem is frustrating and dismaying.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Biff84 said:

How was flu season last year? Or really any illness in children. You don’t think the masks they wear help but how do you explain away all the other childhood illnesses that drastically dropped off when masks were required in school?

I think the increased vigilance of not letting kids come to school sick was a much bigger factor. 

(In addition to all the other reasons the flu didnt take hold last year)  

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 

is that a good stat for vaccinated people ?

Not sure you know how statistic works.  Given only 1.6% of the cases were in vacinated people and the other 98.4% of cases were in the unvaccinated the number of breakthrough cases is very small.  Then of that small silver 2% were fatal.   Seems to me it is working how it is supposed.  Basically lowering infection and even if you are infected very small chance to be fatal.   

Here is the full sentence again - "About 1.6% of cases of COVID-19 since January 2021 have occurred among fully vaccinated Vermonters, according to the Data Summary. Of those breakthrough cases, 5% have been hospitalized and 2% were fatal." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

Not sure you know how statistic works.  Given only 1.6% of the cases were in vacinated people and the other 98.4% of cases were in the unvaccinated the number of breakthrough cases is very small.  Then of that small silver 2% were fatal.   Seems to me it is working how it is supposed.  Basically lowering infection and even if you are infected very small chance to be fatal.   

Here is the full sentence again - "About 1.6% of cases of COVID-19 since January 2021 have occurred among fully vaccinated Vermonters, according to the Data Summary. Of those breakthrough cases, 5% have been hospitalized and 2% were fatal." 

I think what he's saying is the death rate for vaccinated people (2%) isn't really different than the death rate for unvaccinated people. But the article says 2% of breakthrough cases were fatal. What is the % of vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections? That's the true indicator.

2% is still not good.

Edited by jobarules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug B said:

This beggars belief, but I will research this.

EDIT: Wait, if they're measuring viral load in the blood via PCR diagnostic tests**, inactivated particles of virions (e.g. chunks of ruptured membrane) count just like active virions.

** which I think is typical -- @Terminalxylem, @growlers ?

Not sure of their exact methodology (can’t find the primary data), but I think they’re measuring mucosal viral burden from nasopharyngeal swabs, using the exact same NAATs employed for diagnosis. They extrapolate the amount of virus using the cycle threshold for test positivity: the fewer PCR cycles needed for a positive test, the greater amount of viral RNA in the sample. TMK, there’s nothing to distinguish replicative virions from inactivated viral particles.

This is not like viral load measurements for other diseases, like HIV and hepatitis C, which are measured from blood samples in clinical practice.

A few thoughts:

1. Since virus in the nasopharynx is presumably the primary source for spreading covid 19, more virus detected suggests greater risk of contagion.

2. Because delta generates such a higher viral count at baseline (than original recipe SARS-CoV-2), it stands to reason more chunks of inactivated virus are floating around as well. Still, it seems unlikely that  high viral titers don’t include active virions. It would be useful to know how long after exposure the samples were obtained, as one would expect early samples would be likely contain more intact virus than later samples.

3. Viral load in the blood/lungs would be a better marker for risk of hospitalization/death, as the virus needs to spread beyond the upper airway to cause severe disease. By promoting neutralizing antibody formation in the serum (blood), the vaccines do a great job preventing disease progression. But ramping up mucosal antibodies takes extra time, so it shouldn’t be too surprising there’s some virus left in the nose.

Edited by Terminalxylem
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

In theory, I know this is a good talking point.  The FDA is doing a really good job of providing bulletin board material for anti-vaxxers by dragging its feet on full approval.   But let's be honest -- we all know that the vaccines are safe and extremely effective.  The problem is that the FDA is a broken bureaucracy that was not up to the challenge of the pandemic. 

Biden obviously doesn't take the FDA seriously.  Neither did Trump.  Neither does Pelosi, McConnell, or most of our governors.  We should stop taking the FDA seriously too.  Or, at least, stop pretending like full approval really means anything and stop using the FDA's incompetence as an excuse to slow down vaccination.  

 

I know next to nothing about the FDA. Other than for most of my life, it's been seen as a trusted government reference. The main takeaway I'd have for a new nutritional supplement for instance was "It's not FDA approved". I never really understood where FDA and USDA came into play for regulating food and meats, but always assumed it was a safeguard. Sort of like OSHA, I assumed businesses didn't always like it but it was there for good reason.

I think COVID was the first negative I ever heard about the FDA. Same for the WHO.

And that's sort of the problem. 

You could take the exact same words you wrote and do a mad lib and put all kinds of trusted by some groups there. Fill it with some people in authority we claim don't take it seriously. And there you go.

And next thing, we're making our own decisions on who we trust. 

I don't know a thing about Dr. Janet Woodcock other than what I read 2 minutes ago. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/janet-woodcock  Her resume seems competent. I'm guessing President Biden thinks she's good. But I don't really know. I do feel though it's worrisome when we just start picking and choosing the agencies we'll take seriously. Especially when it seems like people tend to factor how much the agency in question is saying things they want to hear. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that. But I've seen it done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, jobarules said:

I think what he's saying is the death rate for vaccinated people (2%) isn't really different than the death rate for unvaccinated people. But the article says 2% of breakthrough cases were fatal. What is the % of vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections? That's the true indicator.

2% is still not good.

 

Very small since cases were 98.6% amoung unvaccinated.  If less then 2% of cases are among vaccinated and 2% of those are fatal we are talking about small numbers.  No one claimed these vaccines were 100% effective.  We are going to have a small sliver of vaccinated getting sick and a small sliver of those cases being fatal.  It doesn't mean they aren't effective.   

 

ETA - Here is another example that yes a small number of deaths were among vaccinated with a much larger sample size in Texas.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/

Edited by Redwes25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

In theory, I know this is a good talking point.  The FDA is doing a really good job of providing bulletin board material for anti-vaxxers by dragging its feet on full approval.   But let's be honest -- we all know that the vaccines are safe and extremely effective.  The problem is that the FDA is a broken bureaucracy that was not up to the challenge of the pandemic. 

Biden obviously doesn't take the FDA seriously.  Neither did Trump.  Neither does Pelosi, McConnell, or most of our governors.  We should stop taking the FDA seriously too.  Or, at least, stop pretending like full approval really means anything and stop using the FDA's incompetence as an excuse to slow down vaccination.  

The vaccines are so safe and extremely effective that the manufacturers were given total immunity to liability and now they are recommending a third dose because the original vaccine wasn't effective enough in it's own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jobarules said:

I think what he's saying is the death rate for vaccinated people (2%) isn't really different than the death rate for unvaccinated people. But the article says 2% of breakthrough cases were fatal. What is the % of vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections? That's the true indicator.

2% is still not good.

I don't trust a journalism major to get statistics like this right.  I want to see a published story, not a blurb from Vermont.

13 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The vaccines are so safe and extremely effective that the manufacturers were given total immunity to liability and now they are recommending a third dose because the original vaccine wasn't effective enough in it's own. 

Do we really know this yet?  I've seen conflicting stats on this one.

The only thing I've seen that's been consistent is that Sinovac sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The vaccines are so safe and extremely effective that the manufacturers were given total immunity to liability and now they are recommending a third dose because the original vaccine wasn't effective enough in it's own. 

 

This is pretty disingenuous.  The law  that protects vaccine manufacturers went into effect in 2005.   

The Pfizer recommendation for a third dose is due to the Delta variant, not because the original vaccine wasn't effective.  Every expert I'm aware of said from the beginning that boosters were likely; they just didn't know how long until they were necessary. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the rover said:

 

This is pretty disingenuous.  The law  that protects vaccine manufacturers went into effect in 2005.   

The Pfizer recommendation for a third dose is due to the Delta variant, not because the original vaccine wasn't effective.  Every expert I'm aware of said from the beginning that boosters were likely; they just didn't know how long until they were necessary. 

 

And often vaccines require boosters to be more effective.  Look at the flu vaccine.  That does not make it less safe or just hurt the overall effectiveness being discussed.

And yes...the Feds should mandate it for their employees or get tested.  That's the choice people will make.  But they have to protect their other employees and anyone those people would have contact with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sand said:

I don't trust a journalism major to get statistics like this right.  I want to see a published story, not a blurb from Vermont.

Do we really know this yet?  I've seen conflicting stats on this one.

The only thing I've seen that's been consistent is that Sinovac sucks.

Mid 90% for Pfizer and Moderna. Like 70% for J&J.

Pfizer drops to 84% after 6 months and recommends a booster which is supposed to offer 5x the current protection. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Nevermind....not worth it

Ill just say the variant we are battling now didnt even exist when the vaccines were created

Nonsense

Is today's vaccine different than the version from 3 months ago? Is it more effective?

They are losing effectiveness due to the new variants, but also the initial studies before delta showed they decreased in effectiveness over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Is today's vaccine different than the version from 3 months ago? Is it more effective?

They are losing effectiveness due to the new variants, but also the initial studies before delta showed they decreased in effectiveness over time. 


Do you have a link for this study?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Is today's vaccine different than the version from 3 months ago? Is it more effective?

They are losing effectiveness due to the new variants, but also the initial studies before delta showed they decreased in effectiveness over time. 

 

I just watched an interview with the CEO of Pfizer.  This is correct, and also different than an article I read this morning.  Pfizer is in talks with governments to make a third shot part of the protocol due to the effectiveness waning over 6-8 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

They are losing effectiveness due to the new variants, but also the initial studies before delta showed they decreased in effectiveness over time. 

The above is significantly different than the initial post:

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

The vaccines are so safe and extremely effective that the manufacturers were given total immunity to liability and now they are recommending a third dose because the original vaccine wasn't effective enough in it's own. 

It's MUCH more accurate to say we might need a booster because the new variants are stronger.  Of course, we could avoid this phenomena but we are choosing not to.  We are going to have vaccines and boosters for this for the foreseeable future.  This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone given the decisions we as a people are making.

That's all I'm saying about this line of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

Is today's vaccine different than the version from 3 months ago? Is it more effective?

They are losing effectiveness due to the new variants, but also the initial studies before delta showed they decreased in effectiveness over time. 

At this point the statement is not completely correct. It’s not “they” are losing effect it’s “the Pfizer” vaccine looks to be….  That’s quite a major difference, especially since the Pfizer is a different type of vaccine. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

At this point the statement is not completely correct. It’s not “they” are losing effect it’s “the Pfizer” vaccine looks to be….  That’s quite a major difference, especially since the Pfizer is a different type of vaccine. 

J&J was never good to begin with.

I wonder which brand the Nationals players went with. 

Sounds like they just had up to 11 vaccinated players and staff test positive.

I just dont think calling these vaccines "extremely effective" is accurate.

Edited by Max Power
Added and staff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

J&J was never good to begin with.

I wonder which brand the Nationals players went with. 

Sounds like they just had up to 11 vaccinated players test positive.

I just dont think calling these vaccines "extremely effective" is accurate.

Agreed, the more we learn that seems to be the case. I got Moderna just by chance….so I “won”? Until we find out the long term effects?😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Max Power said:

J&J was never good to begin with.

I wonder which brand the Nationals players went with. 

Sounds like they just had up to 11 vaccinated players and staff test positive.

I just dont think calling these vaccines "extremely effective" is accurate.

I disagree, and currently the numbers support my opinion. But that could flip, anything’s possible.  I just hope for all our sake it doesn’t.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media reporting the "vaccinated people getting covid" is really ####### with us. It is emboldening the anti-vaxxers, because they can point to "11 players on WAS got covid after getting vaccinated" rather than focusing on the 97% who didn't, or whateve the number is. Ugh

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

The media reporting the "vaccinated people getting covid" is really ####### with us. It is emboldening the anti-vaxxers, because they can point to "11 players on WAS got covid after getting vaccinated" rather than focusing on the 97% who didn't, or whateve the number is. Ugh

When you have a vaccine that is 90% effective and a world of 8 billion people, that means that there is a group of 800 million that will still likely get the virus and that's if EVERYONE gets the vaccine.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

I know next to nothing about the FDA. Other than for most of my life, it's been seen as a trusted government reference. The main takeaway I'd have for a new nutritional supplement for instance was "It's not FDA approved". I never really understood where FDA and USDA came into play for regulating food and meats, but always assumed it was a safeguard. Sort of like OSHA, I assumed businesses didn't always like it but it was there for good reason.

I think COVID was the first negative I ever heard about the FDA. Same for the WHO.

And that's sort of the problem. 

You could take the exact same words you wrote and do a mad lib and put all kinds of trusted by some groups there. Fill it with some people in authority we claim don't take it seriously. And there you go.

And next thing, we're making our own decisions on who we trust. 

I don't know a thing about Dr. Janet Woodcock other than what I read 2 minutes ago. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/janet-woodcock  Her resume seems competent. I'm guessing President Biden thinks she's good. But I don't really know. I do feel though it's worrisome when we just start picking and choosing the agencies we'll take seriously. Especially when it seems like people tend to factor how much the agency in question is saying things they want to hear. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that. But I've seen it done. 

I should probably add here that in my little political bubble, criticizing the FDA is a time-honored tradition that goes back as far as I can remember.  People like me have been arguing for a long time that the FDA is far, far too risk averse, and that the agency's risk aversion is bad because it kills people.  Alex Tabarrok is a person whose politics very closely align with my own -- he calls it the "invisible graveyard."  Of course, the pandemic raised the salience of this particular issue, but it's been there for a long time.

There's a very common trope out there where people confidently proclaim "this particular current event proves once and for all that my priors were all exactly correct."  If somebody wanted to lob that critique in my direction, it wouldn't be terribly unfair.  I think I'm right of course,  but this is a drum that I've been beating for quite a while.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I should probably add here that in my little political bubble, criticizing the FDA is a time-honored tradition that goes back as far as I can remember.  People like me have been arguing for a long time that the FDA is far, far too risk averse, and that the agency's risk aversion is bad because it kills people.  Alex Tabarrok is a person whose politics very closely align with my own -- he calls it the "invisible graveyard."  Of course, the pandemic raised the salience of this particular issue, but it's been there for a long time.

There's a very common trope out there where people confidently proclaim "this particular current event proves once and for all that my priors were all exactly correct."  If somebody wanted to lob that critique in my direction, it wouldn't be terribly unfair.  I think I'm right of course,  but this is a drum that I've been beating for quite a while.  

Nothing to do with COVID or vaccines, but what are your thoughts on the FDA's recent approval of Aduhelm?

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fdas-decision-approve-new-treatment-alzheimers-disease

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

The media reporting the "vaccinated people getting covid" is really ####### with us. It is emboldening the anti-vaxxers, because they can point to "11 players on WAS got covid after getting vaccinated" rather than focusing on the 97% who didn't, or whateve the number is. Ugh

The stat was 11 of the 12 cases were among vaccinated players and staff.  The first case on the team was by a vaccinated player.  Symptoms were mild to none, so it wasn't until everyone was tested that people figured out they had it.

All this after the Nationals manager said there was no need to quarantine anyone. 

What this story is really showing that people walking around vaccinated who think they are immune to getting it, or passing it along need to reevaluate the situation. 

Word is that most had the J&J version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Nothing to do with COVID or vaccines, but what are your thoughts on the FDA's recent approval of Aduhelm?

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fdas-decision-approve-new-treatment-alzheimers-disease

No opinion on this whatsoever, aside from the usual principle that adults should be free to make their own medical decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Nothing to do with COVID or vaccines, but what are your thoughts on the FDA's recent approval of Aduhelm?

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fdas-decision-approve-new-treatment-alzheimers-disease

Aduhelm is expensive, $56k per year just for the infusions. In addition, it requires periodic MRIs to monitor brain abnormalities. CMS hasn't decided whether to pay for it at that price or any price. 

It removes amyloid plaques, but has not been proven to be clinically beneficial for memory or everyday functioning. The FDA neuroscience advisory committee voted unanimously not to approve. The FDA was too cozy with Biogen and jumped the gun on approval due to pressure from advocacy groups like the Alzheimers Asdociation. Just yesterday, Biogen pulled a paper from review in JAMA after edits were requested. The initial FDA indication was very broad, and under pressure they narrowed it. This erodes confidence in the FDA. Too slow, too fast, too conflicted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Redwes25 said:

Not sure you know how statistic works.  Given only 1.6% of the cases were in vacinated people and the other 98.4% of cases were in the unvaccinated the number of breakthrough cases is very small.  Then of that small silver 2% were fatal.   Seems to me it is working how it is supposed.  Basically lowering infection and even if you are infected very small chance to be fatal.   

Here is the full sentence again - "About 1.6% of cases of COVID-19 since January 2021 have occurred among fully vaccinated Vermonters, according to the Data Summary. Of those breakthrough cases, 5% have been hospitalized and 2% were fatal." 

 

well 610,000 weak, compromised people have died already, we don't know what % of them (maybe 1/2, maybe all) would have died had they had the vaccine and still got covid

nobody knows - but as this goes on, we will see more and more vaccinated people getting covid, hospitalized and dying because of covid .... and the vaccines IMO will not be looked at the same this time next year. Especially with the talk of additional shots, boosters etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

well 610,000 weak, compromised people have died already, we don't know what % of them (maybe 1/2, maybe all) would have died had they had the vaccine and still got covid

nobody knows - but as this goes on, we will see more and more vaccinated people getting covid, hospitalized and dying because of covid .... and the vaccines IMO will not be looked at the same this time next year. Especially with the talk of additional shots, boosters etc

 

You do a great job of ignoring stuff that doesn't fit your narrative.  More like 1 to 2% of deaths would have occurred since that is about the average deaths among vaccinated since about February.

 

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-says-99-covid-deaths-since-feb-were-not-fully-vaccinated-2021-07-27/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""The CDC is saying they have concluded that fully vaccinated people are at a very, very low risk of getting COVID-19. Therefore, if you've been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. Let me repeat: If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask."" Joe Biden said this on May 13, 2021

hmmmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

More like 1 to 2% of deaths would have occurred since that is about the average deaths among vaccinated since about February.

 

wow 1-2%  ? 

of the 330,000,000 people before vaccinations came around, what % of the US population died ?

it wasn't 1-2% 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

""The CDC is saying they have concluded that fully vaccinated people are at a very, very low risk of getting COVID-19. Therefore, if you've been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. Let me repeat: If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask."" Joe Biden said this on May 13, 2021

hmmmmmm

That was before Delta and new data emerged, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

wow 1-2%  ? 

of the 330,000,000 people before vaccinations came around, what % of the US population died ?

it wasn't 1-2% 

Yeah can anyone explain this? If 1-2% of fully vaccinated are dying isnt that the same rate as unvaccinated?

FYI I think its 1-2% of breakthrough infections.

Edited by jobarules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jobarules said:

That was before Delta and new data emerged, no?

What new data?

Quote

New recommendations from federal health officials this week on when vaccinated Americans should don face masks came with a startling bolt of news: People who have had their shots and become infected with the delta variant of the coronavirus can harbor large amounts of virus just like unvaccinated people. That means they could become spreaders of the disease and should return to wearing masks indoors in certain situations, including when vulnerable people are present.

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not publish the new research. In the text of the updated masking guidance, the agency merely cited “CDC COVID-19 Response Team, unpublished data, 2021.”

Some outside scientists have their own message: Show us the data.

“They’re making a claim that people with delta who are vaccinated and unvaccinated have similar levels of viral load, but nobody knows what that means,” said Gregg Gonsalves, an associate professor at the Yale School of Public Health. “It’s meaningless unless we see the data.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/breakthrough-infections-cdc-data/2021/07/28/dcaaa6b2-efce-11eb-a452-4da5fe48582d_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Yeah can anyone explain this? If 1-2% of fully vaccinated are dying isnt that the same rate as unvaccinated?

FYI I think its 1-2% of breakthrough infections.

it's closer to 0.00034% of fully vaccinated are dying (of course no idea how many vaccinated catch COVID...we are missing data on that. 

Here is where I ran some back-of-envelope calcs a few days ago.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Yeah can anyone explain this? If 1-2% of fully vaccinated are dying isnt that the same rate as unvaccinated?

FYI I think its 1-2% of breakthrough infections.

We have no real reliable data on "rates" and won't for some time.  The denominator isn't well known given our inept start to this whole fiasco.  It's going to take us 2-3 years of this cycle to get a reliable picture on death rate IMO.  Throw on top of that all the different variants and people willfully conflating a TON of different scenarios and we realize how difficult meaningful discussion becomes in the current climate we're in.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jobarules said:

We were told vaccine immunity was much longer lasting than natural immunity.

"Vaccines become less effective over time" is not inconsistent with "vaccine immunity is much longer lasting than natural immunity".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the pro-vacc argument that getting our population vaccinated will prevent variants.  I mean, it's true but you have to get the entire planet vaccinated. 

To be effective, we would have to vaccinate 100% of the US population and then freeze all foreign travel from everywhere...not going to happen.  As we know now, the travel restrictions Trump put in place last February were completely ineffective in stopping the spread.  It may have slowed things down a week or two, but ultimately it's impossible.  

Variants and mutations will happen.  That's evolution baby.  It's my understanding that mutations over time become less deadly - viruses that kill their host don't spread.  We are likely to need COVID booster shots moving forward, similar to flu shots.  It is what it is.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, moleculo said:

I don't buy the pro-vacc argument that getting our population vaccinated will prevent variants.  I mean, it's true but you have to get the entire planet vaccinated. 

To be effective, we would have to vaccinate 100% of the US population and then freeze all foreign travel from everywhere...not going to happen.  As we know now, the travel restrictions Trump put in place last February were completely ineffective in stopping the spread.  It may have slowed things down a week or two, but ultimately it's impossible.  

Variants and mutations will happen.  That's evolution baby.  It's my understanding that mutations over time become less deadly - viruses that kill their host don't spread.  We are likely to need COVID booster shots moving forward, similar to flu shots.  It is what it is.

With potential for a federal employee vaccine mandate coming today, I'm back in fact gathering mode.  Yet I find a lot of my questions don't have good answers or have inconsistent answers. 

A big one... Which shot is the most effective?  Which will require boosters?  Does getting a shot today protect me against Delta or do I need the booster as well?  What if I have the antibodies?  Are they more effective short term or long term vs the vaccines...

If I get the shot, I still have to wear a mask, still have to quarantine and need to test after exposure in order to continue to work in a federal building in a "high transmission" county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
  • Create New...