Jump to content

Menu

To vaccine or not to vaccine


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Masers said:

No, I’m saying that people will see headlines like, “89 vaccinated Minnesotans contract Covid”, and then they’re like, well heck, if people are still getting it even after taking the vaccine, why take the risk?!

But... but... is the argument that the vaccine is more of a risk than the 20-fold risk of COVID you get from NOT taking it? Because that's what the 95% means -- NOT taking the vaccine means that there would be 89 Minnesotans who are vaccinated who got COVID, compared to 1780 Minnesotans who are not vaccinated who got COVID (if you assume a matched vaccinated and unvaccinated population.) 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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:

So these people do not see the difference between a vaccine being over 95% effective, and "gonna get it anyway"? If they can't get that 95% protection is better than 0% protection, I honestly don't know what on earth WILL sway people. I mean, that's basic math we are talking about - 95 is bigger than 0. 

And at this point, the vaccines provid protection against variants (some vaccines more than others) but others could come up, and then we may need boosters. 

There is a BIG difference between, "this is close but not 100 percent protection, and keep an ear out in case boosters become advised in the future" and "vaccines are useless and there is no point". 

 

This is slightly off topic, but it always amazes me how people who can’t understand what 95% protection means when they use a birth control method that’s less effective than that. I’ve literally heard one of the anti-vaxxers I know rant about a Catholic family’s irresponsible (religiously faithful) behavior who has been open about which method of birth control they use complain that the vaccine isn’t that effective when her birth control method has double the failure rate. 
 

I suspect the real problem is she doesn’t want the vaccine for totally irrational reasons and is only pretending to be rational with bad statistics to protect her emotionally based decision.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masers said:

Again, I didn’t say it was rational! I said that’s what some people think. Human beings aren’t always great at weighing risks and benefits. And we are all coming at this with totally different personalities, beliefs, and life experiences!

Oh, I try to have tolerance for that, when people aren't malicious 🙂 . I mostly don't argue with people about it in real life. This is kind of my safe space to vent! 

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

I suspect the real problem is she doesn’t want the vaccine for totally irrational reasons and is only pretending to be rational with bad statistics to protect her emotionally based decision.

Aaaaand bingo. For basically most people on most topics, frankly. People first pick their stance, then pick their statistics. The people who do otherwise are rare, and I always respect them. 

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

Aaaaand bingo. For basically most people on most topics, frankly. People first pick their stance, then pick their statistics. The people who do otherwise are rare, and I always respect them. 

Even within science.😬

I’ve heard scientists lament the death of the scientific method...that now they are basically supposed to prove their theory (often at the cost of shoddy science), rather than disprove it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Masers said:

Even within science.😬

I’ve heard scientists lament the death of the scientific method...that now they are basically supposed to prove their theory (often at the cost of shoddy science), rather than disprove it. 

Yeah, within science to some extent, for sure. I think less so than on average, because training does tell, but it definitely happens. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

 

 

@TexasProud:  The vaccines are ~95% effective, which means ~5% of vaccinated people who are exposed to the virus will still get breakthrough cases.  Not that ~5% of vaccinated people will definitely get it: they need to be exposed to it, to get it.  The idea of "herd immunity" is that the virus stops circulating, because enough of the herd is immune that the virus is no longer able to find enough hosts to keep replicating.  Which then protects not just the unvaccinated minority, but also against breakthrough cases. 

It's been a long hard year: Keep the faith.

I am not trying to pick on you, but I wanted to post to show that the real result, at least under current conditions, is actually even better than what you are saying here about 5% of exposed vaccinated people contracting a virus. It’s more like the vaccine protects 99.95%, at least with recent and current conditions where there is a lot of virus. The numbers change based on real world conditions, which include how much virus is circulating and who is getting vaccinated vs not (the trial populations with their great results were very carefully collected and matched, carefully followed and tested, etc.). But anyway, it’s something to think about. 
 

This link explains what the 95% efficacy means.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

re what 95% efficacy "means"

19 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I am not trying to pick on you, but I wanted to post to show that the real result, at least under current conditions, is actually even better than what you are saying here about 5% of exposed vaccinated people contracting a virus. It’s more like the vaccine protects 99.95%, at least with recent and current conditions where there is a lot of virus. The numbers change based on real world conditions, which include how much virus is circulating and who is getting vaccinated vs not (the trial populations with their great results were very carefully collected and matched, carefully followed and tested, etc.). But anyway, it’s something to think about. 
 

This link explains what the 95% efficacy means.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext

Right - that article is just running running out the math of the probability of a vaccinated person *being exposed to the virus* and landing in that unlikely 5%.

The lower the number of cases circulating and transmitting, the lower the chances of *being exposed to the virus.*  The vaccine's 95% efficacy *doesn't* change but the probability of a vaccinated person contracting COVID *does* change as the number of circulating cases decreases.

If the virus were fully eradicated, polio like, then there would be sero breakthrough cases. The efficacy would still be 95% but no one would be exposed, so, zero cases.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masers said:

No, I’m saying that people will see headlines like, “89 vaccinated Minnesotans contract Covid”, and then they’re like, well heck, if people are still getting it even after taking the vaccine, why take the risk?!

I’m not necessarily saying that it is rational, but I can relate to that feeling. The last time I had the flu vaccine, I ended up with a nasty flu a few days later. Now, it might have been a vaccine side effect (since many of the listed side effects are similar to the flu), or, as my doctor believes, I was exposed to a flu strain not covered in the vaccine. But my first thought was, “well, shoot, why bother to get the vaccine if I’m going to get the flu anyway!?” And that feeling was amplified by the fact that it was the only time in my adult life I had gotten the flu, whereas all the years I skipped the flu shot I had remained flu free! 😉 Haha. I think people probably make similar judgment calls here.
 

again, this thread was asking why people are vaccine hesitant or choosing not to get it, and I think that the idea that it is not yet fully known or understood what type of immunity it is giving is a contributing factor. (And it is not 95% protective across the board...it appears to be more protective in younger populations, with less protection in the older populations, unfortunately.)

But....you seem to be defending people making a decision that is totally illogical and not based on facts at all, just on...I don't even know. 

43 minutes ago, Masers said:

Again, I didn’t say it was rational! 

And I'm sorry, but when people are making huge life decisions that effect the entire community for irrational reasons not based on any logic or facts, It is only reasonable to point out that they are being illogical, irrational, and well...wrong. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fertility thing..what is with that? 
I don't have proof that the newest flavor of Ben and Jerry's ice cream doesn't effect fertility either...but I don't see people standing in the freezer aisle saying, "well, I better stick with one of the early flavors, in case there are issues with fertility we don't know about yet."

There are zero reasons to think this is going to impact fertility. And we have experts that have looked at the vaccine, and disproved the idea that there is cross reactivity with antibody production to placental tissues, if people are thinking that. There is zero basis for that fear. 

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

But....you seem to be defending people making a decision that is totally illogical and not based on facts at all, just on...I don't even know. 

And I'm sorry, but when people are making huge life decisions that effect the entire community for irrational reasons not based on any logic or facts, It is only reasonable to point out that they are being illogical, irrational, and well...wrong. 

Perhaps, but in my mind, I can understand them. That is our only point. Not that we agree. 

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

Perhaps, but in my mind, I can understand them. That is our only point. Not that we agree. 

For what it's worth, I can understand most people. I can understand fears of something that hasn't been around very long very well. It's just that when we come down to the collective action, it's deeply unfortunate for all of us. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SKL said:

In places where about 50% have had at least one shot (which is supposed to give 80% protection), and a third have had both shots, positive tests are increasing over when immunization rates were lower.

It doesn't give me a ton of comfort that what the "experts" are telling us today is certain.

We'll see.  I hope they are right, because why wouldn't I?  But ....

There isn't a single state in the US that is over 43% with one shot, and the average is more like 30%.   Not to mention that 'single shot' number is awfully misleading since you'd really need to use numbers from 2 weeks ago and not today -- when the average for the US was more like 20%.   

Which is not even counting that most herd immunity estimates I've seen have been 70-80% (some even higher) so we have a long way to go.  IMO at this point ANY drop is great -- we're certainly not far enough along to be claiming that 'experts' are misleading us on this. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SKL said:

So given the % of Americans now vaccinated, why do we think cases are rising / in some places spiking?  I keep hearing that it is known that the vaxes very significantly reduce the ability to spread the virus, as well as to have enough symptoms to get tested.

It seems like people are taking it as fact that if you don't have Covid, you definitely can't spread Covid.  But if that is the case, why are there so many families where the people always home have positive tests while the person who goes out to work tests negative?

I do hope that the vax prevents spread, but I am not convinced we really know this for sure yet.

I think the percentage is around 30pc and you need 60pc for herd immunity?  And then if the vaccines aren’t 100pc effective it needs to be higher again.  Plus many people haven’t been vaccinated long enough for full effect yet.  And this is why it’s so critical that borderline vaxxers decide to get vaccinated because otherwise you never hit the magic herd immunity threshold and new variants arise and you are back to where we were in February last year 

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

ALL I’M SAYING IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR BODIES! Hah.  

But other people refusing the vaccines puts us at risk. Just like other people not masking and not distancing puts us at risk. 

I'm not going to yell at individuals about not getting the vaccine. I can still feel frustrated about it, though. 

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

Have there been other drugs and medications that we THOUGHT were totally safe and ended up NOT being? Yes. 

Yes. Also foods and cosmetics and household products, as a matter of fact. Lead paint is worse for us than many, many, many other things. It used to be absolutely pervasive. 

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

Yes. Also foods and cosmetics and household products, as a matter of fact. Lead paint is worse for us than many, many, many other things. It used to be absolutely pervasive. 

Well yes, absolutely. There are TONS of things that we thought were safe for years and years and ended up not being. It doesn’t seem like a huge stretch to believe this could also be one of those things. In fact, Johnson and Johnson has multiple other products on that list of “things we thought were safe but actually can kill you.” 😝 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re what 95% efficacy "means"

Right - that article is just running running out the math of the probability of a vaccinated person *being exposed to the virus* and landing in that unlikely 5%.

The lower the number of cases circulating and transmitting, the lower the chances of *being exposed to the virus.*  The vaccine's 95% efficacy *doesn't* change but the probability of a vaccinated person contracting COVID *does* change as the number of circulating cases decreases.

If the virus were fully eradicated, polio like, then there would be sero breakthrough cases. The efficacy would still be 95% but no one would be exposed, so, zero cases.

👍

My post that you quoted was poorly worded, sorry.

And I think we have both conflated efficacy, which only applies to the trial, and effectiveness, which is post-trial. So I think it’s true that the efficacy (theoretically) wouldn’t have changed with more or less circulating virus, but now trial efficacy no longer applies and we care about effectiveness, since study populations are carefully selected and carefully followed, with very specific definitions of disease, and people in studies might differ from the rest of us in other, unknown ways. 
 

But I do think that the trial results sound much more amazing as 99.95% virus free with vaccine. 
I see people say after getting the vax that they are now 95% protected from the virus, and I think, well, no, that’s not exactly what that means, but that’s okay, good enough. 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand people being hesitant about vaccines.  My oldest was born in 2003, and my youngest in 2005.  Both my kids are at high risk for autism:  my oldest had a speech delay and sensory issues, and my youngest I was pretty sure was autistic from a fairly young age.  The year my oldest was eligible for the MMR, I think there was maybe one case of measles in the US, and there hadn't been as many "MMR definitely doesn't contribute to autism" studies at the time.  And so I chose to wait until my kids were 3 and past the age of typical autism regression in order to give them the MMR, because in a situation in which their risk of contracting measles was approximately zero, I didn't want to be second guessing if I gave them a vaccine that led to autism at a time of common regressions.   I knew at the time that the reason I had that luxury was because of herd immunity, and I fully intended to do my part, but I wanted to wait.  

Frankly, in a perfect world, I'd want to wait a year or two or five to get the covid vaccine.  It hasn't been around long enough to now what possible long term (multi year) ramifications there might be to the vaccine.  But the fact of the matter is, we're in a pandemic.  That changes the calculus of "risk of vaccine versus risk of disease" immeasurably.  And because 5-10% (or more) of people do not develop immunity even after the vaccine, as well as the people who cannot be vaccinated, for whatever reason (age, allergies, risk factors), I really do believe that covid vaccination is both a practical matter of the only way out of lockdown and also a MORAL matter of protecting the least of these.  

I understand anxiety.  I understand fear.  I understand reluctance.  But I am the daughter of a man who got the first polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  I'm sure his mother, who took him, was terrified, but she was MORE terrified of my father getting polio.  Covid is a pandemic.  The choice isn't "get the vaccine or don't get the vaccine."  It is, "get the vaccine or get the virus."  The evidence that we have tells us that the vaccines are as safe as anything we've got.  The only way out of this is for everyone who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated.  So yes.  I understand, but I still see vaccination as both practically and morally necessary.  

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Frankly, in a perfect world, I'd want to wait a year or two or five to get the covid vaccine.  It hasn't been around long enough to now what possible long term (multi year) ramifications there might be to the vaccine.  But the fact of the matter is, we're in a pandemic.  That changes the calculus of "risk of vaccine versus risk of disease" immeasurably.  And because 5-10% (or more) of people do not develop immunity even after the vaccine, as well as the people who cannot be vaccinated, for whatever reason (age, allergies, risk factors), I really do believe that covid vaccination is both a practical matter of the only way out of lockdown and also a MORAL matter of protecting the least of these.  

I understand anxiety.  I understand fear.  I understand reluctance.  But I am the daughter of a man who got the first polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  I'm sure his mother, who took him, was terrified, but she was MORE terrified of my father getting polio.  Covid is a pandemic.  The choice isn't "get the vaccine or don't get the vaccine."  It is, "get the vaccine or get the virus."  The evidence that we have tells us that the vaccines are as safe as anything we've got.  The only way out of this is for everyone who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated.  So yes.  I understand, but I still see vaccination as both practically and morally necessary.  

I feel the same.

I might not agree if we say that children do not get to wait and that it is a moral matter for them to take the risk to protect others. They are also “the least of these” and should have the highest consideration. Adults did not line up for the polio vaccine, the at-risk population did.
Looking at the hopeful picture in Israel now, I am hoping that we don’t have to go there. 

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

Well yes, absolutely. There are TONS of things that we thought were safe for years and years and ended up not being. It doesn’t seem like a huge stretch to believe this could also be one of those things. In fact, Johnson and Johnson has multiple other products on that list of “things we thought were safe but actually can kill you.” 😝 

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 consume and/or are exposed to day-in and day-out for years; (2) products that affect hormones; and (3) foreign items that stay in your body long-term. 

So he is *extremely* cautious about taking any kind of medication or supplement regularly, and he does things like wear a respirator when he does yardwork involving chemicals or dust.  (He is very distressed when he sees pest control professionals working without PPE.)  He is vehemently opposed to people getting breast implants and honestly, he's not thrilled about my hair dye but I have overruled him on that for the noble cause of vanity.  

Vaccines, OTOH, are one-time -- or in this case, two-time -- exposures.  You get the vaccine, your body does its thing, the end.   So, as I understand it, vaccine injuries, however rare, almost all show up in the 6-8 week window after vaccination, either as an immediate allergic reaction or as something gone awry as your body responds.   This is in contrast to something like talcum powder or NSAIDs, in which the tiny harms accumulate day after day after day, until years later we discover that actually they increase your risk of cancer or stroke.

 

 

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 17
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JennyD said:

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 consume and/or are exposed to day-in and day-out for years; (2) products that affect hormones; and (3) foreign items that stay in your body long-term. 

Not that I've studied this like your DH, but when I think about what I've read about historically, that does sound right to me. There are some really grim stories out there, but they are mostly things with repeated exposure. 

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

Not that I've studied this like your DH, but when I think about what I've read about historically, that does sound right to me. There are some really grim stories out there, but they are mostly things with repeated exposure. 

Would it be fair to say we should be more worried if the vaccine proves to require annual boosters then?  I must admit to being reluctant to do the flu shot because of that and I’m hoping for the longer term protection for COVID. 

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

Would it be fair to say we should be more worried if the vaccine proves to require annual boosters then?  I must admit to being reluctant to do the flu shot because of that and I’m hoping for the longer term protection for COVID. 

I think even that is MUCH less exposure than the things I can think of that cause serious harm. I worry more about the Advil I've finally started taking a few times a month... or the tooth implant, for that matter... 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Not mine. I know quite a few docs that are not getting it.

While that may be true, vaccination rates among healthcare workers rises with education and income, so doctors are more likely to get it than high school grads making minimum wage.

https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2021/survey-vaccination-rates-for-healthcare-workers-have-doubled.html

 

 

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

There isn't a single state in the US that is over 43% with one shot, and the average is more like 30%.   Not to mention that 'single shot' number is awfully misleading since you'd really need to use numbers from 2 weeks ago and not today -- when the average for the US was more like 20%.   

Which is not even counting that most herd immunity estimates I've seen have been 70-80% (some even higher) so we have a long way to go.  IMO at this point ANY drop is great -- we're certainly not far enough along to be claiming that 'experts' are misleading us on this. 

I'd still expect to see a decrease rather than an increase in locations where there is a combination of many folks having the vax [starting in Nov/Dec], lots having already had Covid, ongoing mask mandates, social distancing, warmer weather, etc.

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

I'd still expect to see a decrease rather than an increase in locations where there is a combination of many folks having the vax [starting in Nov/Dec], lots having already had Covid, ongoing mask mandates, social distancing, warmer weather, etc.

Even with some of the new much more highly contagious variants rapidly spreading and becoming dominant? What specific areas are you referring to? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 The blip of an increase in cases seems to make perfect sense to me.   Mask mandated are ending, new variants, spring break hit and people have decided that t he whole thing is over.  But I think the increase is being over hyped honestly.  This just doesn’t seem like a huge increase, nationwide.  I think 5 states are having a rough go.  
 

image.thumb.png.5522b55cc42be45287ff1e024bc42a4f.png

image.thumb.png.57858dc8f3f449125c5dba431516764e.png

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JennyD said:

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 consume and/or are exposed to day-in and day-out for years; (2) products that affect hormones; and (3) foreign items that stay in your body long-term. 

So he is *extremely* cautious about taking any kind of medication or supplement regularly, and he does things like wear a respirator when he does yardwork involving chemicals or dust.  (He is very distressed when he sees pest control professionals working without PPE.)  He is vehemently opposed to people getting breast implants and honestly, he's not thrilled about my hair dye but I have overruled him on that for the noble cause of vanity.  

Vaccines, OTOH, are one-time -- or in this case, two-time -- exposures.  You get the vaccine, your body does its thing, the end.   So, as I understand it, vaccine injuries, however rare, almost all show up in the 6-8 week window after vaccination, either as an immediate allergic reaction or as something gone awry as your body responds.   This is in contrast to something like talcum powder or NSAIDs, in which the tiny harms accumulate day after day after day, until years later we discover that actually they increase your risk of cancer or stroke.

 

 


except that people are now hearing a third jab will be needed in a few more months, that boosters or new strain versions of vaccine may be required even more frequently than for flu

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/31/us-begins-testing-modernas-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-for-variant-from-south-africa.html

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

 The blip of an increase in cases seems to make perfect sense to me.   Mask mandated are ending, new variants, spring break hit and people have decided that t he whole thing is over.  But I think the increase is being over hyped honestly.  This just doesn’t seem like a huge increase, nationwide.  I think 5 states are having a rough go.  
 

image.thumb.png.5522b55cc42be45287ff1e024bc42a4f.png

image.thumb.png.57858dc8f3f449125c5dba431516764e.png


I agree with you.

I also think increase is being over hyped

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

Not mine. I know quite a few docs that are not getting it.

I'm curious to know your sample size and sample characteristics (genuinely!).

I'm sure some of the difference is local culture (I'm in Canada, where there is generally less vaccine hesitancy and generally more compliance with public health measures, I think).

My sample is comprised of MDs with privileges at a large community hospital that's university affiliated and a satellite teaching centre, for what that's worth.  As far as I know (and covid vax has been the hot topic of MD small talk for months here, and my sample size is in the 100's), not a single one has declined.  RN's, I know of some who've declined, but few.  RPN's and PSW's, higher rate of declining.  These are all people I work with and know well enough to chat about it.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

This is what new cases look like in three countries with high rates of vaccination (Israel, UK, US), compared to four countries with low rates (India, France, Sweden, and Germany). Israel and the UK have vaccinated a much larger percentage of the population compared to the US, so their case rate has fallen more dramatically, while ours is creeping up as so many states reopen prematurely, people travel for spring break, etc, while we scramble to get as many shots in arms as possible. 

Screen Shot 2021-04-07 at 4.36.22 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-04-07 at 4.32.02 PM.png

Add Canada to your slow-to-vax and now-in-big-trouble list.  My province is in big, big trouble. Covid hospital admissions and ICU numbers at the highest levels since the pandemic started.  Patients are younger.  All attributed to the variants.  Provincially, only 2% of the population is fully vaxed, and only 16% have had their first dose - supply has been an enormous problem since we are 100% dependent on import and do not have any domestic production.  Our strictest lockdown of the whole pandemic will go into effect at midnight tonight. 
 

"Ontario has reported on average more than 2,800 new cases of COVID-19 daily over the past week. There are 504 people with COVID-19 being treated in ICUs. Admissions to intensive care previously peaked at 420 during the second wave of the pandemic earlier this year.

In Toronto, the health-care system has become so strained that the Hospital for Sick Children announced yesterday it would establish a temporary, eight-bed intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients aged 40 and under. The idea is that the new unit would help ease the burden on other hospitals in the city, which reported 1,095 more cases of COVID-19 in this morning's update."

835341897_ScreenShot2021-04-08at1_02_44AM.thumb.png.628cd0c666e3179594e914ec95826f31.png

  • Sad 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

For emphasis:  ICU admissions are already the highest they have ever been for covid, and we are just locking down now.  This wave is nowhere near its peak yet.  We're in big, big trouble.

Edited by wathe
  • Sad 20
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wathe said:

Add Canada to your slow-to-vax and now-in-big-trouble list.  My province is in big, big trouble. Covid hospital admissions and ICU numbers at the highest levels since the pandemic started.  Patients are younger.  All attributed to the variants.  Provincially, only 2% of the population is fully vaxed, and only 16% have had their first dose - supply has been an enormous problem since we are 100% dependent on import and do not have any domestic production.  Our strictest lockdown of the whole pandemic will go into effect at midnight tonight. 
 

"Ontario has reported on average more than 2,800 new cases of COVID-19 daily over the past week. There are 504 people with COVID-19 being treated in ICUs. Admissions to intensive care previously peaked at 420 during the second wave of the pandemic earlier this year.

In Toronto, the health-care system has become so strained that the Hospital for Sick Children announced yesterday it would establish a temporary, eight-bed intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients aged 40 and under. The idea is that the new unit would help ease the burden on other hospitals in the city, which reported 1,095 more cases of COVID-19 in this morning's update."

835341897_ScreenShot2021-04-08at1_02_44AM.thumb.png.628cd0c666e3179594e914ec95826f31.png

I have been wondering you things were for you after seeing some of the news reports.  I hope things turn around for the better soon 😞 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cnew02 said:

 The blip of an increase in cases seems to make perfect sense to me.   Mask mandated are ending, new variants, spring break hit and people have decided that t he whole thing is over.  But I think the increase is being over hyped honestly.  This just doesn’t seem like a huge increase, nationwide.  I think 5 states are having a rough go.  

I think the concern is that the 5 states that are currently having a "rough go" may be the leading edge of a much worse 4th wave, as well as the fact that the new spikes in cases and hospitalizations are predominantly in much younger people — a population that seemed to have escaped the worst of it with the original strain but are now being hit hard by B117. And since we (rightly) prioritized the elderly in the earliest stages of the vaccine rollout, the percentage of younger people who have been vaxxed is still quite low — e.g. in Michigan around 55% of over-65s have been vaxxed versus less than 13% of those under 50.

So if you look at the graph for the US as a whole, it looks pretty good — vastly better than what is happening in countries with lower vax rates. But if you look at the graph for Michigan and imagine if what is happening there was happening in every state, that's pretty damn scary. The CDC have been saying over and over that we are in a race with B117 to get as many people vaxxed as quickly as possible, lest we find our case rate back to what it was in Nov/Dec/Jan — which is exactly what is happening in Michigan.

 

Screen Shot 2021-04-07 at 10.39.56 PM.png

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

. But if you look at the graph for Michigan and imagine if what is happening there was happening in every state, that's pretty damn scary.

Right now about half of the states have declining cases though, even states like Arkansas and Texas that are wide open, no masks, no indoor dining restrictions. And lower vaccines rates than Michigan.         
It is definitely a race against the variants. 
 

I was mostly saying that I’m not surprised by the rise, I’m actually more surprised that it’s declining in so many places. People are acting like we’re done, and we aren’t. We’ve barely started ramping up the vaccinations.  20% vaccinated isn’t enough to call the whole thing done.  But that seems to be our way.  
 

I am surprised , but also not at the same time, that people are looking at the rise and saying that the vaccines don’t work when clearly behavior is changing faster than the vaccines can keep up with, especially when you throw variants into the mix.  
 
 

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Terabith said:

I understand people being hesitant about vaccines.  My oldest was born in 2003, and my youngest in 2005.  Both my kids are at high risk for autism:  my oldest had a speech delay and sensory issues, and my youngest I was pretty sure was autistic from a fairly young age.  The year my oldest was eligible for the MMR, I think there was maybe one case of measles in the US, and there hadn't been as many "MMR definitely doesn't contribute to autism" studies at the time.  And so I chose to wait until my kids were 3 and past the age of typical autism regression in order to give them the MMR, because in a situation in which their risk of contracting measles was approximately zero, I didn't want to be second guessing if I gave them a vaccine that led to autism at a time of common regressions.   I knew at the time that the reason I had that luxury was because of herd immunity, and I fully intended to do my part, but I wanted to wait.  

Frankly, in a perfect world, I'd want to wait a year or two or five to get the covid vaccine.  It hasn't been around long enough to now what possible long term (multi year) ramifications there might be to the vaccine.  But the fact of the matter is, we're in a pandemic.  That changes the calculus of "risk of vaccine versus risk of disease" immeasurably.  And because 5-10% (or more) of people do not develop immunity even after the vaccine, as well as the people who cannot be vaccinated, for whatever reason (age, allergies, risk factors), I really do believe that covid vaccination is both a practical matter of the only way out of lockdown and also a MORAL matter of protecting the least of these.  

I understand anxiety.  I understand fear.  I understand reluctance.  But I am the daughter of a man who got the first polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  I'm sure his mother, who took him, was terrified, but she was MORE terrified of my father getting polio.  Covid is a pandemic.  The choice isn't "get the vaccine or don't get the vaccine."  It is, "get the vaccine or get the virus."  The evidence that we have tells us that the vaccines are as safe as anything we've got.  The only way out of this is for everyone who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated.  So yes.  I understand, but I still see vaccination as both practically and morally necessary.  

We basically agree. It is why I got it. But I do not think we should force others to make the same choice. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Masers said:

I feel like you’re misunderstanding my point, which is that I don’t really CARE why people decide to get or not get the vaccine—it’s their choice! Even if their belief is irrational, it’s their choice. Just like someone could say that it is irrational to line up for a brand new vaccine that is still under the Emergency Usage Act and not FDA approved—some people think that is crazy and irrational, especially in very low-risk populations. ALL I’M SAYING IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR BODIES! Hah.

 

We agree on your last all caps statement. Totally.

It doesn't bother me if someone comes on here, or says to me in real life, that (1) they don't want to get the vaccine (or to get it right now) because they're just not sure and they leave it at that. I'm okay with that, because I do try as much as possible to hold myself to consistent positions, and -- your body, your choice.'

But (2) it's absolutely crazy making and worrying when people say they don't want the vaccine and then publicly attempt to use bad/distorted statistics (or good statistics they fundamentally misunderstand), cite a psychiatrist or veterinarian as an expert, or even worse, cite absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories in an attempt to defend their decision.

IMO (1) should be respected without any push back, but (2) just absolutely begs for push back. First because it's concerning for the person him/herself, who may be making a life and death decision based on bad info or a total misunderstanding of sound info or (even worse) wild conspiracy theories pushed by people with their own agendas that have nothing to do with public health or the good of anyone but themselves . But most importantly it's concerning in any type of public venue because others may be influenced by that person. It's dangerous to others reading (or present IRL) to NOT attempt to correct that.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Masers said:

I get that!

But it really shouldn’t put you or me at risk, should it? I mean, if we’ve had the vaccine, aren’t we protected? (excepting those breakthrough cases)

I just always understood that to be the point of vaccines. My best friend’s family growing up was unvaccinated for religious reasons, and nobody thought twice about it. My mom never worried about it, since *I* was vaccinated. If my friend were to spontaneously contract measles or mumps or whatever, I wouldn’t get it. And yes, I understand that we need to lower the incidence of cases so that we don’t have it circulating in the community at all, but again, what we KNOW about the vaccine is that it decreases virulence but not *necessarily* transmission. The data is still out on that. It’s looking good, but we don’t know for sure. And again, if it *doesn’t*, then it is all a moot point! Then it’s more like the pertussis vaccine, in which YOU are protected, and will get a mild or asymptomatic case, but can still transmit it to others. (Which is why it’s a pretty crappy vaccine, IMO.) Get the vaccine to protect yourself, but I find it unfair to expect every single other person to go along with it for “the greater good”, especially when many people do hold strong medical, religious, or philosophical reasons for not doing so. I just really don’t want to live in a country where vaccines (or any medical treatment) is required (like with the suggested vaccine passports). 

I’ve never called anyone a villain or any other over the top claim like that. But one of my children has a heart condition and if she gets Covid there’s a 10% chance she’ll go into heart failure. At some point she’ll probably go into heart failure anyway, but the longer we can delay that the safer surgery to fix it will be for her. She’s too young to be vaccinated. So yes, I resent people who refuse to vaccinate. I confront people I know in real life who spread lies about vaccines. Thankfully the people we know who were spreading lies about Covid have stopped (unfortunately only after multiple people they knew died from it). Until we get herd immunity our lives as a family will not be returning to normal. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Masers said:

 

(then again, I don’t think that the minority population of people refusing vaccines are the huge community threat that you all seem to think are. I believe that between vaccine and natural “herd immunity”, we’ll get there. I also think that IF the vaccine is only really known *FOR SURE* to reduce virulence and not necessarily transmission, it’s all a moot point anyway. The vaccine will provide protection to 95% of those of us who get it.)

And I would assume it is because the vaccine inserts say that no animal reproductive or development toxicity tests have been carried out (so we don’t have any real knowledge of potential problems with reproductive or fetal development). 

So...if I read the back of the label of the new Ben and Jerry’s Pficer Cream flavor and it said that, I *might* stick with Chunky Monkey instead! 

 

1. with some variants (P1) previous infection wth covid does not provide immunity, making herd immunity via natural infection not viable. And currently we have a LOT of poeple refusing to vaccinate, and currently no one under 16 can be vaccinated even if they want to be. Until we can vaccinate kids (earliest projection is 2022 for under 12) there is no chance for herd immunity. 

2. We know that Pfizer prevents infection in most people. Therefore yes, it does prevent transmission. You can't transmit it if you are never infected. 

3. it isn't on the label, but the fact is that no, Ben and Jerry's doesn't have any testing on reproductive or developmental toxicity. And I don't think women are insisting on that kind of standard when they go get their nails done, hair colored, etc. But suddenly with this vaccine it is a huge issue, when for years they have been spraying chemicals on their body, cooking with non stick cookware, carrying small EMF transmitters in their pocket 24/7, etc etc. 

7 hours ago, Pen said:


except that people are now hearing a third jab will be needed in a few more months, that boosters or new strain versions of vaccine may be required even more frequently than for flu

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/31/us-begins-testing-modernas-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-for-variant-from-south-africa.html

That article does not say anything like what you are claiming. There is nothing indicating a booster will be needed more often than the flu, or that a third jab is needed in a few months. 

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

We basically agree. It is why I got it. But I do not think we should force others to make the same choice. 

No one has said we should round people up and vaccinating them against their will. There is no law forcing vaccination, nor will there be, nor is anyone in this forum saying there should be. We are talking about why people should be vaccinated, not how to do it against their will. 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

 

No one has said we should round people up and vaccinating them against their will. There is no law forcing vaccination, nor will there be, nor is anyone in this forum saying there should be. We are talking about why people should be vaccinated, not how to do it against their will. 

Well, sort of. You say their logic is faulty and why they are stupid and dangerous for believing what they believe. So you are implying they should change their mind or they will be dangerous. So therefore, they should get the shot whether they want to or not, whether they believe it is dangerous or not, for the good of the community because YOU know you are correct and it isn't dangerous and better for the community.  The only way they win is to get the shot against their own beliefs like I did.  I sort of feel like I was forced into it. I hope I don't regret it.

Edited by TexasProud
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Well, sort of. You say their logic is faulty and why they are stupid and dangerous for believing what they believe. So you are implying they should change their mind or they will be dangerous. So therefore, they should get the shot whether they want to or not, whether they believe it is dangerous or not, for the good of the community because YOU know you are correct and it isn't dangerous and better for the community.  The only way they win is to get the shot against their own beliefs like I did.  I sort of feel like I was forced into it. I hope I don't regret it.

That’s a lot of leaps. I’m free to resent people for making bad decisions without thinking the government should force people to do anything. 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Well, sort of. You say their logic is faulty and why they are stupid and dangerous for believing what they believe. So you are implying they should change their mind or they will be dangerous. So therefore, they should get the shot whether they want to or not, whether they believe it is dangerous or not, for the good of the community because YOU know you are correct and it isn't dangerous and better for the community.  The only way they win is to get the shot against their own beliefs like I did.  I sort of feel like I was forced into it. I hope I don't regret it.

We are a society here on this board, as the U.S. has always aspired to be, where free speech and debate are valued. The whole point is to persuade by debate and discussion, rather than to coerce.

Their logic may be very faulty. If mine were, I hope I'd be open to hearing why. But stupid? More likely misinformed. Why shouldn't we correct rampant rumors which literally endanger people's lives?

Yes, in actual point of fact, people who decide not to get vaccinated do prolong this pandemic and endanger others. I know that's not their wish, and I don't think they should be hauled in for forced shots. But if they engage in discussion about the topic, and spread false information, why on earth shouldn't others counter with facts?

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

 

Yes, in actual point of fact, people who decide not to get vaccinated do prolong this pandemic and endanger others. I know that's not their wish, and I don't think they should be hauled in for forced shots. But if they engage in discussion about the topic, and spread false information, why on earth shouldn't others counter with facts?

You can, just do not condemn them or make them feel bad. It will never persuade them, only make them dig in their heals.  Number has done a good job of that sometimes like validating me and sharing how she struggled with her friend. The condemning and hostile tone I get sometimes from here makes me want to take the other side and argue for them whether or not I agree with them, just so you will care about them and not hate them. 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

You can, just do not condemn them or make them feel bad. It will never persuade them, only make them dig in their heals.  Number has done a good job of that sometimes like validating me and sharing how she struggled with her friend. The condemning and hostile tone I get sometimes from here makes me want to take the other side and argue for them whether or not I agree with them, just so you will care about them and not hate them. 

I do know what you mean about that. People DO dig in their heels when they feel judged, and that's regardless of whether the people judging them are evidence-based or not. I think you're right that these threads wouldn't be an effective way to convince someone else... they are really just here for people to vent, I think 😉 . 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Masers said:

I get that!

But it really shouldn’t put you or me at risk, should it? I mean, if we’ve had the vaccine, aren’t we protected? (excepting those breakthrough cases)

I just always understood that to be the point of vaccines. My best friend’s family growing up was unvaccinated for religious reasons, and nobody thought twice about it. My mom never worried about it, since *I* was vaccinated. If my friend were to spontaneously contract measles or mumps or whatever, I wouldn’t get it. And yes, I understand that we need to lower the incidence of cases so that we don’t have it circulating in the community at all, but again, what we KNOW about the vaccine is that it decreases virulence but not *necessarily* transmission. The data is still out on that. It’s looking good, but we don’t know for sure. And again, if it *doesn’t*, then it is all a moot point! Then it’s more like the pertussis vaccine, in which YOU are protected, and will get a mild or asymptomatic case, but can still transmit it to others. (Which is why it’s a pretty crappy vaccine, IMO.) Get the vaccine to protect yourself, but I find it unfair to expect every single other person to go along with it for “the greater good”, especially when many people do hold strong medical, religious, or philosophical reasons for not doing so. I just really don’t want to live in a country where vaccines (or any medical treatment) is required (like with the suggested vaccine passports). 

One of my best friends and her family never had vaccines either, and no one thought anything of it then, either.  But that was different.  There was already herd immunity for those ailments.  So if a small minority of people refused to get vaccines, the rest of society that had vaccines were protecting them.   Someday, we'll reach that point with Covid too, once there's herd immunity.  

Once there's herd immunity, then people with strong philosophical or medical reasons for avoiding vaccines will be protected by the rest of us who have been vaccinated.  And that will be a good thing.

But we're not at herd immunity yet, so we can't protect those people very well yet.  And in the meantime, there are lots of people refusing to get the vaccine NOT for strong medical, religious, or philosophical reasons, but just because they don't feel like it, or they don't trust the scientists, or maybe just don't understand how herd immunity works.  

On a side note, I haven't heard much about strong religious reasons for refusing vaccines...  I'd be curious to know what they are.

Edited by J-rap
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

You can, just do not condemn them or make them feel bad. It will never persuade them, only make them dig in their heals.  Number has done a good job of that sometimes like validating me and sharing how she struggled with her friend. The condemning and hostile tone I get sometimes from here makes me want to take the other side and argue for them whether or not I agree with them, just so you will care about them and not hate them. 

You're right. It's really hard to strike the right balance, so that the genuine urgency of the situation is communicated without making people feel personally attacked. 

Sometimes people vent. The frustration is real; lots of us are watching family members go into situations every day where they're exposed to potential infection. Dh has to, even though he has significant risk factors. Thank goodness he'll get his second shot tomorrow, but, you know, that protection isn't perfect. Others have shared their family's risks, like @Katy above.

It's hard sometimes perhaps to sort out the venting from the information sharing. Tones get heated sometimes. If it all feels like an attack, though, I think tone is being misunderstood. I haven't seen personal attacks here. 

I can imagine how hard it is to listen if your friends are in the position that's being criticized. It doesn't mean anyone here wouldn't like them and care about them. It's not a personal attack. It's concern for their wellbeing, and that of others around them.

Edited by Innisfree
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
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...