Jump to content

Menu

To vaccine or not to vaccine


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 604
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For what it's worth, my husband studies toxic torts -- so, essentially, products that turned out to be dangerous -- and he maintains that the things to *really* worry about are (1) things that you con

re scale of vaccinations vs Covid confirmed cases Responding just to this one part of your post-  As of yesterday, there have been 137 million vaccine doses into US arms:https://www.bloomb

For me it’s pretty simple.  Covid is known to cause death, and the mechanisms by which it does are known.  If someone has Covid and dies in the way that Covid is known to kill then Covid is a likely c

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Like, If I don't understand Russian and need a translator, I'm going to go with one from a trusted company with standards for who they hire, vs just some person that says "trust me, I know Russian", you know?

Trust me. I know Russian 😉 . 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kand said:

Back on the issue raised in one of the first posts, and brought up a couple times since, I just saw an article confirming mulitple studies have verified the presence of Covid antibodies in breastmilk in sufficient quantities they are expected to confer some level of protection for the baby (and none of the vaccine itself, which does not pass into breastmilk--the mRNA is too fragile and doesn't last long enough for that):

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health/covid-vaccine-breast-milk.html?campaign_id=154&emc=edit_cb_20210408&instance_id=29011&nl=coronavirus-briefing&regi_id=115228995&segment_id=55222&te=1&user_id=1a4509383bb63d42f1b7bbd21f59db8b

That’s great. Have you seen anything about antibodies for vaccine vs natural infection? Just curious if it looks similar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Masers said:

That’s great. Have you seen anything about antibodies for vaccine vs natural infection? Just curious if it looks similar. 

hmm..good question. We know covid during pregnancy is dangerous, but I'm not sure if covid infection before getting pregnant provides significant antibodies to covid in breastmilk. My understanding is that the antibodies in breastmilk are to things recently exposed to, not everything you've ever been exposed to. So, not sure?

Certainly something to find out. 

Edited by ktgrok
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Masers said:

t probably won’t surprise you to know that I am against vaccine mandates, so I don’t like the idea of requiring them of staff or visitors. I am definitely in favor of educating staff on them! But ultimately, I think it should be up to the individual and not a condition of them being able to keep their job and feed their family.

This wouldn't be a mandate, though -- this would be a business protecting themselves against liability. And I'm going to be surprised if people aren't going to start requiring it soon enough -- all you need is a few outbreaks where a nursing home gets in trouble, and people will start doing it. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Masers said:

I haven’t seen too much about Covid during pregnancy. Would be interested in that, if you’ve come across anything. 
I had (presumed) Covid about one week before I got pregnant. Ha. 
yes, I would find it really interesting to see comparative data on breastfeeding! 

This was the first article I found, but general findings are the pregnancy is a risk factor for severe covid disease, with pregnant women needing hospitalization and ICU care more than non pregnant women. There also seems to be a higher rate of preterm birth. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-what-pregnant-women-need-to-know

Edited by ktgrok
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

This wouldn't be a mandate, though -- this would be a business protecting themselves against liability. And I'm going to be surprised if people aren't going to start requiring it soon enough -- all you need is a few outbreaks where a nursing home gets in trouble, and people will start doing it. 

Well, but that is a mandate. You’re telling someone they can’t keep their job unless they get a vaccine. You’re making it a mandatory condition for them to be able to work. 
I would rather see them requiring negative Covid tests, or continued masking, or whatever for those who choose not to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

This was the first article I found, but general findings are the pregnancy is a risk factor for severe covid disease, with pregnant women needing hospitalization and ICU care more than non pregnant women. There also seems to be a higher rate of preterm birth. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-what-pregnant-women-need-to-know

 

 

thanks! Just looked it over. What do you think this is all about? “Fifty-five percent of the hospitalized patients had no COVID-19 symptoms (asymptomatic).”

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Masers said:

Well, but that is a mandate. You’re telling someone they can’t keep their job unless they get a vaccine. You’re making it a mandatory condition for them to be able to work. 
I would rather see them requiring negative Covid tests, or continued masking, or whatever for those who choose not to get it.

I guess I think of "mandates" as something imposed by government. Businesses are generally rather free with requirements about what people need to do to work there! I assume we wouldn't want the government to prevent them from setting a rule like this? 

Given the rate of false negatives, it will almost certainly infect more people to require negative tests and no vaccines. Plus, people can't test every day... basically, I think the free market may very well favor the nursing homes with the vaccine rule, since they'd be less likely to kill off their residents 😉 . So then I expect vaccine rules. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masers said:

Hmm no it would definitely be considered a mandate, regardless of whether it is a government mandate or an employment mandate. DH is a lawyer and has looked into this for the large company he works for. He says they’d have to offer some kind of alternative, like I mentioned. I just looked into it a bit and saw a legal website that says this:

A mandate is subject to federal laws including the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as collective bargaining for union workforces.

“You have to be careful of a whole host of things, and you have to be extremely careful if you plan to terminate someone who doesn’t get a vaccine,” Harrison told me. “It becomes a risky proposition to just turn around and terminate someone as a result. You can’t do it. There’s a series of standards that you have to comply with.”

That means making a “reasonable” accommodation for employees who cannot be vaccinated because of a medical condition or disability, or who don’t want to be vaccinated because of a religious belief. Employees may be entitled to work remotely, for example.

 

Hmmmm, interesting. I'm clearly not up on my law here. I didn't realize this would run afoul of actual laws. 

I really wonder how this is going to play out, because from the perspective of a nursing home, a vaccine is better than other stuff. I suppose they may just insist on certain very strict procedures if you aren't vaccinated -- masked at all times, for example, or something like that. So that would perhaps create serious incentive for vaccines. 

I'm currently thinking about this from the perspective of the business and not of the employees, by the way. I understand that this would be unpleasant if you had a medical reason you weren't vaccinating. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Masers said:

That’s why when hospitals “mandate” the flu vaccine for doctors and nurses, they have to offer an alternative. (Typically it’s to wear a mask.)

Yeah, that's what this discussion reminded me of! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

Hmmmm, interesting. I'm clearly not up on my law here. I didn't realize this would run afoul of actual laws. 

I really wonder how this is going to play out, because from the perspective of a nursing home, a vaccine is better than other stuff. I suppose they may just insist on certain very strict procedures if you aren't vaccinated -- masked at all times, for example, or something like that. So that would perhaps create serious incentive for vaccines. 

I'm currently thinking about this from the perspective of the business and not of the employees, by the way. I understand that this would be unpleasant if you had a medical reason you weren't vaccinating. 

I think a lot of places are offering incentives to their employees—bonuses, time off, etc. And others are being a bit more punitive—like having to follow different/stricter rules. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masers said:

I think a lot of places are offering incentives to their employees—bonuses, time off, etc. And others are being a bit more punitive—like having to follow different/stricter rules. 

Makes sense. I wonder what works better? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Thanks for sharing your source.   This is a pretty recent study I haven’t read in detail yet.

This is probably worth noting in relation to this study 

“Inclusion criteria

People were eligible for study inclusion if they were older than 30 years and had a single positive test result for covid-19 from 1 October 2020 to 29 January 2021. We restricted our sampling to test results that reported a PCR cycle threshold value. Antigen swab tests in the UK are carried out through two routes: pillar 1 represents National Health Service testing of healthcare workers and those with a clinical need, and pillar 2 represents community testing of people with symptoms. Community based covid-19 diagnoses are generally in a younger population with less severe disease than hospital based covid-19 diagnoses, as elderly people or those with severe disease tend to present directly to hospital (see supplementary file for details). “

 

And more from the study

“As this was a community based study, we do not have information on the S gene status of patients in hospitals. The community based testing (pillar 2) in this dataset covered a younger age group and hence represented less severe disease than patients detected through hospital based testing (pillar 1). Death remains a comparatively rare outcome in patients detected in the community compared with identified in-hospital deaths. Our study only includes about 8% of the total deaths that occurred during the study period. Of all coronavirus deaths, about 26% occurred in those who were identified in the community, and data on S gene status was only available for 30%.23Whether the increase in mortality from community based testing is also observed in elderly patients or in patients admitted to hospital remains to be seen.”

 

This is a pretty good looking study I think from my amateur perspective but the aim of the study was not to calculate an accurate IFR for the population as a whole but to compare IFRs between different variants.  Because of this they didn’t have to make sure they had an accurate representation of the population as a whole they just had to make sure that they had an accurate comparison by accurately matching those with the different variants.

 

sorry I’ve edited/added a bit so hopefully you see the most recent version of this post.

Oh, I know what setting it was. I did read it. 🙂 Right, the study was never meant to determine IFR. I don’t know whether it represents the recent UK IFR or not. But 0.3-0.4 is going to be skewed much higher as a result of not including anyone under 30, either. 
 

The reason I linked that one was because I still had it up in a window; there are lots of estimates (or should they be called guesstimates). I have heard from the many things that I listen to, anything from perhaps 0.2-0.3% worldwide when all is said and done, up to 0.5-6, though I haven’t heard higher numbers in a while. Thanks for sharing the Imperial study you found. 
 

Here is another one, useful if only to see what studies were included. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892/en/
And this, same author, linked because I think this is the one discussing some controversies about serology and IFR. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/
 

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Sorry skimming back through the thread!  I had to do some sleeping because I got way too absorbed here and it was really late.  I hope you don’t think I’m jumping on you - I was just interested by your stats as I hadn’t seen any recent IFR studies.  I don’t mean to be argumentative on purpose - I’m just interested.

Not at all. 🙂

5 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Yep.  The posts where everyone talks about really investigating sources and what is true and what is not like anyone can do that. Maybe, but no one in my sphere does it. Number's posts make my head spin. I do not understand statistics. My oldest son liked a book called How to Lie with Statistics. It feels like you can manipulate them anyway you want and I do not have the math and science skills to figure it out.  I do not understand most of those posts on this thread. If they have numbers, I just shut down and close my eyes.  I bet there are many people like me.

 

4 hours ago, MercyA said:

For clarity: neither Moderna or Pfizer used fetal cell lines in the development or production of their vaccines. They did use them in some of their testing.

J&J used them in development, production, and testing.

Source: https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

I am as pro-life as they come and I look at it this way: if a person died during the commission of a crime, I would not object to their organs being used to save someone else (and I doubt many other pro-lifers would, either). The human beings from whom the initial stem cells were obtained were unjustly killed 40 to 50 years ago. That, in my view, was a moral crime. There is nothing that can be done about that now. They can, however, be used to save others. 

I think of development as including testing which is why I phrased that way, answering someone’s question that no one else had answered yet. I have seen arguments that mRNA is better if one has these objections, and I understand the basic argument, but I don’t see any fundamental difference. If someone has a moral objection to the use of the cell lines, then both seem equally problematic. They may want to wait for Novavax. 

3 hours ago, kand said:

I think this is true for a lot of people and think schools (and homeschools!) would do well to make sure this stuff is included in their curriculum. It's important for people to be able to evaluate sources, and I think having a basic understanding of research design and statistics is useful for everyone as well. Not everyone needs to know how to run an ANOVA or chi-square, but understanding enough to be able to understand the results section of a study is a useful thing, and even better if one can also look at the study design and notice potential confounding factors or other things that might call the results into question. But since people would also be taught to evaluate sources, they would also be primarily listening to what reliable experts in the field are saying to help them understand what's what.

Good point. I think everyone should graduate high school with some basics.

However, there’s also the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is so much more to evaluating whether something is a good study, and statistical methods can be so complex sometimes that even the peer reviewers can miss the flaws. And then sometimes you really need to have a ton of domain expertise to know whether something was done well or not done well, and whether various tricks were played to bias certain outcomes, that kind of thing. We can link studies here all day and read them and pick them apart and look for flaws in each other’s posts, but that doesn’t mean much without these other skills. Sometimes it goes more like, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. 

And there are thousands of Covid papers published or preprinted every week, and scientists discussing their data with each other before any publication. It is difficult for people who do this for a living to keep up. They say it’s unprecedented.

Thats why the bolded is so important.

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

There is so much more to evaluating whether something is a good study, and statistical methods can be so complex sometimes that even the peer reviewers can miss the flaws.

Honestly, I have general skepticism towards "sophisticated statistical methods" in things like COVID studies. 

Here's my feeling about the matter: 

https://xkcd.com/2400/

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I think of development as including testing which is why I phrased that way, answering someone’s question that no one else had answered yet. I have seen arguments that mRNA is better if one has these objections, and I understand the basic argument, but I don’t see any fundamental difference. If someone has a moral objection to the use of the cell lines, then both seem equally problematic. They may want to wait for Novavax.

Novavax used the cell lines for testing, just like Pfizer and Moderna. There really aren't any covid vaccines available that didn't at least use them for testing. The virus is actually grown in fetal cell lines for the J&J and AZ covid vaccines — as well as the MMR, chickenpox, and Hep A vaccines. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masers said:

Well, but that is a mandate. You’re telling someone they can’t keep their job unless they get a vaccine. You’re making it a mandatory condition for them to be able to work. 
I would rather see them requiring negative Covid tests, or continued masking, or whatever for those who choose not to get it.

Well, yeah but employers mandate all sorts of things as conditions of employment, from dress codes to working hours. Masks would be a mandate as well. 

1 hour ago, Masers said:

 

 

thanks! Just looked it over. What do you think this is all about? “Fifty-five percent of the hospitalized patients had no COVID-19 symptoms (asymptomatic).”

I think that lots of people have no symptoms of covid? That's true for pregnant women as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Novavax used the cell lines for testing, just like Pfizer and Moderna. 

Thanks, I didn’t realize that. 
I know some avoid all the vaccines that have anything to do with fetal cells. 

Edited by Penelope
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Well, yeah but employers mandate all sorts of things as conditions of employment, from dress codes to working hours. Masks would be a mandate as well. 

I think that lots of people have no symptoms of covid? That's true for pregnant women as well. 

No, I mean I wonder why they would be hospitalized if they were asymptomatic? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Masers said:

No, I mean I wonder why they would be hospitalized if they were asymptomatic? 

That particular number comes from tracking all patients at a hospital - remember they were at one point (still are?) testing all patients admitted for any reason, to try o segregate positive people away from negative ones. So if you were admitted for a broken arm, or premature labor, or whatever, you got tested. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

That particular number comes from tracking all patients at a hospital - remember they were at one point (still are?) testing all patients admitted for any reason, to try o segregate positive people away from negative ones. So if you were admitted for a broken arm, or premature labor, or whatever, you got tested. 

 

Ah that makes sense. That just stuck out to me as strange—because it was stated right after they said that pregnant women were hospitalized at higher numbers than the general population. Actually I still find that a little misleading if they were there for other reasons—then they really weren’t hospitalized FOR covid. Or am I understanding this wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Novavax used the cell lines for testing, just like Pfizer and Moderna. There really aren't any covid vaccines available that didn't at least use them for testing. The virus is actually grown in fetal cell lines for the J&J and AZ covid vaccines — as well as the MMR, chickenpox, and Hep A vaccines. 

 

6 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Thanks, I didn’t realize that. 
I know some avoid all the vaccines that have anything to do with fetal cells. 

Can I ask for a source for this info on Novavax in case this comes up again with someone I know, if you remember where you learned it? I still see sites concerned with this issues that say Novavax doesn’t use these cells. 
No need for a link, just point me to a name, account, website, I’ll look. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Oh, I know what setting it was. I did read it. 🙂 Right, the study was never meant to determine IFR. I don’t know whether it represents the recent UK IFR or not. But 0.3-0.4 is going to be skewed much higher as a result of not including anyone under 30, either. 
 

The reason I linked that one was because I still had it up in a window; there are lots of estimates (or should they be called guesstimates). I have heard from the many things that I listen to, anything from perhaps 0.2-0.3% worldwide when all is said and done, up to 0.5-6, though I haven’t heard higher numbers in a while. Thanks for sharing the Imperial study you found. 
 

Here is another one, useful if only to see what studies were included. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892/en/
And this, same author, linked because I think this is the one discussing some controversies about serology and IFR. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/
 

Not at all. 🙂

 

I think of development as including testing which is why I phrased that way, answering someone’s question that no one else had answered yet. I have seen arguments that mRNA is better if one has these objections, and I understand the basic argument, but I don’t see any fundamental difference. If someone has a moral objection to the use of the cell lines, then both seem equally problematic. They may want to wait for Novavax. 

Good point. I think everyone should graduate high school with some basics.

However, there’s also the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is so much more to evaluating whether something is a good study, and statistical methods can be so complex sometimes that even the peer reviewers can miss the flaws. And then sometimes you really need to have a ton of domain expertise to know whether something was done well or not done well, and whether various tricks were played to bias certain outcomes, that kind of thing. We can link studies here all day and read them and pick them apart and look for flaws in each other’s posts, but that doesn’t mean much without these other skills. Sometimes it goes more like, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. 

And there are thousands of Covid papers published or preprinted every week, and scientists discussing their data with each other before any publication. It is difficult for people who do this for a living to keep up. They say it’s unprecedented.

Thats why the bolded is so important.

For myself however I am interested in the case/infection fatality rates in a country with a similar demographic to mine - not to a country where less people are dying because those at risk have already died due to lack of healthcare.  I hope that doesn’t sound blunt but that’s basically what we’re talking about when we say lower income countries are having lower fatality rates.  It doesn’t help me make a decision about vaccination if I know that say Africa only has 2 in 1000 people dying of in fact in my country it’s going to be 1 in 100.

I have not looked at the latest Ionnaddis study but there were significant issues and vested interests involved in his previous ones.  I’ll read it when I have time but I’ve spent too long here already and I’m now reminding myself why I try to avoid these threads.

 

Just to add quickly the IFR the study suggests is 0.15pc.  The percentage of the whole population of the US that have died is a little over 0.14pc.  For that to be accurate for the US it would have to imply that pretty much the entire population has already been infected now.  

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Masers said:

Ah that makes sense. That just stuck out to me as strange—because it was stated right after they said that pregnant women were hospitalized at higher numbers than the general population. Actually I still find that a little misleading if they were there for other reasons—then they really weren’t hospitalized FOR covid. Or am I understanding this wrong?

Right, that number about showing symptoms was not about women hospitalized for covid. Just pregnant women that happened to be hospitalized. And admittedly, we need way more research on this. But they also found:odds of pregnant women with a COVID-19 diagnosis being admitted to the intensive-care unit (ICU) were 62% higher than for non-pregnant women of reproductive age, and the odds of needing invasive ventilation were 88% higher. A study5 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) echoed these findings. The study included more than 400,000 women with a positive test and symptoms of COVID-19, of whom 23,434 were pregnant, and found similar increases in the odds of ICU admission and invasive ventilation in pregnant women (see ‘COVID risks in pregnancy’).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00578-y

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have not looked at the latest Ionnaddis study but there were significant issues and vested interests involved in his previous ones.  I’ll read it when I have time but I’ve spent too long here already and I’m now reminding myself why I try to avoid these threads.

I'd avoid his studies. He has a serious axe to grind. I've been really displeased with his stuff the whole pandemic -- it seems contrarian for the purpose of being contrarian. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

For myself however I am interested in the case/infection fatality rates in a country with a similar demographic to mine - not to a country where less people are dying because those at risk have already died due to lack of healthcare.  I hope that doesn’t sound blunt but that’s basically what we’re talking about when we say lower income countries are having lower fatality rates.  It doesn’t help me make a decision about vaccination if I know that say Africa only has 2 in 1000 people dying of in fact in my country it’s going to be 1 in 100.

I have not looked at the latest Ionnaddis study but there were significant issues and vested interests involved in his previous ones.  I’ll read it when I have time but I’ve spent too long here already and I’m now reminding myself why I try to avoid these threads.

 

Just to add quickly the IFR the study suggests is 0.15pc.  The percentage of the whole population of the US that have died is a little over 0.14pc.  For that to be accurate for the US it would have to imply that pretty much the entire population has already been infected now.  

I hear you. 
Yes Ioannidis has become controversial during Covid times and I’m not suggesting this is the “right” number. That’s just one where I knew there were lots of countries included and I could find quickly.
 

For personal vaccination decisions (and not saying that this is what the decision should solely be based on, but since you mentioned that and it’s still sort of the thread topic), it would be more useful to have some age-stratified IFRs, although those still might not account for personal risk factors or the lack of them. 
An example in the US that excluded anyone in an institution (nursing home), but this was all before the end of April, and we think IFRs have declined since. <40 0.01%, 40-59, 0.1%, >60, 1.7%. 

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Yes Ioannidis has become controversial during Covid times and I’m not suggesting this is the “right” number. That’s just one where I knew there were lots of countries included and I could find quickly.

No, he's always been controversial, lol. But I liked some of his earlier stuff, whereas right now I feel like he's contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, which frankly makes me worried that's all he's ever been. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Penelope said:

 

Can I ask for a source for this info on Novavax in case this comes up again with someone I know, if you remember where you learned it? I still see sites concerned with this issues that say Novavax doesn’t use these cells. 
No need for a link, just point me to a name, account, website, I’ll look. 

 

There is an extensive chart here from a pro-life group that lists pretty much any vaccine in development anywhere in the world, and it includes whether fetal cells were used, how they were used (testing, viral production, etc), and which cell line was used. They list Novavax as using the same cell line as Pfizer & Moderna (HEK293) for "confirmatory lab tests"

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Penelope said:

For personal vaccination decisions (and not saying that this is what the decision should solely be based on, but since you mentioned that and it’s still sort of the thread topic), it would be more useful to have some age-stratified IFRs, although those still might not account for personal risk factors or the lack of them. 
An example in the US that excluded anyone in an institution (nursing home), but this was all before the end of April, and we think IFRs have declined since. <40 0.01%, 40-59, 0.1%, >60, 1.7%. 

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352

But is anyone under the age 40 honestly getting vaccinated to avoid death? I don't really understand this discussion. I feel like practically everyone I know who's younger is trying to avoid other outcomes, including sequelae and getting someone else sick. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

No, he's always been controversial, lol. But I liked some of his earlier stuff, whereas right now I feel like he's contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, which frankly makes me worried that's all he's ever been. 

I don’t like how his low number is being used by the “it’s just the flu” people. 😐 
I don’t really know what to make of him.

Quote

 

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But is anyone under the age 40 honestly getting vaccinated to avoid death? I don't really understand this discussion. I feel like practically everyone I know who's younger is trying to avoid other outcomes, including sequelae and getting someone else sick. 

I don’t know if it’s very many, but I think, yes. And not everyone who is young is healthy. 
 

I think breaking it down by age is useful on the higher end, too, though I think most older people understood the stark difference early on and do not tend to have as much hesitance, anyway. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I don’t like how his low number is being used by the “it’s just the flu” people. 😐 
I don’t really know what to make of him.

He seems to have been committed to low numbers since the beginning of the pandemic, so honestly, I don't trust his data selection 😞 . He's had some other studies where I actually dug into what he did and I wasn't impressed. So I'm steering clear. 

My current hypotehesis is that he's a professional contrarian. 

 

Quote

I don’t know if it’s very many, but I think, yes. And not everyone who is young is healthy.

That's fair. If one has health conditions that spike one's risk, then that's very different. 

Personally, I figure my chance of long COVID is way higher than my chance of death or hospitalization. It's hard to get good stats on that, but that's my sense from everything I've read, as well as my board data. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Masers said:

 

That means making a “reasonable” accommodation for employees who cannot be vaccinated because of a medical condition or disability, or who don’t want to be vaccinated because of a religious belief. Employees may be entitled to work remotely, for example.

Weird that it's understood that employees have to be given reasonable accommodations if they don't want to be vaccinated but not if they don't want to....get covid. Although it remains to be seen whether there will be a ton of lawsuits about that in the future, I guess. I read about one where a family whose father had died of covid was suing Publix because they wouldn't ALLOW him to wear a mask at work (back in spring 2020). And there are plenty of school systems that dismissed everyone or almost everyone's requests to work remotely while refusing to follow any CDC guidelines about masking, distancing, etc.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

My current hypotehesis is that he's a professional contrarian. 

 

That's fair. If one has health conditions that spike one's risk, then that's very different. 

Personally, I figure my chance of long COVID is way higher than my chance of death or hospitalization. It's hard to get good stats on that, but that's my sense from everything I've read, as well as my board data. 

To the bolded - well, that's the career my oldest should have!

For reason to vaccinate, I know for my 21 yr old son it is to avoid illness that might last for weeks, long Covid, hospitalization, potential heart damage given his father died of cardiomyopathy and his aunt needed a heart transplant, missing work because of being sick, and to avoid spreading it to other people like his elderly grandma, his brother with autoimmune diseases, and the population at large. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

To the bolded - well, that's the career my oldest should have!

For reason to vaccinate, I know for my 21 yr old son it is to avoid illness that might last for weeks, long Covid, hospitalization, potential heart damage given his father died of cardiomyopathy and his aunt needed a heart transplant, missing work because of being sick, and to avoid spreading it to other people like his elderly grandma, his brother with autoimmune diseases, and the population at large. 

Last I checked, it looked like the heart damage thing wasn't being borne out -- COVID wasn't been worse than other viruses. Is that right, or has there been alarming stuff? I haven't kept good track, I just Googled at some point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Last I checked, it looked like the heart damage thing wasn't being borne out -- COVID wasn't been worse than other viruses. Is that right, or has there been alarming stuff? I haven't kept good track, I just Googled at some point. 

I don’t know what the recent evidence is looking like but the American academy of paediatrics had recommendations that kids have a physical exam before resuming physical activity if they’ve had Covid.  If it was symptomatic Covid the recommendation was to have an ECG.  Of course that’s likely to be extreme caution but presumably there’s some level of concern still.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Last I checked, it looked like the heart damage thing wasn't being borne out -- COVID wasn't been worse than other viruses. Is that right, or has there been alarming stuff? I haven't kept good track, I just Googled at some point. 

 I think at this point it is still unknown how long cardiac inflammation or problems will last. My son's father was told his cardiomyopathy (that later killed him) was likely triggered by a virus. So we are a bit more concerned than others about that I'm sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Masers said:

That’s exactly why I’m on here arguing for the other side. I feel really upset and angry on behalf of people who have simply made a different choice and are truly condemned and attacked for that choice. I am not trying to “spread misinformation” or use faulty arguments or whatever, just showing that lots of people are thinking about things or looking at things in a different way. I mean, I don’t really care of the article cited a veterinarian and a psychiatrist. They’re both entitled to share their opinion, and other people are allowed to agree with their opinion. There ARE epidemiologists, medical doctors, biostatisticians, infectious disease specialists, etc, who have a different opinion, but apparently no matter who they are, if they dare to voice a dissenting viewpoint, they’re wrong, crazy, or suspect. I mean, shoot, Geert Von Bosschen is insanely qualified to share his opinion, but he is brushed off as a loon. It’s not fair and it’s not okay. 
My sister is a highly educated, extremely kind and gentle person. She is a better person than I am every day of the week. She doesn’t stand up for herself when our other family members or her friends (!)  belittle, attack, or dismiss her concerns, but it is killing her. Personally, I DO think her reasoning about not feeling comfortable with the lack of breastfeeding and fertility data is perfectly acceptable, as do so feel her concern about her own personal history of severe allergies. I honestly fear that she will give in out of pressure (because she is such a passive person) and I don’t think it’s okay ever to coerce someone into a medical treatment. I have had multiple times in my life where I went along with something solely because I felt pressured, coerced, or backed against a wall, and I ended up feeling really really angry at myself for giving in, as well as really really angry at the person/people who were coercive. 
My bottom line here, and I’m done arguing because I don’t think this is a positive or helpful exchange, is that people should be free to make their own decisions. I think if you make the vaccine widely and easily available to everyone who wants it, then that’s great. Great! I’m a big believer in informed consent, so make sure everyone has good, correct, and up to date information before they make the decision. Frankly, there ISN’T a ton of information at this point, and so I think it’s completely within reason to say, “you know what, I want to get the vaccine, but I’d rather wait six months/a year/until it is officially approved. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I need to do to keep myself and others safe.”

All I initially did was provide the reasons why I have heard people decide to pass on the vaccine. I didn’t say that they were my reasons, nor did I need to be talked into getting the vaccine. But because people were argumentative against those stated reasons, I feel like I have to play devil’s advocate and defend those reasons, because it all comes down to my stubborn and whole-hearted belief in personal and medical freedoms. I think there are a million good reasons to get the vaccine, and a million good reasons not to. It is unhealthy and so arrogant to push people to think like us, agree with us, and do things against their will. We are an extremely unique species where everyone is going to have different beliefs based on their own unique circumstances. 
i just don’t want to be on the side of history that was so dogged in my beliefs that I attacked those that disagreed. I’m not saying anyone on here is doing that or does that “irl” (although, really, social interactions on the computer ARE “irl”, and do affect people), but I definitely see a lot of it going on. Especially if it turns out that I’m WRONG! There have been other vaccines that ended up being mistakes. They eventually switched out the DTP for the safer Dtap. They switched out oral polio for inactivated polio. The swine flu vaccine ended up causing an unacceptable number of Guillain barre cases. (And my husband had Guillain barre, and he is also in the “watch and wait” camp for this vaccine, and boy does it rub me the wrong way when people give him pushback for that. Unless you’ve spent months in a hospital completely paralyzed, including not being able to close your eyes and lips, you really can’t tell someone to take that risk, no matter how small or unknown it is at this time.) 

Anyway, that’s me on my soapbox. Just feeling angry about all the judgement and “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitudes I see all around me. For a time in our society when we are screaming about tolerance and acceptance, I see less of it now than I ever have before. 

I really, really hope you are able to encourage your sister as she does her level best to make a good decision. She deserves to be treated kindly and not "persuaded at" by everyone who has an opinion.  It's called r-e-s-p-e-c-t.  Have you taught her the "pass the beandip" strategy yet?  PM me if you need an explanation.  😉   Best wishes!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The vaccine immunity lasts MUCH longer than the virus. So far the vaccines seem to last at least a year. But the virus not only has immunity last only an average of 60-90 days, the news yesterday was that you can get re-infected with the B1.1.7 or whatever it is variant immediately. Less than two weeks.  But the vaccine gives some protection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Masers said:

I’m saying that people who look at both sides and decide NOT to get the vaccine are overwhelmingly seen as “wrong.”

what I think should be happening is that we should respect other people’s decisions and not assume that they are stupid, misinformed, and wrong if they choose to believe a different “side” than us.

There’s a tyranny of majority that happens here and I’m always amused to see it on a homeschooling message board. Or, on the political left, say (where i firmly belong). There’s this we are either evangelists for the vaccine or anti-science. No nuance at all. I didn’t want to take the vaccine, i took it and against my better judgement let my minor child get it as well but I don’t dare express any vaccine hesitation in person as someone will jump on me with their amazing newly acquired internet science knowledge. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Last I checked, it looked like the heart damage thing wasn't being borne out -- COVID wasn't been worse than other viruses. Is that right, or has there been alarming stuff? I haven't kept good track, I just Googled at some point. 

 

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t know what the recent evidence is looking like but the American academy of paediatrics had recommendations that kids have a physical exam before resuming physical activity if they’ve had Covid.  If it was symptomatic Covid the recommendation was to have an ECG.  Of course that’s likely to be extreme caution but presumably there’s some level of concern still.

I think this is the most recent update by the AAP:

Quote

All youths who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 should not exercise until a physician clears them, according to the guidance. It discusses considerations for evaluating youths with COVID-19 for resumption of physical activity or sports based on whether disease severity was asymptomatic/mild (illness was less than one week), moderate (illness was more than one week) or illness was severe/multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

  • Children with asymptomatic/mild illness: After their isolation time is completed, the primary care physician should review the 14-point preparticipation screening evaluation with emphasis on cardiac symptoms and perform a complete physical examination.
  • Children with moderate illness: After symptom resolution (at least 10 days past the positive result), the primary care physician should review the 14-point preparticipation screening evaluation with emphasis on cardiac symptoms and perform a complete physical examination and an ECG.
  • Children with severe illness/MIS-C: They should not exercise for at least three to six months and should obtain cardiology clearance prior to resuming training or competition. They may require other tests based on signs or symptoms.

The AAP recommends that pediatricians educate all patients and families to monitor for “chest pain, shortness of breath out of proportion for upper respiratory tract infection, new-onset palpitations or syncope when returning to exercise.”

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in reference to competitive athletes though, not just your average kid. Remember the kids who die of an undiagnosed heart defect while playing sports. That of course is extremely rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MotherGoose said:

This is in reference to competitive athletes though, not just your average kid. Remember the kids who die of an undiagnosed heart defect while playing sports. That of course is extremely rare. 

I think it’s for any sports of physical activity.  Or that’s how it read to me.  It is most likely very precautionary though 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MotherGoose said:

This is in reference to competitive athletes though, not just your average kid. Remember the kids who die of an undiagnosed heart defect while playing sports. That of course is extremely rare. 

It says "All youths should not exercise".

Which to me means all kids, or at least any kid who isn't sedentary 24/7. Playing often elevates kids' heart rates just as much as formal exercise.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, madteaparty said:

There’s a tyranny of majority that happens here and I’m always amused to see it on a homeschooling message board. Or, on the political left, say (where i firmly belong). There’s this we are either evangelists for the vaccine or anti-science. No nuance at all. I didn’t want to take the vaccine, i took it and against my better judgement let my minor child get it as well but I don’t dare express any vaccine hesitation in person as someone will jump on me with their amazing newly acquired internet science knowledge. 

Whoooa. I don’t think anyone on this thread deserves this. There were tons of us telling @Spryteto wait for her second dose. That is NOT “no nuance at all.”

Why is it that when people agree, out come the claims of people being sheep? Sometimes they are, and sometimes they just agree!!

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kand said:

That’s fine. Maybe someone else will have an explanation, though. It is an idea put forth with some frequency, and I still haven’t been able to come up with what people are thinking the motivation for that would be. Like people who say that governors just want to keep their states locked down. That’s pretty financially devastating for a state, so I can’t fathom for what reason any governor would want to do that. And then right here in the post above, what reason would there be for not a number two wants stats to be worse than they are. I’m not even commenting on whether that exact stat is right or wrong, just for what reason would people accuse her of wanting to ignore facts that would suggest it wasn’t really as bad?

 

I know the thread has moved a lot since here but.....

clearly @Not_a_Number is just an agent of the Deep State sent here to convince us all to get vaccinated so we can be microchipped and they can control the education of the next generation, especially those of us who think we have escaped the mass indoctrination of children forced to spend all day in baby jails.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 8
Link to post
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...