The Vaccine Thread

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

So the fda didn't approve 3rd doses because the WHO told them not to? They didn't have any data to back up the committee vote and a majority of them voted with WHO recommendations? That seem scandalous in and of itself. Off to google some more. 

I mean, it's more complicated than that, you know?? Everyone is human. As you say, the current degree of protection against hospitalization and severe infection is adequate. And they are probably more influenced by local data than by the Israeli paper for not particularly good insular reasons. 

I think they are wrong, but I don't think it's scandalous. 

[SKL]

Does anyone wonder whether part of the FDA hesitation relates to the possibility of government mandates re boosters?

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Do we wait and see how many people who were vaxxed early in 2020 end up hospitalized or dying during the next holiday spike before we decide boosters are a good idea? Or do we choose to be proactive?

Apparently the answer is yes!!! Because I know that everyone around here is sick and tired of being careful. People are going to go indoors for the winter. And people around here have been vaxxed since the winter and early spring. And the wave is going to come in November. And... I'm scared 😕 . 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

So the fda didn't approve 3rd doses because the WHO told them not to? They didn't have any data to back up the committee vote and a majority of them voted with WHO recommendations? That seem scandalous in and of itself. Off to google some more. 

It was two things. One was WHO (etc) pressure. The other was the groups determination that preventing hospitalization and death (even with that slipping) is a good enough standard instead of preventing illness.

Bill

[BronzeTurtle]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't think we know that, but I would guess that there's no particular reason to assume there's a limit... or at least I continue to be more worried about COVID and less worried about the vaccine. 

And I say that as someone who had the worst side effects of anyone I know IRL. I'm really, really bummed that it looks like immunity wanes this quickly. But I still really, really don't want COVID. 

Well, I don't want it either, but after getting vaccinated I was pretty sure I was going to be exposed and honestly I thought that might be good because I'd have the immunity from the vax and then my body would fight off the natural exposure with low side effects and I'd have more of the memory immunity and new antibodies. Maybe I am wrong about the science of it. But I also got vaccinated in late spring so I'm not in any kind of window to get a booster.

So if I got vaccinated and then had a exposure, wouldn't that be like a booster in a sense?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

Well, I don't want it either, but after getting vaccinated I was pretty sure I was going to be exposed and honestly I thought that might be good because I'd have the immunity from the vax and then my body would fight off the natural exposure with low side effects and I'd have more of the memory immunity and new antibodies. Maybe I am wrong about the science of it. But I also got vaccinated in late spring so I'm not in any kind of window to get a booster.

So if I got vaccinated and then had a exposure, wouldn't that be like a booster in a sense?

I do basically expect to get some natural immunity along the way, although I am still watching to see if that's likely to be safe. 

For me, the fact that I have unvaxxed kids is also important. Plus, I'd rather encounter the virus in the wild closer to when I was vaxxed. 

[Spy Car]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There seems to be some evidence that the SARS2 virus can evade T-cells by binding to the side instead of the center of the "T," which confuses the immune system into attacking the body instead of the virus. If this is true, then having circulating antibodies at high enough levels to knock out the virus before it can get established, and before T cells are deployed in large numbers, may be one of the things that determines whether someone has a "bad cold" or ends up on a ventilator. 

Also, according to the Israeli data, immunity against serious disease and death do wane, although not as steeply as protection against symptomatic disease. And protection against symptomatic disease may be as low as 50% or less after 6-8 months, not 80%. And we don't know where it goes from there — does protection against serious illness and death keep declining month by month? Do we wait and see how many people who were vaxxed early in 2020 end up hospitalized or dying during the next holiday spike before we decide boosters are a good idea? Or do we choose to be proactive?

 

 

I've chosen: Proactive.

Bill

 

[BronzeTurtle]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There seems to be some evidence that the SARS2 virus can evade T-cells by binding to the side instead of the center of the "T," which confuses the immune system into attacking the body instead of the virus. If this is true, then having circulating antibodies at high enough levels to knock out the virus before it can get established, and before T cells are deployed in large numbers, may be one of the things that determines whether someone has a "bad cold" or ends up on a ventilator. 

Also, according to the Israeli data, immunity against serious disease and death do wane, although not as steeply as protection against symptomatic disease. And protection against symptomatic disease may be as low as 50% or less after 6-8 months, not 80%. And we don't know where it goes from there — does protection against serious illness and death keep declining month by month? Do we wait and see how many people who were vaxxed early in 2020 end up hospitalized or dying during the next holiday spike before we decide boosters are a good idea? Or do we choose to be proactive?

 

 

I don't know. I mean, I don't take medications prophylactically without a doctor's say-so. Maybe I'm too much of a rule follower or don't trust myself to know about drug interactions, frequency of meds, etc. to know what I'm doing. I honestly thought that following my dr's recommendation, or the cdc or fda recommendations would be the best way to go.

I keep thinking about Tom Nichols book about the Death of Expertise (or something like that) and I feel like now that sort of thing is coming from all corners of where I'm trying to get information from. People here don't trust the experts because they are too political or swayed by international bodies, and people in other circles don't trust them because they think a new world order is being ushered in. It's exhausting to read anything anywhere.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

People here don't trust the experts because they are too political or swayed by international bodies, and people in other circles don't trust them because they think a new world order is being ushered in. It's exhausting to read anything anywhere.

I mean, I trust the experts on what they are experts in. But no one is actually saying things like "immunity isn't waning because of X" or "we're worried about boosters because of side effect Y." They are saying things like "it looks bad if we approve boosters for everyone." 

Basically, it's like the mask thing, where they didn't recommend masks not because they weren't likely to be helpful, but because they were responding to other kinds of (non-scientific) pressures. It didn't go well. This won't go well either. 

[Not_a_Number]

I mean, it's always "trust but verify," right?? One can have a really healthy respect for experts (I do!) and still feel like one is competent to evaluate things within one's area of expertise. 

[Corraleno]

13 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

 I feel like there are people at the fda who know this much better than anyone here and that is their jobs? Isn't a certain level of expertise needed, degrees in virology, epidemiology, ph, years of work on vaccination programs and data? If given the option would you have taken the vax without the eua from the fda in 2020?

The people on the committee each filter the data through their own personal biases and opinions. Some have explicitly stated that they are not in favor of boosters for everyone in the US when other countries have not had first shots yet. Others have said that the focus should be on vaccinating the unvaccinated instead of doing boosters. Those are personal political opinions, not scientific ones. And IMO they are extremely naive.

The CDC and FDA have screwed up plenty of times in this pandemic. They refused to use the covid tests provided by the WHO and instead decided to develop their own — which were seriously flawed and put us desperately behind when it came to testing. Then when the correct tests were finally available, they were in such short supply that the CDC insisted they could not be used on anyone who had not recently traveled to China or had contact with someone who had tested positive. This was a total disaster and led to huge numbers of illnesses and deaths in the northeast because they completely ignored the possibility of cases coming in from Italy. The CDC and FDA continued to deny there was community spread until a few brave scientists in Washington state defied FDA orders and started testing some flu swabs to see if SARS2 was present — and it was. Had they followed FDA orders, who knows how much longer it would have taken before the government acknowledged we had community spread?

[BronzeTurtle]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Would I have taken the vaccination without the EUA? If I'd seen the trial data and the data out of Israel, sure, why not? As I said, I feel perfectly competent to evaluate this data. 

No, I don't tend to think that expertise in virology is needed here. Plus, having watched this show for 18 months here, my level of faith in the FDA's and the CDC's ability to see a few steps in front of them has frankly radically decreased. As I said, I'm glad they exist. But I think there are way too many plodding bureaucrats and too few visionaries in their ranks 😉 . 

They did just have 2 people resign, right? Maybe because they knew it wouldn't get approved? I definitely would prefer someone with expertise (as in degrees, lifetime study) in virology, vaccination, medical research, etc., be telling me the best course of action. I have read so many papers on covid and the most I can usually make sense of are the abstracts and the conclusions. Yes I've been reading them for many months, but I still don't have formal training in any of the science. I don't feel like it's just something I can pick up in a year and change, but maybe I just lack confidence. Goodness knows a bunch of people on the internet have found a way! lol

(I don't mean that as an insult to you, btw, in case it is too much snark, just a general comment on the internet level of expertise on covid as a general haha joke)

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

(I don't mean that as an insult to you, btw, in case it is too much snark, just a general comment on the internet level of expertise on covid as a general haha joke)

Hah, I don't feel insulted at all. I have a Ph.D in probability, so I have a pretty standard kind of expertise in evaluating statistics -- it's not something I've picked up in the last year. I've been reading papers in medical journals very skeptically for many years now -- on average, the stats in the social sciences and in medicine is atrociously done by people who don't understand it, frankly. 

So I'm used to being fairly skeptical in this regard 😉 . 

[BronzeTurtle]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

The people on the committee each filter the data through their own personal biases and opinions. Some have explicitly stated that they are not in favor of boosters for everyone in the US when other countries have not had first shots yet. Others have said that the focus should be on vaccinating the unvaccinated instead of doing boosters. Those are personal political opinions, not scientific ones. And IMO they are extremely naive.

The CDC and FDA have screwed up plenty of times in this pandemic. They refused to use the covid tests provided by the WHO and instead decided to develop their own — which were seriously flawed and put us desperately behind when it came to testing. Then when the correct tests were finally available, they were in such short supply that the CDC insisted they could not be used on anyone who had not recently traveled to China or had contact with someone who had tested positive. This was a total disaster and led to huge numbers of illnesses and deaths in the northeast because they completely ignored the possibility of cases coming in from Italy. The CDC and FDA continued to deny there was community spread until a few brave scientists in Washington state defied FDA orders and started testing some flu swabs to see if SARS2 was present — and it was. Had they followed FDA orders, who knows how much longer it would have taken before the government acknowledged we had community spread?

Do you think we should ignore them entirely at this point? How do we get meds approved, okayed, and such without having a body like this? And if they make the wrong decision, how do we know it's the wrong one and is there not much we can do about it? In this case getting a 3rd shot is easy, but if it was a brand new vaccine, we'd just never see it, right?

[Corraleno]

17 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I don't know. I mean, I don't take medications prophylactically without a doctor's say-so. Maybe I'm too much of a rule follower or don't trust myself to know about drug interactions, frequency of meds, etc. to know what I'm doing. I honestly thought that following my dr's recommendation, or the cdc or fda recommendations would be the best way to go.

There is a difference between trusting the data and trusting the way other people interpret the data. Whenever I see an article or video or news story about some new study, I always try to locate the original study and read it myself. And then I try to read as many different critiques of the data as I can, from a wide variety of sources.

And that goes for personal physicians as well. I have been misdiagnosed multiple times, and had to do my own research and advocate for myself. I was told absolutely unequivocally that my son did not have Lyme disease after a doctor ordered the wrong test. I researched the issue, and found another doctor who ordered the correct test, which came back overwhelmingly positive, and DS spent 18 months on antibiotics. I shudder to think where he would be now if I hadn't "done my own research." I do not trust anyone's "recommendations" without verifying things myself as much as possible.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Corraleno

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Do you think we should ignore them entirely at this point? How do we get meds approved, okayed, and such without having a body like this?

I dunno about Corraleno, but I don't plan to ignore them in general. Frankly, I'm not going to know enough about things like this most of the time, because I don't spend most of my life evaluating drug safety!! 

[BronzeTurtle]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

There is a difference between trusting the data and trusting the way other people to interpret the data. Whenever I see an article or video or news story about some new study, I always try to locate the original study and read it myself. And then I try to read as many different critiques of the data as I can, from a wide variety of sources.

And that goes for personal physicians as well. I have been misdiagnosed multiple times, and had to do my own research and advocate for myself. I was told absolutely unequivocally that my son did not have Lyme disease after a doctor ordered the wrong test. I researched the issue, and found another doctor who ordered the correct test, which came back overwhelmingly positive, and DS spent 18 months on antibiotics. I shudder to think where he would be now if I hadn't "done my own research." I do not trust anyone's "recommendations" without verifying things myself as much as possible.

Most people can't or don't look beyond their doctor's prescription pad, for a variety of reasons. It's great you can do so. I have actually, now that I think of it, had one occassion to ask my dr for something different than their recommendation, but I wouldn't even have known to google it had I not come across it by accident.

And beyond the isolated individual situation like what you're talking about. We're talking about fda recommendations for a vaccine schedule for everyone. How do I know the difference when it comes to something like vaccines? How does the average person know that the fda is wrong about boosters? We want people to listen to the fda on ivermectin use, but not for this other thing. We want them to get the vaccine, but not listen to them about not needing boosters. I think that is a public health disaster scene.

How does the person who is taking ivermectin against fda advice not look at the person going to get a 3rd shot against fda advice and say, "See? You don't believe them either!" And we can say that this board would never do anything as stupid as the people taking ivermectin, but obviously the people who would do that are looking at things from a different angle.
 

[BronzeTurtle]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I dunno about Corraleno, but I don't plan to ignore them in general. Frankly, I'm not going to know enough about things like this most of the time, because I don't spend most of my life evaluating drug safety!! 

Right but a lot of people don't know that they should ignore them on this one thing? How would anyone know what to trust them on? I am definitely not sold on a 3rd shot for myself by this conversation and what I've been able to read about the recommendations, honestly. Hopefully it's okay to admit that.

[Corraleno]

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Do you think we should ignore them entirely at this point? How do we get meds approved, okayed, and such without having a body like this? And if they make the wrong decision, how do we know it's the wrong one and is there not much we can do about it? In this case getting a 3rd shot is easy, but if it was a brand new vaccine, we'd just never see it, right?

Of course I don't think the main food and drug regulatory body should be ignored, but I don't think there's anything wrong with open criticism. I totally don't understand the mindset of "well they're the experts so we just need to believe them and do whatever they say." They have seriously screwed up on multiple occasions, some of which have had disastrous consequences. And most of their screw ups come from the fact that they are far too often reactive instead of proactive, and I think that is exactly the mistake they are making when it comes to boosters. I think boosters will be approved for everyone at some point, but unfortunately it seems that we will have to endure many avoidable illnesses and deaths before they finally decide to approve them. I will be definitely be getting one at the 6 month mark, and I am hoping the definition of "at risk" is broad enough, and implementation is loose enough, that both my kids can also get boosted before Christmas.

[kbutton]

20 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Most people can't or don't look beyond their doctor's prescription pad, for a variety of reasons. It's great you can do so. I have actually, now that I think of it, had one occassion to ask my dr for something different than their recommendation, but I wouldn't even have known to google it had I not come across it by accident.

And beyond the isolated individual situation like what you're talking about. We're talking about fda recommendations for a vaccine schedule for everyone. How do I know the difference when it comes to something like vaccines? How does the average person know that the fda is wrong about boosters? We want people to listen to the fda on ivermectin use, but not for this other thing. We want them to get the vaccine, but not listen to them about not needing boosters. I think that is a public health disaster scene.

How does the person who is taking ivermectin against fda advice not look at the person going to get a 3rd shot against fda advice and say, "See? You don't believe them either!" And we can say that this board would never do anything as stupid as the people taking ivermectin, but obviously the people who would do that are looking at things from a different angle.

I think people can agree on the facts without agreeing on the response to the facts. I think people can make errors in judgment. I think there can be multiple right or wrong things that people do in response to the same information even when everyone in that situation has true and faction information and personally believes that information is true.

The ivermectin people believe they have different facts vs. having false information. 

I don't think the FDA and WHO are relying on false information.

Edited September 19, 2021 by kbutton

[Corraleno]

7 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Most people can't or don't look beyond their doctor's prescription pad, for a variety of reasons. It's great you can do so. I have actually, now that I think of it, had one occassion to ask my dr for something different than their recommendation, but I wouldn't even have known to google it had I not come across it by accident.

And beyond the isolated individual situation like what you're talking about. We're talking about fda recommendations for a vaccine schedule for everyone. How do I know the difference when it comes to something like vaccines? How does the average person know that the fda is wrong about boosters? We want people to listen to the fda on ivermectin use, but not for this other thing. We want them to get the vaccine, but not listen to them about not needing boosters. I think that is a public health disaster scene.

How does the person who is taking ivermectin against fda advice not look at the person going to get a 3rd shot against fda advice and say, "See? You don't believe them either!" And we can say that this board would never do anything as stupid as the people taking ivermectin, but obviously the people who would do that are looking at things from a different angle.
 

People shouldn't take ivermectin because the science — randomized, placebo-controlled trials — say it doesn't work, and there are known side effects. People should get vaccinated because the randomized placebo controlled trials say it is safe and effective.

I believe people should have access to boosters for the same exact reason — the data says that vaccine protection is waning over time and the boosters are safe and effective. I don't think the WHO's political stance should have anything to do with whether Americans have access to boosters as long as the data shows they are safe and they work.

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

People shouldn't take ivermectin because the science — randomized, placebo-controlled trials — say it doesn't work, and there are known side effects. People should get vaccinated because the randomized placebo controlled trials say it is safe and effective.

I believe people should have access to boosters for the same exact reason — the data says that vaccine protection is waning over time and the boosters are safe and effective. I don't think the WHO's political stance should have anything to do with whether Americans have access to boosters as long as the data shows they are safe and they work.

Correct. The boosters are shown to be safe and effective, while ivermectin is neither.

The science is clear. The FDA advisory board has bungled a "policy" decision (as opposed to a science-based one) and I'm sadly convinced it will be a very costly error.

I share your hopes that the "at risk" category is very broad in practice.

Bill

[ScoutTN]

2 hours ago, pinball said:

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

Not free. Just indirectly paid for by taxes somehow. 

Do help with overwhelm, but some are getting the treatment at a hospital, so still using resources, even if not ER.  Vax could prevent many of those cases from getting even that far. 
And it is still reactive not proactive.

[Not_a_Number]

32 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

How does the person who is taking ivermectin against fda advice not look at the person going to get a 3rd shot against fda advice and say, "See? You don't believe them either!"

I'm pretty sure the people taking ivermectin aren't affected by what I do in the least. Even if they CITE that they are affected by what I do, they aren't -- it's simply a retroactive rationalization. They are affected by political and social pressure, and since I'm in the outgroup for them, I do not matter. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

46 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I am definitely not sold on a 3rd shot for myself by this conversation and what I've been able to read about the recommendations, honestly. Hopefully it's okay to admit that.

Obviously it's OK! Everyone makes their own decisions, and I understand why you feel hesitant. Frankly, I do, too. I'd much have rather waited for them to be approved 😕 . But who knows when that'll be?? 

[Corraleno]

34 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Right but a lot of people don't know that they should ignore them on this one thing? How would anyone know what to trust them on? I am definitely not sold on a 3rd shot for myself by this conversation and what I've been able to read about the recommendations, honestly. Hopefully it's okay to admit that.

No one here is suggesting that everyone "should" ignore the FDA on this. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans will follow whatever recommendation the FDA ultimately hands down — and many won't have a choice anyway. One of the biggest issues I have with this is that people with means and connections and the time and energy to find a way to get a 3rd shot off label will get the extra protection, while those with fewer resources will be exposed to higher risk of illness, lost pay, medical bills, etc. As with so many other things in this country, the haves will find a way, and the have-nots will get screwed.

The recommendations of the advisory committee are not binding, by the way, and the FDA does sometimes tweak the final ruling. I hope they will at least include more at risk groups (teachers, healthcare workers, essential workers, people with comorbidities, etc.), which will allow doctors a lot more leeway to prescribe boosters for those who want them. 

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Right but a lot of people don't know that they should ignore them on this one thing? How would anyone know what to trust them on? I am definitely not sold on a 3rd shot for myself by this conversation and what I've been able to read about the recommendations, honestly. Hopefully it's okay to admit that.

Sure. I think people should do an honest risk assessment, both of their exposure risks and the risks of who they might then expose if they got sick, along with how they feel they might fare if they did get Covid.

Unfortunately a lot of unvaccinated people didn't do a very good job with such self-assessments and ended up spreading the virus, getting hospitalized, or dying.

For someone who is fully vaxxed and unlikely to be exposed and/or unlikely to expose unprotected children or elders or others at high risk, the decision could be more complicated. The protections are not as good as they were initially. After shot #2 I initially thought I was "post-Covid" in terms of risk (by and large), while still masking and taking all precautions.

That changed.

Bill

Edited September 20, 2021 by Spy Car

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, I trust the experts on what they are experts in. But no one is actually saying things like "immunity isn't waning because of X" or "we're worried about boosters because of side effect Y." They are saying things like "it looks bad if we approve boosters for everyone." 

Basically, it's like the mask thing, where they didn't recommend masks not because they weren't likely to be helpful, but because they were responding to other kinds of (non-scientific) pressures. It didn't go well. This won't go well either. 

Can you point me to the article where they are saying stuff like this? I know you're not quoting exactly, but where the committee is saying that's why they recommended it like this? Sorry if I missed it I am having trouble keeping up with the thread.


for your 1st sentence do you not think they are experts in vaccines? That's what's tripping me up here. I would think that would be the thing (among other things) they were experts in.

[BronzeTurtle]

41 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm pretty sure the people taking ivermectin aren't affected by what I do in the least. Even if they CITE that they are affected by what I do, they aren't -- it's simply a retroactive rationalization. They are affected by political and social pressure, and since I'm in the outgroup for them, I do not matter. 

No, but I mean it makes sense to say that you shouldn't chastise someone for not listening to the fda in one area while you (in a general sense) are not listening to them in an area you feel comfortable ignoring them. I don't know if I'm making sense. What you're saying about your own expertise and evaluation of the data is what I've found from everyone who is wanting to make their own decisions. Everyone thinks they're right to make this individual choice for themselves.

adding: It may be retroactive now that people are going against a different sort of fda recommendation that they disagree with in order to get a shot off-label, but it sort of proves the point that individuals will always do what they think is best regardless of what the government tells them. They don't need the justification because they were going to do it any way. But it is sort of a vindication of a point that I've seen them trying to make all along.

Edited September 20, 2021 by BronzeTurtle

[melmichigan]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Do you think we should ignore them entirely at this point? How do we get meds approved, okayed, and such without having a body like this? And if they make the wrong decision, how do we know it's the wrong one and is there not much we can do about it? In this case getting a 3rd shot is easy, but if it was a brand new vaccine, we'd just never see it, right?

This was an FDA advisory committee vote.  They are not the be all, end all when it comes to making this decision.

“We are not bound at FDA by your vote, just so you understand that. We can tweak this as need be,” Dr. Peter Marks, the agency’s top vaccine regulator, reminded the panel after the votes. He asked the group for suggestions on what other populations the FDA should consider for boosters, like front-line health workers and other occupations that face more exposure to Covid.

The CDC advisory committee meeting is next.

Edited September 20, 2021 by melmichigan

[BronzeTurtle]

16 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No one here is suggesting that everyone "should" ignore the FDA on this.

So people shouldn't get 3rd shots if they can? I thought that's what a lot of people here were saying or doing regardless.

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

No, but I mean it makes sense to say that you shouldn't chastise someone for not listening to the fda in one area while you (in a general sense) are not listening to them in an area you feel comfortable ignoring them. 

I'm not chiding people for not listening to the FDA. I'm chiding people for not paying attention to actual data. 

 

8 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

What you're saying about your own expertise and evaluation of the data is what I've found from everyone who is wanting to make their own decisions. Everyone thinks they're right to make this individual choice for themselves.

Sure, but there's such a thing as reality. Just because everyone thinks they are right doesn't mean they are. 

[BronzeTurtle]

2 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

This was an FDA committee.  They are not be all, end all when it comes to making this decision.

“We are not bound at FDA by your vote, just so you understand that. We can tweak this as need be,” Dr. Peter Marks, the agency’s top vaccine regulator, reminded the panel after the votes. He asked the group for suggestions on what other populations the FDA should consider for boosters, like front-line health workers and other occupations that face more exposure to Covid.

The CDC advisory committee meets next up.

But isn't the committee the fda experts on vaccines? Why wouldn't the multiple votes of these people on this committee carry more weight than just one guy? I am really misunderstanding what's going on I feel like. Do people want political pressure on the fda or cdc to approve the boosters?

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

for your 1st sentence do you not think they are experts in vaccines? That's what's tripping me up here. I would think that would be the thing (among other things) they were experts in.

But this decision isn't about whether there's waning immunity. You should point me to any of these experts saying that it doesn't exist, because no one is actually claiming that. 

The question is whether we should give people boosters given waning immunity. And that's not really a decision about the vaccines at all. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, BronzeTurtle said:

Do people want political pressure on the fda or cdc to approve the boosters?

Personally, yes, I do. Because I think in this particular case the political pressure is on the right side of the issue. 

Ugh. I don't feel like I'm communicating well here. Basically, I believe in objective truth, I guess, and I don't really care about experts. I don't have and never have had any prophets.

Experts are useful when they know more than me -- and that's quite often, because there are many, many fields I haven't studied. This decision is NOT being made along axes on which the FDA actually knows more than me on. In fact, as far as I can tell, with both this and the kid vaccines, they are being willfully obtuse. 

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

So people shouldn't get 3rd shots if they can? I thought that's what a lot of people here were saying or doing regardless.

I believe that boosters are warranted and intend to get one. If the recommendation is broad enough, or I can find a doctor who is flexible enough, I will also try to get boosters for my kids. Other people are free to make their own choices based on their own assessment of risks and benefits as well as their ability to access a provider who can accommodate their wishes.

It seems like you believe there must be a single black/white, right/wrong answer to this question, and you want someone to tell you what to do — or at least tell you which authority you should trust or whose advice you should take. But that's something you're just going to have to work out for yourself.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

It seems like you believe there must be a single black/white, right/wrong answer to this question, and you want someone to tell you what to do — or at least tell you which authority you should trust or whose advice you should take

Right, whereas it all really depends. I'm definitely affected by my feeling that I don't want to infect the kids, for example, plus my strong sense that there's going to be a bad Delta wave around here soon, and I'd rather not be 7 months out from my vaccine when it comes.  

Edited September 20, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[BronzeTurtle]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not chiding people for not listening to the FDA. I'm chiding people for not paying attention to actual data. 

 

Sure, but there's such a thing as reality. Just because everyone thinks they are right doesn't mean they are. 

Of course! I'm sure that people here are correct and the others aren't. But there is an overarching principle I think at play about individual choice in the face of government regulation/mandates/recommendations. If we trust them when they say X and not when they say Y then we get down to being able to pick and choose as individuals which recommendations we will follow and which we won't.

Do you think there is any possibility that the committee that voted could have been correct in their evaluations of the data?

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Do you think there is any possibility that the committee that voted could have been correct in their evaluations of the data?

What evaluation specifically? I don't think anyone disagrees that boosters would decrease people's chances of severe outcomes, and that includes the committee. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Personally, yes, I do. Because I think in this particular case the political pressure is on the right side of the issue. 

Ugh. I don't feel like I'm communicating well here. Basically, I believe in objective truth, I guess, and I don't really care about experts. I don't have and never have had any prophets.

Experts are useful when they know more than me -- and that's quite often, because there are many, many fields I haven't studied. This decision is NOT being made along axes on which the FDA actually knows more than me on. In fact, as far as I can tell, with both this and the kid vaccines, they are being willfully obtuse. 

There is no "objective truth" when it comes to a policy decision.

The job of the advisory committee is not to ascertain whether immunity wanes and third shots are effective - it is supposed to make recommendations about public health policy where different factors are weighed against one another.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, regentrude said:

There is no "objective truth" when it comes to a policy decision.

The job of the advisory committee is not to ascertain whether immunity wanes and third shots are effective - it is supposed to make recommendations about public health policy where different factors are weighed against one another.

Sure. That's fine. My point is that disagreeing with the FDA here is different from taking ivermectin. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, it's always "trust but verify," right?? One can have a really healthy respect for experts (I do!) and still feel like one is competent to evaluate things within one's area of expertise. 

OK but it sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you've read so far about a study out of Israel.  Maybe the Israel study is right, but I don't like the idea of basing the whole US health policy on one study out of Israel ... besides which I was not involved in the study and did not see the actual data let alone evaluate it / replicate it.

The FDA has made some blunders, but it has also saved our ass at times.

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

That said, most likely it is a matter of time before they approve some sort of booster.  I would actually rather they develop one that is more specific to the variants of current/future concern.

[Corraleno]

5 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But isn't the committee the fda experts on vaccines? Why wouldn't the multiple votes of these people on this committee carry more weight than just one guy? I am really misunderstanding what's going on I feel like. Do people want political pressure on the fda or cdc to approve the boosters?

There IS political pressure on the FDA — to NOT approve boosters. There is political pressure from the WHO, which has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. There is the perception of pressure from antivaxxers, in the sense that some committee members fear that approving a 3rd dose will further discourage anti-vaxxers. That also has nothing to do with the efficacy of boosters. 

There is a reason the committee is called an ADVISORY committee — they provide advice, they do not approve vaccines. The FDA staff then take that advice into account when deciding whether to approve something, but they are free to take other factors into account as well.

[Not_a_Number]

Look, until recently, they weren't even suggesting boosters for the elderly. My in-laws went to their doctor and asked to have Pfizer prescribed, and because they were following CDC guidelines, the doctor refused. 

And now my in-laws have had to spend time in the hospital due to an emergency, and I'm frankly terrified. They are not in a high COVID state right now, but they are in their 70s, and they got their vaccines more than 6 months ago. There's no way it's safe for them to catch COVID right now 😕 . 

So... I'm feeling pretty darn impatient with the whole thing. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[regentrude]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Sure. That's fine. My point is that disagreeing with the FDA here is different from taking ivermectin. 

the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The advisory committee is not making a statement about the safety of a medication or approving a substance. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, regentrude said:

the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The advisory committee is not making a statement about the safety of a medication or approving a substance. 

I'm not the one making the comparison. 

[Corraleno]

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK but it sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you've read so far about a study out of Israel.  Maybe the Israel study is right, but I don't like the idea of basing the whole US health policy on one study out of Israel ... besides which I was not involved in the study and did not see the actual data let alone evaluate it / replicate it.

No it's not based solely on one study out of Israel. Data from both Pfizer and Moderna show that antibodies wane considerably over time. Moderna is not even used in Israel.

 

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

Pfizer has a full biologics license, which means it is perfectly legal for doctors to use it off label if, in their professional judgement, it would be beneficial. The data show that it is safe and beneficial. Nothing illegal or unethical about it. Wanting to reduce one's own chance of catching and transmitting a deadly disease, and possibly contributing to overwhelmed hospitals, IS about "caring for the community."

Also, at least half the adult population of the US has health issues that put them at additional risk, plus many have relatives who are high risk, and then there are people like teachers and healthcare workers who have additional risks because of their level of exposure. Why would you assume that the only people who want boosters are selfish low-risk people?

 

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

That said, most likely it is a matter of time before they approve some sort of booster.  I would actually rather they develop one that is more specific to the variants of current/future concern.

Pfizer tested boosters that were specifically targeted against Alpha and Delta, and found that the original vaccine worked just as well once the antibody levels were raised sufficiently. They also felt that it provided the broadest protection against the development of future variants since all variants evolved from the original wild strain that the vaccine is based on.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Corraleno

[kbutton]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I feel like low-risk people just wanting their immunity to be "that much more perfect" are being a bit self-centered.  Breaking rules to get a vax one isn't supposed to get seems a bit unethical.  At some point the whole "I care more about the community" loses credibility.

People can make ethical arguments in both directions for policy, but when studies show that a booster is better, then that would suggest a standard to adhere to.

If we had known from the beginning that three shots would be definitely better than two and three shots had been tested from the very beginning, it's unlikely we'd even be suggesting it's ethically wrong to want all three. 

The current decision is about the policy around which less than ideal way to proceed since no one was omniscient enough to start out with three shots. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kbutton said:

People can make ethical arguments in both directions for policy, but when studies show that a booster is better, then that would suggest a standard to adhere to.

If we had known from the beginning that three shots would be definitely better than two and three shots had been tested from the very beginning, it's unlikely we'd even be suggesting it's ethically wrong to want all three. 

The current decision is about the policy around which less than ideal way to proceed since no one was omniscient enough to start out with three shots. 

I'd honestly guess these are going to have to be like the flu shot -- we'll have to keep getting them 😕 . I am hoping they manage to reduce side effects in the meantime. 

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The people on the committee each filter the data through their own personal biases and opinions. Some have explicitly stated that they are not in favor of boosters for everyone in the US when other countries have not had first shots yet. Others have said that the focus should be on vaccinating the unvaccinated instead of doing boosters. 

 

Right. None of them have said that there is danger in getting a booster, nor have they said that a booster won't improve immunity. So those of us wanting a booster, and the FDA are in total agreement that it is safe and will improve immunity.