Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

Nor do they seem to care that the monoclonal antibodies were tested on cells from fetal tissue. They can't take a vaccine that used fetal cells in development, but the monoclonal antibodies are fine. 

I don't know how people deal with that much cognitive dissonance.

Honestly, I didn't know that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in Moderna's recent study about waning immunity, they recorded 162 breakthrough cases among their 14,746 fully vaccinated trial participants (median time of 13 months since first dose) & 88 out of 11,431 participants who received their first dose 8 months ago (median). These were cases found between July 1st & August 27th if I am reading the news release correctly. (I can't find the actual study on the medrxiv server.)

Can someone help me do the math on what those would be on a case rate per 100,000 per seven days? They convert to "cases per 1000 person-years" (incidence rate) which makes no sense to me since my local covid dashboard is per 100,000 population (prevalence rate) for the last seven days.

Edited by RootAnn
Added terms
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

So, in Moderna's recent study about waning immunity, they recorded 162 breakthrough cases among their 14,746 fully vaccinated trial participants (median time of 13 months since first dose) & 88 out of 11,431 participants who received their first dose 8 months ago (median). These were cases found between July 1st & August 27th if I am reading the news release correctly. (I can't find the actual study on the medrxiv server.)

Can someone help me do the math on what those would be on a case rate per 100,000 per seven days? They convert to "cases per 1000 person-years" (incidence rate) which makes no sense to me since my local covid dashboard is per 100,000 population (prevalence rate) for the last seven days.

Never mind.  Math error.

 

Edited by Danae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone help me out...if the FDA looked at all the science and decided boosters weren't needed at this time for anyone not at high risk, why would we not follow the science on this? If they are not looking at data, what is the impetus behind their decision? I'm looking at a bunch of studies that show high efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and death even months out during delta, both here and abroad.

Also, is anyone wary of side effects of a third shot that's not being recommended by the US FDA? Kind of like what effect might it have on your body to cause that inflammation again so soon after the last time? I had an awful time with my 2nd dose and everything seems to indicate that I won't get severely ill with that even if antibodies have waned. I don't know if the inflammation was damaging at all as I just rode it out, but how would I know a 3rd dose is good for me? 

Or that if a bunch of people do this, we won't have any good data left because who knows who has had 3 shots or 2 in the reporting? How do they track this if people are getting 3rd shots on the down low?

I can say with total confidence that if the fda hadn't given the EUA back whenever that was (December?) I wouldn't have tried to go out and get it on my own regardless of what other countries were doing. 

I guess, why do we think the fda wouldn't approve this if the science supports third doses for everyone? Did they say at the meeting? Are those notes publicly available? Is it a committee decision or just one person decides?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Can someone help me out...if the FDA looked at all the science and decided boosters weren't needed at this time for anyone not at high risk, why would we not follow the science on this? If they are not looking at data, what is the impetus behind their decision? I'm looking at a bunch of studies that show high efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and death even months out during delta, both here and abroad.

Also, is anyone wary of side effects of a third shot that's not being recommended by the US FDA? Kind of like what effect might it have on your body to cause that inflammation again so soon after the last time? I had an awful time with my 2nd dose and everything seems to indicate that I won't get severely ill with that even if antibodies have waned. I don't know if the inflammation was damaging at all as I just rode it out, but how would I know a 3rd dose is good for me? 

Or that if a bunch of people do this, we won't have any good data left because who knows who has had 3 shots or 2 in the reporting? How do they track this if people are getting 3rd shots on the down low?

I can say with total confidence that if the fda hadn't given the EUA back whenever that was (December?) I wouldn't have tried to go out and get it on my own regardless of what other countries were doing. 

I guess, why do we think the fda wouldn't approve this if the science supports third doses for everyone? Did they say at the meeting? Are those notes publicly available? Is it a committee decision or just one person decides?

It isn't that the science doesn't support that a third dose gives better protection. It does, clearly. The question is, how much extra protection is worth the expense and bad press of doing a booster. 

Also, some people are not at high risk themselves, but are working with or living with people that ARE high risk, or not vaccinated, etc. Or can't afford to take 2 weeks off of work if they test positive or get sick with Covid. For them, preventing infection, not just hospitalization, is important, just from a financial point of view. 

For me, I have a high risk family member, VERY high risk, and if I can get a booster to lessen the chance of me giving it to her, that would make me happy. She will get a booster, but at her age we don't know how well any vaccine is going to work, so having those in close contact with her also be boostered is a good idea. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I'm looking at a bunch of studies that show high efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and death even months out during delta, both here and abroad.

High, but very definitely dropping. Israeli data is the best we have, I think, since they did such an excellent job vaccinating back in the winter. Here's the paper: 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423v1.full-text

Pertinent quotes: 

Quote

A similar pattern is obtained when analyzing severe disease for the older (60+) group (Figure 4), in which vaccination periods are defined as full months due to small group size. The rate of severe cases for people aged 60 or older who were fully vaccinated in January is 0.29 for 1000 persons, and is reduced to 0.23, 0.15, and 0.10 for those who were fully vaccinated in February, March, and April-May, respectively.

Quote

The efficacy of the vaccine against severe disease for the 60+ age group also decreases; from 91% to 86% between those vaccinated four months to those vaccinated six months before the study. The corresponding efficacies for the 40-59 age group are 98% and 94%.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to look at these numbers and not worry about what's going to happen later! There's drastic waning and we're in the middle of a wave of highly contagious disease. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is whether high (but waning) protection against hospitalization and death is the "gold standard" for the Covid vaccine, especially when a significant portion of the population is not approved due to their age and parents don't want to become disease vectors to their children (and others).

A focus sole on hospitalization and death also ignores reasonable concerns about Long Covid.

Bill

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Danae said:

I think it's more direct than that.  The anti-evolution crusade has been training generations of people to believe that the scientific establishment is built on lies and is explicitly anti-Christian.  Once you're all-in on that basic world view "overwhelming evidence" and "scientific consensus" are not convincing. 

This is a (growing and belligerent) subset of creationists, and I do think that you might have hit it right on the head. As a creationist, I am as exasperated by them as everyone else, and I have not been slow to call out my utter frustration with the white evangelical crowd that is the demographic I belong to. 

I think there has been a shift in recent years toward this, and I don't know why some people gravitate toward it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kbutton said:

This is a (growing and belligerent) subset of creationists, and I do think that you might have hit it right on the head. As a creationist, I am as exasperated by them as everyone else, and I have not been slow to call out my utter frustration with the white evangelical crowd that is the demographic I belong to. 

I think there has been a shift in recent years toward this, and I don't know why some people gravitate toward it.

Do you remember when Rebecca Keller, the author of the homeschool oriented Science 4 Kids, got caught out admitting that she sought to undermine belief in science as a way to advance creationism (and that she was doing it stealthily)?

It is a strategy.

Bill

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Do you remember when Rebecca Keller, the author of the homeschool oriented Science 4 Kids, got caught out admitting that she sought to undermine belief in science as a way to advance creationism (and that she was doing it stealthily)?

It is a strategy.

Bill

No, I don't remember that. :-( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Can someone help me out...if the FDA looked at all the science and decided boosters weren't needed at this time for anyone not at high risk, why would we not follow the science on this? If they are not looking at data, what is the impetus behind their decision? I'm looking at a bunch of studies that show high efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and death even months out during delta, both here and abroad.

Also, is anyone wary of side effects of a third shot that's not being recommended by the US FDA? Kind of like what effect might it have on your body to cause that inflammation again so soon after the last time? I had an awful time with my 2nd dose and everything seems to indicate that I won't get severely ill with that even if antibodies have waned. I don't know if the inflammation was damaging at all as I just rode it out, but how would I know a 3rd dose is good for me? 

Or that if a bunch of people do this, we won't have any good data left because who knows who has had 3 shots or 2 in the reporting? How do they track this if people are getting 3rd shots on the down low?

I can say with total confidence that if the fda hadn't given the EUA back whenever that was (December?) I wouldn't have tried to go out and get it on my own regardless of what other countries were doing. 

I guess, why do we think the fda wouldn't approve this if the science supports third doses for everyone? Did they say at the meeting? Are those notes publicly available? Is it a committee decision or just one person decides?

From what I’ve read, they didn’t want to approve it for 16-29 across the board because that age group has an increased risk of myocarditis from the shot, and a relatively low risk of severe COVID, particularly if double vaccinated. So, approving it for those at high risk, due to age, medical conditions, or occupation should hopefully filter out kids who don’t need it, but still give flexibility to protect those who need it. (And, In the prior priorities, living with high risk people counted). 

 

I understand the theory-and for my 16 yr old college student on a 98+% vaccinated, masked, and testing regularly campus, it makes sense to wait. But I feel a lot less comfortable about a vaccinated 16 yr old at a local high school where vaccination rates are low, masking is iffy, and no one is testing unless symptomatic. Some of my teen students may not be officially high risk, but I feel like attending a public school is probably more risky than my teaching private lessons and small groups with masking and air purifiers running is. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RootAnn said:

So, in Moderna's recent study about waning immunity, they recorded 162 breakthrough cases among their 14,746 fully vaccinated trial participants (median time of 13 months since first dose) & 88 out of 11,431 participants who received their first dose 8 months ago (median). These were cases found between July 1st & August 27th if I am reading the news release correctly. (I can't find the actual study on the medrxiv server.)

Can someone help me do the math on what those would be on a case rate per 100,000 per seven days? They convert to "cases per 1000 person-years" (incidence rate) which makes no sense to me since my local covid dashboard is per 100,000 population (prevalence rate) for the last seven days.

For a case rate of 49 per 1000 person years, if you followed 1000 people for one year, 49 would have COVID.  So evenly distributed through the year that would be 0.942 people per week per 1000 or 94.2 people per 100,000 per week.  

You can't make the conversion by the raw numbers of cases because you don't know how long each person was in the study.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I can't help but wonder if a particular fundamentalist approach to the Bible, where inconsistencies are denied and said to be not inconsistent, and certain influential preachers who teach things inconsistent with the Bible, has made a certain subset of people more likely to ignore inconsistent logic in general? Like, you just learn to accept the cognitive dissonance?

(not saying this about all Christians, or all those who take the bible literally, etc...but y'all know what I mean.)

I absolutely think this is true.  They were groomed early on to be totally fine with cognitive dissonance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Danae said:

I think it's more direct than that.  The anti-evolution crusade has been training generations of people to believe that the scientific establishment is built on lies and is explicitly anti-Christian.  Once you're all-in on that basic world view "overwhelming evidence" and "scientific consensus" are not convincing. 

 

Edit:  OR what BaseballandHockey said. 

And I think its true.  And I've never, ever understood it.  If you have confidence that God created the world and everything else, then you should also have confidence that science will eventually reveal the same thing.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 10:18 PM, RootAnn said:

Let's engage in a short thought experiment. Let's say that by the end of this year, the US vaccinates 98% of our population through mandates. Some booster dosages have been given to the most vulnerable but not everyone in the general population.

Based on our expert Hive member's understanding, what is the expected outcome?

 

 

 

I can absolutely say that it seems certain people are implying (without explicitly saying it) that if "everyone" (including kids ages 5 & up) who can do so gets vaccinated, Covid will go away & we can all go back to normal. No one has actually said that, but the impression has been made.

I can see the righteous anger against anyone standing in the way of that (impossible) dream.

But that isn't actually possible. Even if it were possible to achieve 95+% vaccination levels (not including boosters) for six month olds & up in the US with the original covid vaccines, the rest of the world is still dealing with covid. Mutations are inevitable. The US isn't going to keep their borders closed to trade, tourists, or refugees. (I read that 200,000 people allegedly entered the US as undocumented immigrants just last month. So add that to regular traffic.) People will keep coming into the US carrying covid & since the current vaccines are not (and never were) 100% effective at keeping people from getting infected or transmitting covid, there will always be new strains of covid circulating, including probably at least one vaccine-resistant mutation. Add in waning immunity & increasing vaccine hesitancy, you are fighting a losing battle.

IMO, covid is here to stay no matter the percentage of US citizens fully vaccinated. Anyone telling you differently is trying to sell you something.

Since there is absolutely no way the US will reach a status of 95%+ of fully vaccinated (even if just adults), this thought experiment is moot. My point is that the anger against people who won't get vaccinated is pointless if that anger is based in thinking those people are keeping us from bring able to tamp down covid.

For those who want to get upset at me for this opinion, I will add that I have a vaccinated elderly mom who, except for recovering from her recent hip surgery, is in pretty good health. If she catches & dies from covid, the experts will chalk her death up to as an old person who would have died soon anyway. She could instead live 10-15 more years in good health. I don't like people dismissing the deaths of older fully vaccinated people with off-hand comments about how most fully vaccinated people who are dying are elderly or have underlying health conditions. Many or most of those people could have had many years of quality life left in them. Thus, I've given a lot of thought to the present, the last 18 months, and the future. My family, including my mom, are living life in a modified fashion now that we can live (or die) with longer-term. Life needs to be liveable. And being angry & depressed a lot of the time at what it looks like we are facing long-term isn't something we want tainting whatever time we have to live. That is our family's outlook. Your outlook will likely differ. I'm sharing what mine has determined recently after much study,  thought, discussion, & prayer.

Yeah, people keep saying the Delta variant is because of those Americans who won't vaccinate ... but Delta was first detected in India (in October 2020, pre-vax) ... (And Alpha started in Great Britain; Beta in South Africa; Gamma in Brazil;....)  There is no reason to believe that Delta would have passed over the US even if 100% of us were vaccinated.

I'm just glad that the vax does seem to be protective for most of us as far as serious illness/death.

I hate that I can still possibly spread Covid, but it is what it is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Can someone help me out...if the FDA looked at all the science and decided boosters weren't needed at this time for anyone not at high risk, why would we not follow the science on this? If they are not looking at data, what is the impetus behind their decision? I'm looking at a bunch of studies that show high efficacy against severe disease, hospitalization, and death even months out during delta, both here and abroad.

Also, is anyone wary of side effects of a third shot that's not being recommended by the US FDA? Kind of like what effect might it have on your body to cause that inflammation again so soon after the last time? I had an awful time with my 2nd dose and everything seems to indicate that I won't get severely ill with that even if antibodies have waned. I don't know if the inflammation was damaging at all as I just rode it out, but how would I know a 3rd dose is good for me? 

Or that if a bunch of people do this, we won't have any good data left because who knows who has had 3 shots or 2 in the reporting? How do they track this if people are getting 3rd shots on the down low?

I can say with total confidence that if the fda hadn't given the EUA back whenever that was (December?) I wouldn't have tried to go out and get it on my own regardless of what other countries were doing. 

I guess, why do we think the fda wouldn't approve this if the science supports third doses for everyone? Did they say at the meeting? Are those notes publicly available? Is it a committee decision or just one person decides?

I too am wondering why the people here who were all "follow the science" are now refusing to accept what the scientific bosses are saying.  I mean I think I do know why, but it doesn't seem to be because they are dedicated to scientific principles.

Many of the same people are very impatient about the timing of the rollout of kiddy vaccines.  They don't even know what the tests have shown for young kids, but they seem certain that getting vaxed ASAP is right for all children.  That too strikes me as not-so-science-motivated.

It almost seems like they believe in the science as long as the science agrees with them.

  • Like 9
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Yeah, people keep saying the Delta variant is because of those Americans who won't vaccinate ... but Delta was first detected in India (in October 2020, pre-vax) ... (And Alpha started in Great Britain; Beta in South Africa; Gamma in Brazil;....)  There is no reason to believe that Delta would have passed over the US even if 100% of us were vaccinated.

No one has ever said that. Ever. Anywhere. Why are you making this stuff up?

 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I too am wondering why the people here who were all "follow the science" are now refusing to accept what the scientific bosses are saying.  I mean I think I do know why, but it doesn't seem to be because they are dedicated to scientific principles.

LOL at referring to an FDA advisory committee as "the scientific bosses."

The data clearly show that vaccine protection wanes over time, and that a 3rd dose of Pfizer given 6-8 months after the 2nd increases antibodies to even higher levels than they were after the 2nd dose — 5x higher in under 55s and 11x higher in over 55s. There's no debate about that. That's the "science."

"Following the science" = filtering that data through personal assumptions and opinions about the role of public health officials, the political cost of pissing off the WHO, trying to outguess anti-vaxxers, etc. So it's not surprising that different people arrive at different conclusions about how to interpret and apply the data. When Fauci "follows the science" he concludes that boosters are worth it because reducing transmission will protect children and the immunocompromised and reduce long covid. Some advisory committee members agree with him, but they were outvoted. Some of the reasons cited by the committee members who voted against boosters for everyone include the idea that it's more important to target the unvaccinated, or that it's inappropriate to give double-vaccinated Americans boosters when people in other countries don't have any. All of these people believe they are "following the science," although they end up in different places.

 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Many of the same people are very impatient about the timing of the rollout of kiddy vaccines.  They don't even know what the tests have shown for young kids, but they seem certain that getting vaxed ASAP is right for all children.  That too strikes me as not-so-science-motivated.

It almost seems like they believe in the science as long as the science agrees with them.

Do you know who else is very impatient about the timing of the roll out? The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association, both of which have called on the FDA to expedite the process as much as possible. Were you aware that the FDA changed the rules in July, after the trials were well underway and asked Pfizer and Moderna to significantly increase the number of subjects in the trial? Here is an excerpt from the letter the AAP sent to the FDA on August 5th:

"We understand that the FDA has recently worked with Pfizer and Moderna to double the number of children ages 5-11 years included in clinical trials of their COVID-19 vaccines. While we appreciate this prudent step to gather more safety data, we urge FDA to carefully consider the impact of this decision on the timeline for authorizing a vaccine for this age group. In our view, the rise of the Delta variant changes the risk-benefit analysis for authorizing vaccines in children. The FDA should strongly consider authorizing these vaccines for children ages 5-11 years based on data from the initial enrolled cohort, which are already available, while continuing to follow safety data from the expanded cohort in the post-market setting. This approach would not slow down the time to authorization of these critically needed vaccines in the 5–11-year age group."

Many people here happen tp agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics, but it sounds like you don't? Do you think the members of the American Academy of Pediatrics are not "dedicated to scientific principles"? 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Do you know who else is very impatient about the timing of the roll out? The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association, both of which have called on the FDA to expedite the process as much as possible. Were you aware that the FDA changed the rules in July, after the trials were well underway and asked Pfizer and Moderna to significantly increase the number of subjects in the trial? Here is an excerpt from the letter the AAP sent to the FDA on August 5th:

"We understand that the FDA has recently worked with Pfizer and Moderna to double the number of children ages 5-11 years included in clinical trials of their COVID-19 vaccines. While we appreciate this prudent step to gather more safety data, we urge FDA to carefully consider the impact of this decision on the timeline for authorizing a vaccine for this age group. In our view, the rise of the Delta variant changes the risk-benefit analysis for authorizing vaccines in children. The FDA should strongly consider authorizing these vaccines for children ages 5-11 years based on data from the initial enrolled cohort, which are already available, while continuing to follow safety data from the expanded cohort in the post-market setting. This approach would not slow down the time to authorization of these critically needed vaccines in the 5–11-year age group."

Many people here happen tp agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics, but it sounds like you don't? Do you think the members of the American Academy of Pediatrics are not "dedicated to scientific principles"? 

If I had kids in that age range, I'd rather have more data than less, and unless you think FDA is a conspiracy theorist, there must be some reason more data was wanted.

Personally, I think it might make more sense to break down the age ranges and maybe look at ages 9-11 separately from ages 5-8.  To me, there is just a huge difference between age 5 and age 11.  As a parent, I would not hesitate right now to get my 11yo vaxed (after EUA), because 11yo is close to 12yo, and there is tons of data on 12yo.  But if my kids were much younger, I would definitely not be chomping at the bit.

I don't know why the American Academy of Pediatrics is the preferred authority over the entities in charge of the development, testing, and approval of the vaxes.  I mean I'm sure they would like to see fewer kids hospitalized with Delta - who wouldn't?  But there is a reason why we have approval procedures.  We've already greatly shortened the wait via the EUA process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And actually, very sadly, the pediatric age group most likely to die of Covid is age 0-4.  I don't know much about this age group and Covid - what specific ages, how they're catching it, what their risk factors are.  I think it would be helpful if the public were provided this kind of info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I too am wondering why the people here who were all "follow the science" are now refusing to accept what the scientific bosses are saying.  I mean I think I do know why, but it doesn't seem to be because they are dedicated to scientific principles.

Many of the same people are very impatient about the timing of the rollout of kiddy vaccines.  They don't even know what the tests have shown for young kids, but they seem certain that getting vaxed ASAP is right for all children.  That too strikes me as not-so-science-motivated.

It almost seems like they believe in the science as long as the science agrees with them.

This is a fundamentally dishonest misrepresentation of the facts.

Bill

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SKL said:

I too am wondering why the people here who were all "follow the science" are now refusing to accept what the scientific bosses are saying.  I mean I think I do know why, but it doesn't seem to be because they are dedicated to scientific principles.

Many of the same people are very impatient about the timing of the rollout of kiddy vaccines.  They don't even know what the tests have shown for young kids, but they seem certain that getting vaxed ASAP is right for all children.  That too strikes me as not-so-science-motivated.

It almost seems like they believe in the science as long as the science agrees with them.

I have never said the vaccine is right for ALL children - I haven't seen anyone say that. 

I've said I want the vaccine for MY children, and would like my nieces vaccinated so my mom is more protected. 

And regarding boosters, no "science boss" or whatever has said that a booster doesn't offer more protection. They agree that it does - that's the science. What they disagree on (amongst themselves) is the public health and political ramifications of advising boosters for everyone. But that boosters improve immunity is not a debate, at all. All the science agrees on that point. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SKL said:

Yeah, people keep saying the Delta variant is because of those Americans who won't vaccinate ... but Delta was first detected in India (in October 2020, pre-vax) ... (And Alpha started in Great Britain; Beta in South Africa; Gamma in Brazil;....)  There is no reason to believe that Delta would have passed over the US even if 100% of us were vaccinated.

I'm just glad that the vax does seem to be protective for most of us as far as serious illness/death.

I’ve not heard people say Delta arose due to people who wouldn’t vaccinate. The fact that it has killed and hospitalized tens of thousands of Americans since it arrived in the US is because of people being unvaccinated. 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

And regarding boosters, no "science boss" or whatever has said that a booster doesn't offer more protection.

I know you aren't the one who said this, but quoting this as the nearest reiteration of the original phrase... the idea that there are "science bosses" we're supposed to be listening to is seriously unscientific. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Why?

Why couldn't it be a miracle outside science?  Something impossible that never could happen?  So, science would never reveal it?

Yes. Not everything is subject to human reasoning or understanding. We are limited, creatures, not the Creator. I think there are many things that our finite minds, even untainted by sin, will never comprehend.

Time, thoughtful diligence, and-technological progress may make some things clearer, but not all, for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Christian who firmly believes that God created the world and that evolution and it’s underlying premises are unbiblical, AND who takes the science concerning covid seriously, is vaxed, masks etc., I think that the fundamental error I see is not accepting scientific evaluation of a scientific issue.

Imo, science is not capable of evaluating theological truth claims. 

But it is the appropriate and primary discipline with which to handle a pandemic. 

Questioning the Darwinian worldview does not categorically make someone anti-science. But I do think the pp about some strands of contemporary American Christianity teaching wholesale distrust of science and government ring true.

American fundamentalism has  had a strong anti-intellectual element for a long, long time. 

Weak Biblical understanding and little or no knowledge of Church history also contributes to the problem.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading through the VRBPAC briefing summary for the evaluation of a third Pfizer dose and found this 

"Among these 312 participants, 6 received a prototype vaccine based upon the B.1.351 (Beta) variant that originated in South Africa (BNT162b2SA) in error (this vaccine was being administered to a second randomized group)." Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee September 17, 2021 Meeting Briefing Document- Sponsor (fda.gov)

So the error rate of administering the wrong vaccine was almost 2%!  That seems like an awfully high error rate of administering an incorrect vaccine when you are attempting to study carefully and methodically the efficacy of a third dose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Why?

Why couldn't it be a miracle outside science?  Something impossible that never could happen?  So, science would never reveal it?

My own thought on that is that the way natural things work here on earth, the way creation works, is a God-created process.  The sciences are part of that process. That by learning more about the world around us and gradually peeling away layers as we gain a better understanding, what will be revealed is the beautiful hand of God.  And that peeling away layers of anything, actually (in our pursuit of knowledge and truth), whether it be in the sciences, in psychology, whatever -- what will always be revealed at the end is the truth of God.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the hypocrisy of people who will not get the mRNA vax  bc of the fetal stem cells used in the development, but will accept the mAb treatment. 

Do they know?

I am as pro-life as anyone can be, but using these remedies does not kill any more babies. Those aborted babies died decades ago and their deaths were a monstrous evil. But so are the unnecessary deaths, long term illnesses, and psychological damage that are the product of low vax rates. Taking the vax in no way supports a current pro-abortion political position. 
 
People are illogical and stupid.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I’ve not heard people say Delta arose due to people who wouldn’t vaccinate. The fact that it has killed and hospitalized tens of thousands of Americans since it arrived in the US is because of people being unvaccinated. 

Unvaccinated people are why it is spreading so fast, but not why it exists. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ScoutTN said:

I see the hypocrisy of people who will not get the mRNA vax  bc of the fetal stem cells used in the development, but will accept the mAb treatment. 

Do they know?

I am as pro-life as anyone can be, but using these remedies does not kill any more babies. Those aborted babies died decades ago and their deaths were a monstrous evil. But so are the unnecessary deaths, long term illnesses, and psychological damage that are the product of low vax rates. Taking the vax in no way supports a current pro-abortion political position. 
 
People are illogical and stupid.

I am also pro-life and I had the mRNA vaxes and forced my kids to get them.

Although I know those fetal cell lines come from abortions that happened long ago, I really wish the developers would use methods that don't involve fetal cells.  Partly because some people really do believe it's wrong to benefit from abortions, even knowing all the facts.  And partly because some people will continue to use that as an excuse.  But mainly because there just has to be a better way.

To answer your question, I'll bet those with religious objections don't know which other medical technologies use fetal cells.  I don't know much about that myself.  If that info were widely known, would that be better or worse for health care?  I don't think it's fair to call it hypocrisy if people honestly didn't think they were already benefiting from fetal cells.  Once all the Covid dust settles, I'd love to have an open an honest discussion involving all of the relevant facts about how fetal cells are used.

One person told me last week that the fetal cell issue is the reason she isn't currently planning on getting vaxed.  She said "I don't want to benefit from that."  TBH it sounded like an excuse of last resort.  However, you could tell she was wavering.  I hope she decides to get the vax before she gets Covid, because she has serious health risks and contact with other vulnerable, unvaxed people.  What I'm not going to do is come back with "well you do know that fetal cells were also used in ____ which you seem to accept??"  That isn't going to help anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me if one is opposing/refusing to use something due to an ideological reason, then one has a very big responsibility to make sure that same reason doesn't apply to something one supports or uses. Sure we can't all know everything all the time, and sometimes even those of us who do a lot of research can get surprised. But this one has been fairly widely reported on. If someone has truly been keeping up with legit info about the vaccines--not just following politically/religiously motivated talking points--then one should also be widely read enough to have come across articles discussing the monoclonal antibodies that point out the fetal tissue connection.

But I admit that I'm someone who has very little tolerance for hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. It drives me so nutty in myself that I have a hard time remembering that it (apparently) doesn't bother a lot of people much at all.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

But I admit that I'm someone who has very little tolerance for hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. It drives me so nutty in myself that I have a hard time remembering that it (apparently) doesn't bother a lot of people much at all.

Same here -- it's probably why we get along so well on here 😛 . I'm so scrupulous with my own cognitive dissonance that I have very little tolerance for other people's. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it beyond people’s comprehension to consider that someone might exist who would not get the vaccine as preventative bc of the fetal cell connection but if it is a situation where using the monoclonal antibodies might save their life, they would make that choice.

kinda like saying…I’d rather not eat human flesh but if I’m dying of starvation after a plane crash on a snowy mountain in Peru, I might consider it.

Edited by pinball
Added words to clarify my point
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

It seems to me if one is opposing/refusing to use something due to an ideological reason, then one has a very big responsibility to make sure that same reason doesn't apply to something one supports or uses. Sure we can't all know everything all the time, and sometimes even those of us who do a lot of research can get surprised. But this one has been fairly widely reported on. If someone has truly been keeping up with legit info about the vaccines--not just following politically/religiously motivated talking points--then one should also be widely read enough to have come across articles discussing the monoclonal antibodies that point out the fetal tissue connection.

I didn't know about some of the other drugs until it was mentioned on here. I tended to look up articles about fetal cells and how they are used on sites that talk about the ethics from a religious point of view. They don't necessarily list out other pharmaceuticals that use them, though they might mention "other therapies" and such that I just assumed were more experimental. I try to avoid sites that seem to be biased in favor of an agenda vs. say, a specific denomination's ethics body. Perhaps a few of the super militant folks do avoid those meds but keep it under wraps because they are trying to win friends over on their anti-vax position, and it's a tip off about how extreme they are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pinball said:

I guess it beyond people’s comprehension to consider that someone might exist who would get the vaccine as preventative bc of the fetal cell connection but if it is a situation where using the monoclonal antibodies might save a life, they would make that choice.

kinda like saying…I’d rather not eat human flesh but if I’m dying of starvation after a plane crash on a snowy mountain in Peru, I might consider it.

So they are good to stand on principle as long as that only endangers others?!
 

Getting the vax could potentially save multiple lives. And long term illnesses. And overrun hospitals. Monoclonal antibody treatments only help the one. Vax helps everyone.

 

 

  • Like 19
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Although I know those fetal cell lines come from abortions that happened long ago, I really wish the developers would use methods that don't involve fetal cells.  Partly because some people really do believe it's wrong to benefit from abortions, even knowing all the facts.  And partly because some people will continue to use that as an excuse.  But mainly because there just has to be a better way.

I think we can both educate people on what it really means to use fetal cells AND find other methods. I know people who really believe that these vaccines (and other vaccines) contain actual fetal tissue. I am pretty sure some of the people who are super militant about this are okay with people being misinformed this way even if they know better themselves. I think I could name names of people in my circles who are like this, sadly (though I might not have known outside of Covid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pinball said:

I guess it beyond people’s comprehension to consider that someone might exist who would not get the vaccine as preventative bc of the fetal cell connection but if it is a situation where using the monoclonal antibodies might save their life, they would make that choice.

kinda like saying…I’d rather not eat human flesh but if I’m dying of starvation after a plane crash on a snowy mountain in Peru, I might consider it.

As @ScoutTNjust said . . No, that makes no sense to me. Its totally selfish. It’s like the ultimate in hypocrisy. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

So they are good to stand on principle as long as that only endangers others?!
 

Getting the vax could potentially save multiple lives. And long term illnesses. And overrun hospitals. Monoclonal antibody treatments only help the one. Vax helps everyone.

 

 

 

Correct. This is an example of pure selfishness.

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

So they are good to stand on principle as long as that only endangers others?!
 

Getting the vax could potentially save multiple lives. And long term illnesses. And overrun hospitals. Monoclonal antibody treatments only help the one. Vax helps everyone.

 

 

Really? The antibody treatments keep 70% of people who receive them out of hospitals, thus helping overwhelm. Plus they’re free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I know you aren't the one who said this, but quoting this as the nearest reiteration of the original phrase... the idea that there are "science bosses" we're supposed to be listening to is seriously unscientific. 

I agree with this, but if the FDA has to exist for a reason right? someone has to make recommendations and look at the data for policies and such? i had to post and run yesterday so I'm trying to catch up but if we can't listen to the fda, why are they even approving anything?

I am trying to figure out, yes, a booster is going to temporarily increase antibodies but what we really want is the long term t-cell and b-cell stuff, which still seems remarkably effective with all the vaccines we have now. If we need continuous antibodies, that would mean continuously being exposed (either via vax or naturally) to the virus, right? Is it good to continually boost the antibodies in our body after such a short time between shots? If the shots still prevent severe disease and hospitalization for 90%+ of people and symptomatic infection for 80%+ then maybe it makes sense to send these 3rd doses to the developing world and such? I just don't understand what people want from these vaccines, I guess. I feel like people are saying no one guaranteed that the vaccines would work 100%, but in practicality that's what they want...a guarantee against infection (which, afaik, can't happen since vaccines don't act like a force field even with boosted antibodies, right?)

I also don't know how we know that immunity waned vs. delta was just more virulent and widespread? When I got vaxxed, cases were so low our 14 day rolling average at the time was 0. So maybe when cases are higher we just see more people infected because 5% of millions of people is still a lot of people, right? And if cases are low, then you can't see what efficacy really means.

but that gets back to my original question in this response...if the fda is looking at all the data and the committee is by majority thinking boosters aren't necessary, why shouldn't we trust them the same way we would trust them with the original eua and approval? I'm not saying blindly trust a science boss (to borrow the phrase), I'm saying these people are there for a reason, this exact reason it seems like to me? 

If these aren't the experts we should be looking to, then who are the the people who should be making recommendations? surely we can't be just determining these things on an individual basis because look where that gets us with anti-vaxxers and such? And people taking other medicines off label? They look at their own data and risk and make a decision that is only based on their individual perceptions of their individual health. How is it not bad to do that with a 3rd shot? Isn't that just taking a medication off label? Against fda recommendations? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I am trying to figure out, yes, a booster is going to temporarily increase antibodies but what we really want is the long term t-cell and b-cell stuff, which still seems remarkably effective with all the vaccines we have now.

But that's the thing -- the Israeli data shows waning of protection against severe disease. The trajectory of the waning was making me very nervous. 

 

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I agree with this, but if the FDA has to exist for a reason right? someone has to make recommendations and look at the data for policies and such? i had to post and run yesterday so I'm trying to catch up but if we can't listen to the fda, why are they even approving anything?

I think it's much better the FDA exist than not! I want SOMEONE to be approving stuff. I'm glad the people who are doing so are scientists. I am basically pro-FDA... 

... which doesn't mean that I have to believe they aren't making a colossal, politically motivated mistake in this particular instance. 

 

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I also don't know how we know that immunity waned vs. delta was just more virulent and widespread? When I got vaxxed, cases were so low our 14 day rolling average at the time was 0. So maybe when cases are higher we just see more people infected because 5% of millions of people is still a lot of people, right? And if cases are low, then you can't see what efficacy really means.

You know that immunity waned by comparing case numbers in people who were vaxxed more and less recently. You should take a look at the Israeli paper I linked upthread. It breaks it down carefully. 

 

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

If these aren't the experts we should be looking to, then who are the the people who should be making recommendations? surely we can't be just determining these things on an individual basis because look where that gets us with anti-vaxxers and such?

Speaking for myself, I'm personally more than sufficiently competent to examine the statistics and come to my own conclusions. (The biology of it all is another story. I don't understand it nearly well enough to have an opinion. But the statistics seem to be the issue here.) 

Speaking for other people, I've actually found this board to be more competent and intelligent than pretty much any "official" body I've heard of 😉 . Your mileage may vary, of course... but I find that this is a really excellent source of balanced opinions. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 8
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...