The “vaccination divide” in the US

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

And as far as asking questions, I'm not talking about the general human tendency to ask questions. I'm talking about a very particular kind of question, specifically intended to lead people to certain ideas, and often to plant doubts. It's a totally different thing than normal questions for the purpose of learning. I find it disingenuous for anyone to pretend they don't know how that looks very different.

While I agree there are people who use the misleading question tactic, I also see you reading a lot into the words of people who really are just trying to have a rational conversation.

Anyhoo.  I gotta go deal with my real life problems.

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

It comes from what I said before (that someone took the completely unverified VAERS reports and multiplied them), and is being widely spread on social media, which is why we're hearing about it now here. Here's a fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-evidence-45000-deaths-covid-19-vaccines/ It comes from the same group that brought us Stella Immanuel, the demon spawn lady.

What the what?? Talk about putting words in people's mouths! I don't even know where to start. Where did I say that admitting there have been some vax deaths get you the same classification as QAnon?  I admit there have been vaccine deaths. I've said it already in this thread. I will again. THERE HAVE BEEN VACCINE DEATHS. There. See, I have said it loud and clear. Hopefully you won't continue with saying that people here won't admit there are vaccine deaths. I have responded to threads about them and expressed sorrow about them. I have acknowledged Australia in particular has been in a lousy decision making place with it when there was no covid, but AZ was their main vaccine choice. I did NOT say vaccine injury or death was a conspiracy theory. Ever, ever.

My point about exaggeration is that to say something is "probably" an exaggeration sounds to ME like it "might" be inflated a bit. Not that it's just flat out grossly untrue. If someone said I was 30 feet tall, and someone else who knows me said that was probably an exaggeration, you would expect that meant that I was likely at least very tall indeed, not that I was under 5 feet tall.

And as far as asking questions, I'm not talking about the general human tendency to ask questions. I'm talking about a very particular kind of question, specifically intended to lead people to certain ideas, and often to plant doubts. It's a totally different thing than normal questions for the purpose of learning. I find it disingenuous for anyone to pretend they don't know how that looks very different.

Who are the “experts” at Politifact?  
 

most fact checking organizations I have tried to look into do not have expertise in subjects they are “fact checking”

 

 

[Pen]

I suggest that people at least go to source documents for themselves 

here is a screenshot from the filings

 

[KSera]

29 minutes ago, Plum said:

So I’m just going to stream of consciousness here since I don’t have a lot of time. 
 

I don’t consider myself in this camp however I do feel a sense of advocacy for those that are unvaccinated. We have been extremely fortunate that the disability caused by the vaccine can be mitigated by a change in lifestyle and possibly a change in location. I am fortunate that I chose to pay for short and long term disability during open enrollment. Life will look different for us but we won’t be totally wrecked by this. Others aren’t so lucky. We have thought long and hard and struggled with these decisions. Dh goes back and forth between getting the proposed booster and risking further complications and his duty as someone in healthcare. I was scared to get the vaccine and ultimately decided his situation is a one-off and not reflective of what will happen to us  I got the kids vaccinated as well. I shouldn’t have to defend myself by saying I’m vaccinated to prove I’m not an antivaxxer. These are decisions that many have thought long and hard about. Maybe I take it personally because I know how hard it is to get doctors to make it official. Most shrug and say there’s a lot we don’t know and it’s entirely possible. When I can see for myself a clear line pre and post covid and then pre and post vaccine.  So when the world is pressuring the unvaccinated and being all sorts of ugly I get a little defensive. I want people to get vaccinated because they want to. Not because they will lose their job. Not because they have been shamed into it by their coworkers. I want them to be confident in their decision because there is no recourse if they are less fortunate than us. Just as I wouldn’t want to get someone sick with covid to wouldn’t want to convince someone to get the vaccine and then they have a bad reaction. I know in my head most reactions are mild and go away. It’s easy to say we are just talking about ignorant white Trumpsters that would rather spit in your face than get the vaccine but there’s a whole other segment of the unvaccinated population that are minorities who have been hit hardest by this virus and are afraid of the government and mistrust doctors. How are they taking the blame campaign?  It’s really easy to think X should know better. There’s people that don’t have access or the education. There’s people who have health conditions. People who have had bad experiences with doctors. People who are afraid of needles.
I get emotional when talking about all of this. It’s why I avoided the covid threads as much as I could. I can see both sides quite clearly. I prefer to think out loud about all of this. I know I’m wrong in some cases. I just really don’t like the naming and shaming I see going on when I know what the potential ramifications of getting COVID and getting the vaccine could be. 

I appreciate you taking the time to give that long answer, even when it's an emotional subject for you. Contrary to what it might sound like, I very much understand feeling conflicted about the possibility of being the one a rare event happens to. My kids were mostly vaxed on a delayed, alternative schedule, with some vaccines skipped, because I worried so much about something happening to them as a result of me deciding to get them vaccinated. Particulary since the diseases were ones I wasn't actually particularly worried about them getting (due to them either being rare or not very serious). I would never berate someone specifically for not getting vaxed, and never have. I have people I love who aren't vaccinated, and we have hardly spoken of it. I have friends I would be pretty sure aren't, and I wouldn't put any pressure or ugliness on them. Where I do have a big issue is with people spreading nonsense and lies about it (not you, obviously). And I hear some of that nonsense and lies come back to me from a couple of my unvaxed family members in particular, and it makes me frustrated, because they and their families are now at risk. But I don't say anything to them about it.

I'm very sorry your dh has been negatively effected. It's super crummy, and I'm actually impressed you were able to follow the logic of it being rare and go forward with vaccination, because I honestly think that would have been hard for me. While I had no concerns with any of the adults in my family (there are 4 of us), I had a little concern with my teen ds, since he's in the group with more risk. But, like you, I did move forward based on the knowledge that the odds of him being harmed by covid were greater than of him being harmed by the vaccine.

I just feel so upset about all the misinformation because there are SO MANY people dying right now who don't need to. Whole families being left motherless or fatherless. It breaks my heart, and almost every time I hear family members talking, they talk about having heard these lies and having believed it, and having such incredible, immense regret. I just don't want people to keep going through that. It's needless, and almost all these people would still be alive had they been vaccinated.

[Frances]

48 minutes ago, Pen said:

afaik the 48K or whatever the number is in that range* is from someone under oath but under whistleblower identity protection in one of the court cases. It is based on access to CDC or similar records iirc. It will probably get dealt with during litigation process, a process which tends to grind slowly along 

I don’t think most of us can prove it true or false other than waiting for the court proceedings 

 

*I think K heard 45K as a rounded number 

Nm

Edited August 2, 2021 by Frances

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

I suggest that people at least go to source documents for themselves 

here is a screenshot from the filings

 

The documents are all there to look at on the Politifact page about it.

[SoCal_Bear]

1 hour ago, Wheres Toto said:

Ours does too.  Or at least asks about it.

Yep, blue light specials.  My first job (other than babysitting), when I was 16 was for Kmart and I used to do the blue light special announcements.  "Attention Kmart Shoppers, if you look up and around, you'll see that flashing blue light in our <<whatever department>> where we are having a special on our <<whatever whatever>> for just <<<whatever amount>>>.  That's right shoppers, just <<amount>> for our <<item>>, but this special is limited so come on over to the <<department>> before the flashing blue light ends".

 

That was my job too... I worked there through high school and for the first year and half of college.

 

[SoCal_Bear]

Behavior is shifting in my area. Last week, very few masked at Costco. My DH just went this weekend. He said 70% of the people were masking.

Edited August 2, 2021 by calbear

[SoCal_Bear]

This thread reminded me that I need to replace our fire extinguishers as well.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

The documents are all there to look at on the Politifact page about it.

then people should be able to see that it is not just a matter of multiplying the VAERS number but rather also using the Medicare data base, CMS, which would be a subset of the total expected 

 

 

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, Pen said:

then people should be able to see that it is not just a matter of multiplying the VAERS number but rather also using the Medicare data base, CMS, which would be a subset of the total expected 

 

 

We know nothing of what the data is she is basing this on, but more than that, this document is an addendum to a lawsuit that is so full of crazy that it's hard to believe the people filing it believe a word it says (it's quite likely they don't). I'm no legal scholar, but I have a hard time seeing them do anything but throw it out. I mean, the whole thing is based on the premise "There is in Fact no Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition" which is just plain sick.

[Moonhawk]

On 7/31/2021 at 1:34 PM, Plum said:

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like we're not going to worry so much about ensuring people don't end up in the hospital (and there are vaccinated people in the hospital) through outpatient treatments....because optics. The hospitals are completely overwhelmed, exhausted and severely understaffed. Everything we can do to avoid that should be a priority, the vaccine shouldn't be the only way. 

Optics over science is just as bad as misinformation. Taking temps at the door was security theater. Stuff like that loses public trust as well.

I have never in my life thought a cold medicine would cure me. It is just supposed to suppress symptoms. 

But, that isn't what I said. It seems a small thing, but I don't want to be misconstrued or misunderstood. I was not listing excuses for this idea of "optics over science". My post was stating that my county is trying to tell people about MAT. I was outlining the challenges and considerations they are taking while doing that, not giving excuses why to not do it. 

For my red county, which never had mask mandates (but allowed towns to at their own discretion), and has been very "don't rock the boat" on this whole thing, they have decided to emphasize vaccines. Prevention is their first concern because it is going to be the most effective at keeping people out of hospitals (and alive) (and without potential longterm health costs). And so, vaccines is their first message because that is currently the best way to do this. Not their only message, but their first. (eta: the underlining is to correspond to the underlining in the quote)

And all this said, and not taking away from my support of better information about treatment and other mitigation efforts like masks, isolation, protocols, OTC and at home care, etc., I don't think we should be expecting the government to be overly bending over with nuanced and full-fledged information tracts in their general mass marketing to make the populace feel informed about all the options and alternatives when vaccination is clearly the best option in 95-99% of cases. It's easier to close the barn door than to run around chasing the horses later, and they are trying to close the doors while there are still a fair number of horses to be kept in.

This isn't misinformation, or playing to optics; this is efficient use of first messaging, tax dollars, attentions spans, and gives the highest chance of a positive outcome [as much as can be gotten at this point anyway]. It's not their fault if people aren't willing to listen to any message, let alone the second or third.

Also, just because we don't see the messaging doesn't mean it isn't there; if we aren't the target audience needing the message, we may not be where the message is loudest, like when at a pharmacy or clinic specifically for Covid or on a contact tracing list. [eta: I don't think my County is doing this quite yet, but I do know they want to do more now that more treatments have been approved and are more widely available in this area.]

eta: I think there is so much variation in how local governments are reacting and what they are messaging that it is hard to fully talk about this without using faulty generals. In your area it could very well be optics over science; I am just talking about my specific location.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Moonhawk

[bookbard]

So, interesting, I just read an article about vaccine hesitancy and one of the people interviewed was a young 20-something 'wellness' type woman who said she wouldn't vaccine, except she is going to have to (in order to travel overseas) and so she has decided that 'if I trust my body to handle covid, I can trust it to handle the vaccine'.

In other words, a lot of the anti-vaxxers might change their tune if it is REALLY inconvenient to remain unvaccinated. So perhaps rather than trying to 'change their minds', the government needs to make life a lot more inconvenient for anti-vaxxers. It seems to be working for masking, in Sydney; threat of $5000 fine means either they wear it or they don't go out in public.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, bookbard said:

So, interesting, I just read an article about vaccine hesitancy and one of the people interviewed was a young 20-something 'wellness' type woman who said she wouldn't vaccine, except she is going to have to (in order to travel overseas) and so she has decided that 'if I trust my body to handle covid, I can trust it to handle the vaccine'.

In other words, a lot of the anti-vaxxers might change their tune if it is REALLY inconvenient to remain unvaccinated. So perhaps rather than trying to 'change their minds', the government needs to make life a lot more inconvenient for anti-vaxxers. It seems to be working for masking, in Sydney; threat of $5000 fine means either they wear it or they don't go out in public.

It was just on the news that about a 100 local bars and restaurants will not let you in unless you show your vaccination card.  This is not government requiring anything.  It is private businesses setting their own policies to keep themselves and their patrons safe.  I am all for it.  If people don't want to vaccinate there are plenty of other restaurants etc. that they can go to or they can cook at home or just get takeout. 

[Guest]

I’m sorry I’m putting this here out of the blue and, I think, unconnected to anything being discussed at the moment, but it goes. 

My frustration is with someone I love who has had COVID and *thinks* that means they never need the vaccine. This person *thinks* they have “more antibodies” than I, the vaccinated person “had put in from the vaccine.” (I know that is not how the vaccine works, but it’s not the point to debate about.) 

It is one subject which I do NOT hear regularly addressed by the talking heads. I listened to a radio broadcast for an hour yesterday while driving - Fauci was on there, it was a Q&A - but this was not discussed. To be sure, if I google, “I have had COVID, do I need the vaccine?” I will get hundreds, if not more, of reliable links (Hopkins, UMMC, Chicago University Medical System, etc...) that say somewhere between three months after illness to eight months after illness, with a healthy heap of, “we don’t know how long/well natural immunity lasts.” But ALL recommend getting the vaccine post-COVID, though not immediately afterwards. However, Person I Love does not care how many links there may be to that effect or what those sources may be; they are fixated on the one Doctor Talking Head YouTuber who said, “If you have had COVID, you do not need to get the vaccine.” 

So I am left with *hoping* natural immunity saves the day for a while to come, and I am grateful to live where a lot of people have been vaccinated because there is less virus circulating here so neither I not the Person are that likely to have a breakthrough infection anyway. 

[sheryl]

11 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Ours does too.  Or at least asks about it.

Yep, blue light specials.  My first job (other than babysitting), when I was 16 was for Kmart and I used to do the blue light special announcements.  "Attention Kmart Shoppers, if you look up and around, you'll see that flashing blue light in our <<whatever department>> where we are having a special on our <<whatever whatever>> for just <<<whatever amount>>>.  That's right shoppers, just <<amount>> for our <<item>>, but this special is limited so come on over to the <<department>> before the flashing blue light ends".

 

Thanks for that!  I'm going to read your reply to DH - go down memory lane!  WOW!  I'm smiling as I type this.  🙂  

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m sorry I’m putting this here out of the blue and, I think, unconnected to anything being discussed at the moment, but it goes. 

My frustration is with someone I love who has had COVID and *thinks* that means they never need the vaccine. This person *thinks* they have “more antibodies” than I, the vaccinated person “had put in from the vaccine.” (I know that is not how the vaccine works, but it’s not the point to debate about.) 

It is one subject which I do NOT hear regularly addressed by the talking heads. I listened to a radio broadcast for an hour yesterday while driving - Fauci was on there, it was a Q&A - but this was not discussed. To be sure, if I google, “I have had COVID, do I need the vaccine?” I will get hundreds, if not more, of reliable links (Hopkins, UMMC, Chicago University Medical System, etc...) that say somewhere between three months after illness to eight months after illness, with a healthy heap of, “we don’t know how long/well natural immunity lasts.” But ALL recommend getting the vaccine post-COVID, though not immediately afterwards. However, Person I Love does not care how many links there may be to that effect or what those sources may be; they are fixated on the one Doctor Talking Head YouTuber who said, “If you have had COVID, you do not need to get the vaccine.” 

So I am left with *hoping* natural immunity saves the day for a while to come, and I am grateful to live where a lot of people have been vaccinated because there is less virus circulating here so neither I not the Person are that likely to have a breakthrough infection anyway. 

I too have been wondering when they are going to give us reliable, official updates re (1) how long natural immunity lasts for general Covid and (2) how well natural immunity protects against variants.

I do believe it is reasonable to rely on natural immunity, based on what we know now.  We do know that there are some people who get diseases twice, but that is rare.  I think it's actually more rare than breakthrough Covid cases, based on what I've read.  But I don't know if that applies to the more communicable variants.

Edited August 2, 2021 by SKL

[Pen]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m sorry I’m putting this here out of the blue and, I think, unconnected to anything being discussed at the moment, but it goes. 

My frustration is with someone I love who has had COVID and *thinks* that means they never need the vaccine. This person *thinks* they have “more antibodies” than I, the vaccinated person “had put in from the vaccine.” (I know that is not how the vaccine works, but it’s not the point to debate about.) 

It is one subject which I do NOT hear regularly addressed by the talking heads. I listened to a radio broadcast for an hour yesterday while driving - Fauci was on there, it was a Q&A - but this was not discussed. To be sure, if I google, “I have had COVID, do I need the vaccine?” I will get hundreds, if not more, of reliable links (Hopkins, UMMC, Chicago University Medical System, etc...) that say somewhere between three months after illness to eight months after illness, with a healthy heap of, “we don’t know how long/well natural immunity lasts.” But ALL recommend getting the vaccine post-COVID, though not immediately afterwards. However, Person I Love does not care how many links there may be to that effect or what those sources may be; they are fixated on the one Doctor Talking Head YouTuber who said, “If you have had COVID, you do not need to get the vaccine.” 

So I am left with *hoping* natural immunity saves the day for a while to come, and I am grateful to live where a lot of people have been vaccinated because there is less virus circulating here so neither I not the Person are that likely to have a breakthrough infection anyway. 

Eta: apologies for thinking it your dh/   Please insert idea of the person whoever it is anywhere I made that error

Based on university level study of immunology in my younger days, it is true that we do not know how long natural immunity will last and it cannot be guaranteed to be the same for each person.
 

OTOH natural immunity based on actual infection with a germ is likely to be more robust than vaccine induced immunity based on only a fragment thereof. And based on experience with the quite similar SARS1, it is likely to be at least many years - assuming that the illness Covid19 is actually caused by a similar SARS2 virus. 
 

It is not merely a matter of “antibodies” but an extremely complex interplay of innate and acquired immunity, including T cells and memory B cells. At the time I was in school it was not thought that the innate immune system had any “memory” - but in the years since then it was found that it too has something akin to memory which is referred to as “training”.  
 

(ETA: and where there was an actual infection the memory and training are more likely to encompass a broader range of parts (nucleid, capsid, spike, etc or various different aspects depending upon the germ involved; perhaps there was even already more than one variant in the natural infection-rather that just the one type of spike sequence encoded for in the jab material, so that it is more likely that subsequent variants and strains may still be at least partly recognized and an immune response initiated. )  Plus there is the likely benefit that both arms of the immune system, innate and acquired and perhaps more aspects of the acquired immune system) may have training / memory giving more nimble and robust -and perhaps also more nuanced (less risk of ADE for example, perhaps) response potential .)
 

If I were in your dh situation, I would still want to het get and keep my “terrain” (general health) good, including good levels for me personally of D, zinc, selenium, etc (already talked about what I expect you consider ad nauseum ). And to be ready with an early treatment protocol personal kit for just in case. (As optimum as possible for myself, not just “good” minimum acceptable.) 

Part of “terrain” for good health is almost certainly also emotional. 
 

(Based on SARS1 experience it is likely that the natural immunity will last at least 18 years / since it started in 2002 that’s the history to this point. Otoh it looks right now like the vaccines are possibly not giving lasting immunity for many people at just a year out.   That’s at least supposedly why boosters are being considered already in Israel. And it seemed in many cases I read about that Immune system experience with SARS1 also gave immunity to SARS2 — and given that SARS2 differs more from SARS1 than the delta variant of SARS2 differs from alpha SARS2 that’s significant.) 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Pen

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m sorry I’m putting this here out of the blue and, I think, unconnected to anything being discussed at the moment, but it goes. 

My frustration is with someone I love who has had COVID and *thinks* that means they never need the vaccine. This person *thinks* they have “more antibodies” than I, the vaccinated person “had put in from the vaccine.” (I know that is not how the vaccine works, but it’s not the point to debate about.) 

It is one subject which I do NOT hear regularly addressed by the talking heads. I listened to a radio broadcast for an hour yesterday while driving - Fauci was on there, it was a Q&A - but this was not discussed. To be sure, if I google, “I have had COVID, do I need the vaccine?” I will get hundreds, if not more, of reliable links (Hopkins, UMMC, Chicago University Medical System, etc...) that say somewhere between three months after illness to eight months after illness, with a healthy heap of, “we don’t know how long/well natural immunity lasts.” But ALL recommend getting the vaccine post-COVID, though not immediately afterwards. However, Person I Love does not care how many links there may be to that effect or what those sources may be; they are fixated on the one Doctor Talking Head YouTuber who said, “If you have had COVID, you do not need to get the vaccine.” 

So I am left with *hoping* natural immunity saves the day for a while to come, and I am grateful to live where a lot of people have been vaccinated because there is less virus circulating here so neither I not the Person are that likely to have a breakthrough infection anyway. 

Rather than try to convince him that his preferred youtuber is "wrong," I'd focus on the idea that the advice is outdated, because Delta is far more infectious, with viral loads more than 1000x higher than previous strains and mutations that specifically help it evade antibodies, including antibodies acquired from previous infection with other strains. Has he checked to see whether his favorite Youtuber has updated the advice recently? If he doesn't trust the CDC, would news stories about actual increases in reinfection with Delta be more persuasive? 

E.g.:

"the risk of reinfection with Delta may be 46% greater than with the Alpha variant, with the highest risk seen six months after a first infection – when second cases caused by Delta were 2.37 times more common than with Alpha." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/phe-upgrade-delta-variants-risk-level-due-to-reinfection-risk

 "All those who think you have natural immunity, you don't," Stack said. "If you got infected and it was six months ago and you think you're bulletproof, you're not. This virus is reinfecting people at a much higher rate than the previous versions. Even if you've had COVID, you should get vaccinated." https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2021/07/26/covid-19-delta-variant-kentucky-how-to-watch-beshear-update/8090806002/

[Pam in CT]

re "natural immunity affords better protection"

4 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m sorry I’m putting this here out of the blue and, I think, unconnected to anything being discussed at the moment, but it goes. 

My frustration is with someone I love who has had COVID and *thinks* that means they never need the vaccine. This person *thinks* they have “more antibodies” than I, the vaccinated person “had put in from the vaccine.” (I know that is not how the vaccine works, but it’s not the point to debate about.) 

It is one subject which I do NOT hear regularly addressed by the talking heads. I listened to a radio broadcast for an hour yesterday while driving - Fauci was on there, it was a Q&A - but this was not discussed. To be sure, if I google, “I have had COVID, do I need the vaccine?” I will get hundreds, if not more, of reliable links (Hopkins, UMMC, Chicago University Medical System, etc...) that say somewhere between three months after illness to eight months after illness, with a healthy heap of, “we don’t know how long/well natural immunity lasts.” But ALL recommend getting the vaccine post-COVID, though not immediately afterwards. However, Person I Love does not care how many links there may be to that effect or what those sources may be; they are fixated on the one Doctor Talking Head YouTuber who said, “If you have had COVID, you do not need to get the vaccine.” 

So I am left with *hoping* natural immunity saves the day for a while to come, and I am grateful to live where a lot of people have been vaccinated because there is less virus circulating here so neither I not the Person are that likely to have a breakthrough infection anyway. 

This actually doesn't surprise me at all -- it is exactly where we were a year ago, with ~half the country advocated Let Er Rip as the only "public policy" (!) necessary or desirable.  Including a great many public and political figures.  Including a great many board members.

Let Er Rip so we get to herd "naturally" was the messaging, for a good long time, by and to and among a good number of Americans.  That many Americans still hold to that messaging even after the vaccine is developed/deployed/freely available isn't, to me, surprising.

And the reality is: this is a new disease. We don't know how long immunity lasts. From *either* natural infection *or* the vaccine.  And we CANNOT know, until time elapses and actual data can be gathered 12 months, 18 months, 24 months out from the date of confirmed case or vaccine.

We don't know how well prior infection will protect against the Delta variant, or how well the vaccines will protect against the Delta variant; and we CANNOT know until sufficient time elapses and community spread occurs that we can get actual data (ie where we are today, with Delta).

And we certainly don't know how well prior infection will protect against the NEXT variant, or how well viz the existing vaccines.

It is a new disease.

We.

Don't.

Know.

 

And while nobody ~~ likes ~~ uncertainty about matters as important as life and health and death... we have different go-to strategies of how we tend to respond to uncertainty.  Some trust in chariots (=science and experts, in this case); some trust in horses (="natural" immunity, in this case); and others in the Lord (which in this case I suppose could go either in a "MY Lord will save ME from harm, #NotMyProblem if others are Left Behind" kind of direction, or in "I'm personally ready to meet my Maker" kind of way, which ultimately may amount to the same thing). 

Sounds like you're on Team Chariot *, while your loved one is on Team Horse.  I can see how that could be frustrating (particularly if your moral frame is wider-lens than his) but to me, not surprising.

 

 

 

 

* me too, FWIW; DM me if you're interested in how that fits my personal theology LOL

[Dmmetler]

What frustrates me is that for the most part, the people who are strongly against the COVID vax, and really riding the "experimental treatment, not fully approved, dangerous, blood clots, fetal cells, is going to alter your DNA" type reasons, not due to medical reasons or even past experience with vaccinations being less than ideal, are also the ones who will swear up and down that masks aren't necessary, that kids don't get COVID, and that they don't know ANYONE who has had COVID, or at least hasn't had worse than a bad cold (and if they claim they've had COVID, were never actually tested-often claiming that colds as early as October 2019 were COVID). Yet, these are folks in the same homeschool circles I am in, and we've had three people in that circle lose family members due to COVID before vaccination was available-including one who's husband died of COVID-with no prior medical issues, and only in his '50's. 

 

I have friends who are not vaccinated either due to medical issues, that they've had COVID recently, or because they have had enough prior bad experiences with vaccination that while this one is not counterindicated, they're wary. I understand that. They're generally very careful and are not trying to convince others not to get vaccinated. And some of them are getting updated medical advice and getting vaccinated now, either because they can now do it at a doctor's office, with more support, or because Delta has changed the equation. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Dmmetler

[HeartString]

17 hours ago, GracieJane said:

I‘m curious about people who chose not to get vaccinated: how do you feel about those who have gotten vaccinated? Do you think they made a mistake?

A few here have expressed the “concern” thst the vaccinated are now a danger to the unvaccinated  due to “shedding” harming the fertility of young ladies around them. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

What frustrates me is that for the most part, the people who are strongly against the COVID vax, and really riding the "experimental treatment, not fully approved, dangerous, blood clots, fetal cells, is going to alter your DNA" type reasons, not due to medical reasons or even past experience with vaccinations being less than ideal, are also the ones who will swear up and down that masks aren't necessary, that kids don't get COVID, and that they don't know ANYONE who has had COVID, or at least hasn't had worse than a bad cold (and if they claim they've had COVID, were never actually tested-often claiming that colds as early as October 2019 were COVID). Yet, these are folks in the same homeschool circles I am in, and we've had three people in that circle lose family members due to COVID before vaccination was available-including one who's husband died of COVID-with no prior medical issues, and only in his '50's. 

 

I have friends who are not vaccinated either due to medical issues, that they've had COVID recently, or because they have had enough prior bad experiences with vaccination that while this one is not counterindicated, they're wary. I understand that. They're generally very careful and are not trying to convince others not to get vaccinated. And some of them are getting updated medical advice and getting vaccinated now, either because they can now do it at a doctor's office, with more support, or because Delta has changed the equation. 

 

 

I was just thinking about this very thing as I came out from an in store pickup (I hadn’t been in a store in over a week and saw masking is back up over 70%). I was thinking that I think my feelings about people getting vaccinated have been heavily influenced by the way people behaved in the year leading up to vaccines even being available. They were so many people fighting against wearing masks or not having large gatherings or doing anything else to minimize the spread during that whole time. The frustration of so many people endangering everyone else and making this worse than it had to be was already high. I think if everyone had been working together and doing their part to minimize spread and not infect others, the feeling going in to the vaccine stage would have been different and it would’ve been easier to have understanding about some people just having concerns about the vaccine itself. I’ve been there with vaccine concerns, so that’s something I can actually understand, but against the backdrop of everything else, and all the misinformation and ridiculous politics stuff, it’s something entirely different.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

re "natural immunity affords better protection"

This actually doesn't surprise me at all -- it is exactly where we were a year ago, with ~half the country advocated Let Er Rip as the only "public policy" (!) necessary or desirable.  Including a great many public and political figures.  Including a great many board members.

Let Er Rip so we get to herd "naturally" was the messaging, for a good long time, by and to and among a good number of Americans.  That many Americans still hold to that messaging even after the vaccine is developed/deployed/freely available isn't, to me, surprising.

And the reality is: this is a new disease. We don't know how long immunity lasts. From *either* natural infection *or* the vaccine.  And we CANNOT know, until time elapses and actual data can be gathered 12 months, 18 months, 24 months out from the date of confirmed case or vaccine.

We don't know how well prior infection will protect against the Delta variant, or how well the vaccines will protect against the Delta variant; and we CANNOT know until sufficient time elapses and community spread occurs that we can get actual data (ie where we are today, with Delta).

And we certainly don't know how well prior infection will protect against the NEXT variant, or how well viz the existing vaccines.

It is a new disease.

We.

Don't.

Know.

 

And while nobody ~~ likes ~~ uncertainty about matters as important as life and health and death... we have different go-to strategies of how we tend to respond to uncertainty.  Some trust in chariots (=science and experts, in this case); some trust in horses (="natural" immunity, in this case); and others in the Lord (which in this case I suppose could go either in a "MY Lord will save ME from harm, #NotMyProblem if others are Left Behind" kind of direction, or in "I'm personally ready to meet my Maker" kind of way, which ultimately may amount to the same thing). 

Sounds like you're on Team Chariot *, while your loved one is on Team Horse.  I can see how that could be frustrating (particularly if your moral frame is wider-lens than his) but to me, not surprising.

 

 

 

 

* me too, FWIW; DM me if you're interested in how that fits my personal theology LOL

And now…you’ve brought back to mind a song we sung at my Christian elementary school, which sung that scripture, lol. 
 

So funny how those songs from childhood persist in the memory. I guess that was the point of singing all those scripture-based songs, lol. It was “hidden in my heart” for sure. 

[Pen]

11 hours ago, KSera said:

We know nothing of what the data is she is basing this on, but more than that, this document is an addendum to a lawsuit that is so full of crazy that it's hard to believe the people filing it believe a word it says (it's quite likely they don't). I'm no legal scholar, but I have a hard time seeing them do anything but throw it out. I mean, the whole thing is based on the premise "There is in Fact no Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition" which is just plain sick.

 

As to the bolded: It is stated in the filed document. I know from carefully reading the document. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Pen

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

1 hour ago, HeartString said:

A few here have expressed the “concern” thst the vaccinated are now a danger to the unvaccinated  due to “shedding” harming the fertility of young ladies around them. 

I literally have two coworkers who believe this.  Neither will get the vaccine because of shedding and fertility concerns.

The worst part is that one is an RN-paramedic and works in an ER and the other one is in PA school.

[KSera]

24 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

As to the bolded: It is stated in the filed document. I know from carefully reading the document. 

I think we are talking past each other. I know what she says she is basing the data on, but no one else can verify any of this and it it’s an addendum to a lawsuit that’s so full of so much other fantasy that I don’t know why anyone would just take her at her word that she has this data that no one else does.

[SKL]

29 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I literally have two coworkers who believe this.  Neither will get the vaccine because of shedding and fertility concerns.

The worst part is that one is an RN-paramedic and works in an ER and the other one is in PA school.

At least one of my extremely anti-vax Cuban-American facebook friends is a nurse.  Possibly more than one.  It just goes to show that being in a legitimate medical field does not mean one is objective about medical things.

[TCB]

33 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I literally have two coworkers who believe this.  Neither will get the vaccine because of shedding and fertility concerns.

The worst part is that one is an RN-paramedic and works in an ER and the other one is in PA school.

I’ve seen a lot of speculation that what is making the difference is level of education, and there may be some of that, but I think there are certainly other things at play. I have colleagues with similar views, although not many. In my experience it is a whole mindset that started with Covid is no big deal, and has so far progressed to the vaccine misinformation, with a number of other steps on the way.

[Pam in CT]

re frustration

36 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

What frustrates me is that for the most part, the people who are strongly against the COVID vax, and really riding the "experimental treatment, not fully approved, dangerous, blood clots, fetal cells, is going to alter your DNA" type reasons, not due to medical reasons or even past experience with vaccinations being less than ideal, are also the ones who will swear up and down that masks aren't necessary, that kids don't get COVID, and that they don't know ANYONE who has had COVID, or at least hasn't had worse than a bad cold (and if they claim they've had COVID, were never actually tested-often claiming that colds as early as October 2019 were COVID). Yet, these are folks in the same homeschool circles I am in, and we've had three people in that circle lose family members due to COVID before vaccination was available-including one who's husband died of COVID-with no prior medical issues, and only in his '50's. 

 

I have friends who are not vaccinated either due to medical issues, that they've had COVID recently, or because they have had enough prior bad experiences with vaccination that while this one is not counterindicated, they're wary. I understand that. They're generally very careful and are not trying to convince others not to get vaccinated. And some of them are getting updated medical advice and getting vaccinated now, either because they can now do it at a doctor's office, with more support, or because Delta has changed the equation.

Yeah, I confess to a fair degree of mounting irritation. A year ago -- when I truly did NOT expect a vaccine nearly as efficacious OR as early -- my state of mind was this is really really hard, this sucks for all sorts of reasons, but we can pull together and figure out how to make it endurable.

And then, back in April-May, my heart soared with hope. I really felt like I could glimpse light at the end of the tunnel.  The tunnel was still LONG to be sure, and I expected modifications around stadium games and theater and plane travel to remain for some time, and certainly I did not expect to be able to hop on a plane for an international vacation in the foreseeable future. But extended indoor contact with extended family and vaccinated friends, restaurant dining, domestic travel by car, in-person classes for my university / grad school kids: all on the table. Nearly Normal, sustainable over a long haul.

And now I feel like all that has been SNATCHED.  I'm on my synagogue's board. We are at this very moment rethinking indoor High Holy Days. Because of the CHILDREN. Who are bearing the heaviest load this time through: they know they are now at greater risk than their vaccinated relatives, they know they aren't able to choose vaccination themselves, those (like my own <12 niece and nephew) within families where all the other members are already vaccinated know that their families are holding back on (eating in restaurants, travel, whatever) because of the risk to them, as Delta runs rampant. It is a lot, for little kids to hold.

A year ago, I felt extremely conscious of how comparatively fortunate my own family was, how relatively able we were to carry on work and learning, our ability to rely on delivered food and other things.  It sucked, but I felt, then, that ethics and duty called for making the best of this plague inflicted upon us.

I'm a lot grumpier this time through.

Because this time through it is, largely, preventable. 

 

[Pam in CT]

re fertility fears

3 hours ago, HeartString said:

A few here have expressed the “concern” thst the vaccinated are now a danger to the unvaccinated  due to “shedding” harming the fertility of young ladies around them. 

Meanwhile

 

[Lucy the Valiant]

4 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re "natural immunity affords better protection"

This actually doesn't surprise me at all -- it is exactly where we were a year ago, with ~half the country advocated Let Er Rip as the only "public policy" (!) necessary or desirable.  Including a great many public and political figures.  Including a great many board members.

Let Er Rip so we get to herd "naturally" was the messaging, for a good long time, by and to and among a good number of Americans.  That many Americans still hold to that messaging even after the vaccine is developed/deployed/freely available isn't, to me, surprising.

And the reality is: this is a new disease. We don't know how long immunity lasts. From *either* natural infection *or* the vaccine.  And we CANNOT know, until time elapses and actual data can be gathered 12 months, 18 months, 24 months out from the date of confirmed case or vaccine.

We don't know how well prior infection will protect against the Delta variant, or how well the vaccines will protect against the Delta variant; and we CANNOT know until sufficient time elapses and community spread occurs that we can get actual data (ie where we are today, with Delta).

And we certainly don't know how well prior infection will protect against the NEXT variant, or how well viz the existing vaccines.

It is a new disease.

We.

Don't.

Know.

 

And while nobody ~~ likes ~~ uncertainty about matters as important as life and health and death... we have different go-to strategies of how we tend to respond to uncertainty.  Some trust in chariots (=science and experts, in this case); some trust in horses (="natural" immunity, in this case); and others in the Lord (which in this case I suppose could go either in a "MY Lord will save ME from harm, #NotMyProblem if others are Left Behind" kind of direction, or in "I'm personally ready to meet my Maker" kind of way, which ultimately may amount to the same thing). 

Sounds like you're on Team Chariot *, while your loved one is on Team Horse.  I can see how that could be frustrating (particularly if your moral frame is wider-lens than his) but to me, not surprising.

 

 

 

 

* me too, FWIW; DM me if you're interested in how that fits my personal theology LOL

 

But *SOME* people do know, because they have active antibodies 12+ months after a mild infection, and have had those antibodies all along (tested regularly). 

And if all of those people get a vaccine anyway, we'll never know, right? Shouldn't some of them (the willing ones, the ones with active antibodies who are not shedding anything) be left unvaccinated as a control group? (Am I missing something about the science?)

$.02 / adjusted for inflation

[Pen]

18 hours ago, Pen said:

afaik the 48K or whatever the number is in that range* is from someone under oath but under whistleblower identity protection in one of the court cases. It is based on access to CDC or similar records iirc. It will probably get dealt with during litigation process, a process which tends to grind slowly along 

I don’t think most of us can prove it true or false other than waiting for the court proceedings 

 

*I think K heard 45K as a rounded number 

 

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I think we are talking past each other. I know what she says she is basing the data on, but no one else can verify any of this and it it’s an addendum to a lawsuit that’s so full of so much other fantasy that I don’t know why anyone would just take her at her word that she has this data that no one else does.

that I don’t think any of us here on Wtm is in a position to prove it true or false was in my original reply to the person who asked about where the figure was coming from

 

if someone instead used Harvard Pilgrim Study to the effect that only ~1% of adverse events are reported to VAERS, someone could just s easily conclude ~ 90,000 deaths  likely if what you alleged that it was merely using a multiplier were the case .   Her conclusion seems comparatively conservative. 
 

I know quite a few people psonally who have had bad post vax experiences and not reported to VAERS because they are pro vax and do not want their personal bad experience to influence others .  Anecdotal only of course.   And you and all the people on Wtm who claim no problems at all- that’s also just anecdotal 

 

hers is at least attested to under perjury rules  ... 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Pen

[Pam in CT]

re what we know v what we hope

28 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

But *SOME* people do know, because they have active antibodies 12+ months after a mild infection, and have had those antibodies all along (tested regularly). 

And if all of those people get a vaccine anyway, we'll never know, right? Shouldn't some of them (the willing ones, the ones with active antibodies who are not shedding anything) be left unvaccinated as a control group? (Am I missing something about the science?)

$.02 / adjusted for inflation

It's a new disease.

[Even to the extent that there really are significant numbers of people mildly infected a year ago who actually do continue to test *active antibodies* "regularly" just out of curiosity... testing that is not typically covered by insurance, whith I know personally because I actually did go get "just curious if that flu-like think I had in Feb 2020 was COVID" antibody testing,,,]

We do not know that antibodies 12+ months out will hold to 24 months out.  Or that antibodies to COVID 2020 actually prevent infection or transmission with COVID Delta, or the next variant currently incubating.

We don't know.

As to to the question in the bolded: if folks who had a CONFIRMED case 12+ months ago actually enroll in real trials, with regular and supervised blood tests that actually do confirm ongoing antibody levels... yes.  I'm all for real study with real (replicable, transparent) trial parameters that actually study home long immunity through Vaccine P, Vaccine M, Vaccine J and Confirmed Case (of both COVID 2020 and COVID Delta) hold.

That is NOT what we're doing.

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Pen said:

And you and all the people on Wtm who claim no problems at all- that’s also just anecdotal 

I don't know anyone who claims no problems at all, and anyone claiming that based on anecdotes is no different than you claiming the vaccine is more harmful than the disease based on your anecdotes. Neither one is particularly relevant to reality. What is relevant is the actual data on illness, reactions, hospitalizations and deaths. We have lots of that at this point.

[Pen]

21 hours ago, GracieJane said:

I‘m curious about people who chose not to get vaccinated: how do you feel about those who have gotten vaccinated? Do you think they made a mistake?

It depends on what you mean by “mistake”.

Most of the people I know personally and who I talked with about it, as well as, I think, most on Wtm who took it, afaik, did it quite deliberately and thinking it through and realizing that there were substantial risks of taking something experimental and decided to do so out of their own free will.   So I cannot call that a “mistake” as I understand “mistake.” 

Is that what you are asking?

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

8 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re what we know v what we hope

It's a new disease.

[Even to the extent that there really are significant numbers of people mildly infected a year ago who actually do continue to test *active antibodies* "regularly" just out of curiosity... testing that is not typically covered by insurance, whith I know personally because I actually did go get "just curious if that flu-like think I had in Feb 2020 was COVID" antibody testing,,,]

 

People who give blood regularly would know. That's how my sister receives her status 8 months out from Covid.

[Pen]

24 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don't know anyone who claims no problems at all, and anyone claiming that based on anecdotes is no different than you claiming the vaccine is more harmful than the disease based on your anecdotes. Neither one is particularly relevant to reality. What is relevant is the actual data on illness, reactions, hospitalizations and deaths. We have lots of that at this point.

By claiming “no problems” I mean personally in individual cases. And I do believe some people I know who got it have had truly no problems. Not even a short localized pain reaction. Whether that will remain true long term, or after boosters, IDK. 

Some were in categories where risk levels made it at least in theory seem like a right side up risk / benefit analysis. 
 

For myself and many people I know the risk / benefit analysis is upside down.
 

From my own study of immunology back in school the “herd” idea doesn’t make sense as a reason when a vaccine is “leaky”.  (Eta- actually that’s follow up study since as those concepts weren’t in play at that time.) 
 

I know we differ on our opinions about that. 

I agree that we have lots of data.
 

We interpret it differently. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Pen

[GracieJane]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

It depends on what you mean by “mistake”.

Most of the people I know personally and who I talked with about it, as well as, I think, most on Wtm who took it, afaik, did it quite deliberately and thinking it through and realizing that there were substantial risks of taking something experimental and decided to do so out of their own free will.   So I cannot call that a “mistake” as I understand “mistake.” 

Is that what you are asking?

 

Yes! Thank you for responding. Do you think most vaccinated people do not evaluate risk the way you would? 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

By claiming “no problems” I mean personally in individual cases. And I do believe some people I know who got it have had truly no problems. Not even a short localized pain reaction. Whether that will remain true long term, or after boosters, IDK. 

Some were in categories where risk levels made it at least in theory seem like a right side up risk / benefit analysis. 
 

For myself and many people I know the risk / benefit analysis is upside down.
 

From my own study of immunology back in school the “herd” idea doesn’t make sense as a reason when a vaccine is “leaky”. 
 

I know we differ on our opinions about that. 

I agree that we have lots of data.
 

We interpret it differently. 

If the vaccine ONLY prevents 40% of infections, then that’s 40% less people spreading it. How does that not make sense from a protecting others point of view? 40% less infection is, well, less. And less is better than more. 

(It’s like when people say they don’t vote because it is just choosing the lesser of two evils…and I’m like yeah, but LESS evil is better than MORE evil)

[Pam in CT]

re what information is revealed through regular blood donations

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

People who give blood regularly would know. That's how my sister receives her status 8 months out from Covid.

There are folks who regularly donate blood, and I have the deepest admiration and gratitude for them. Such folks are rare but they definitely exist, and the rest of us depend on them when we/ our loved ones are in sudden/ urgent need.

 

Regular blood donations DO reveal the existence of antibodies.  But that antibody status alone does not prove whether or not the person has or is transmitting COVID asymtomatically.  Which is a real possibly as new variants like Delta spread.  To do the sort of comparison between  "natural" immunity v vaccine immunity suggested by the prior poster, there would need to be regular PCR testing and viral load testing as well as the existence-of-antibody check.

And to be clear: I think such actual studies would be valuable. But what your sister is doing isn't that

... though I am very grateful for the blood donations.

[AbcdeDooDah]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re what information is revealed through regular blood donations

There are folks who regularly donate blood, and I have the deepest admiration and gratitude for them. Such folks are rare but they definitely exist, and the rest of us depend on them when we/ our loved ones are in sudden/ urgent need.

 

Regular blood donations DO reveal the existence of antibodies.  But that antibody status alone does not prove whether or not the person has or is transmitting COVID asymtomatically.  Which is a real possibly as new variants like Delta spread.  To do the sort of comparison between  "natural" immunity v vaccine immunity suggested by the prior poster, there would need to be regular PCR testing and viral load testing as well as the existence-of-antibody check.

And to be clear: I think such actual studies would be valuable. But what your sister is doing isn't that

... though I am very grateful for the blood donations.

Of course. If people are getting sick in large numbers and spreading it  after prior natural infection, we’ll be seeing it on the news soon as with the vaccinated.

[Pam in CT]

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Of course. If people are getting sick in large numbers and spreading it  after prior natural infection, we’ll be seeing it on the news soon as with the vaccinated.

Right. There have been confirmed cases of people getting "natural infections" twice, but fortunately thus far that appears to be fairly limited. 

But if "second natural cases" are occurring, but asymptomatic or mild (as they seem to mostly be for vaccinated populations), such cases would only show up with  regular asymptomatic TESTING... which isn't happening.  And we wouldn't know about asymptomatic/ mild infections transmitting to others without also checking for viral load.... which also isn't happening.

Again: such studies would indeed be useful information. But without checking ongoing levels of "natural" antibodies over time AND ALSO for the virus itself AND ALSO for viral load, the mere existence of folks who've had it walking around not-being-hospitalized for second infections doesn't substantiate anything one way or another. 

[I mean, the vast majority of people who contracted COVID naturally also aren't being hospitalized for, say, appendicitis... which obviously does not demonstrate that natural infection protects against appendicitis!]

 

[Cecropia]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

If the vaccine ONLY prevents 40% of infections, then that’s 40% less people spreading it. How does that not make sense from a protecting others point of view? 40% less infection is, well, less. And less is better than more. 

(It’s like when people say they don’t vote because it is just choosing the lesser of two evils…and I’m like yeah, but LESS evil is better than MORE evil)

The vaccines would never have been approved for EUA with that level of effectiveness.

https://www.biospace.com/article/fda-s-guidance-on-a-covid-19-vaccine-must-be-at-least-50-percent-effective/

If effectiveness is only 40%, I really don't understand how mandates can still be floated for the general public.

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Cecropia said:

The vaccines would never have been approved for EUA with that level of effectiveness.

https://www.biospace.com/article/fda-s-guidance-on-a-covid-19-vaccine-must-be-at-least-50-percent-effective/

If effectiveness is only 40%, I really don't understand how mandates can still be floated for the general public.

Because it is way more effective than that at preventing serious illness/hospitalization? In areas where they have patients waiting for beds, having more vaccinated would sure help. 

And if you are employer, having people vaccinated keeps your employees healthier to continue working, and again, cutting 40% of the spread in a company is huge. 

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Cecropia said:

The vaccines would never have been approved for EUA with that level of effectiveness.

https://www.biospace.com/article/fda-s-guidance-on-a-covid-19-vaccine-must-be-at-least-50-percent-effective/

If effectiveness is only 40%, I really don't understand how mandates can still be floated for the general public.

The 40% number, whether true or not, is not the number for for the endpoint they were looking for. They were looking at effectiveness at preventing moderate to severe covid and death. For which it is incredible effective still.

[Cecropia]

Just now, KSera said:

The 40% number, whether true or not, is not the number for for the endpoint they were looking for. They were looking at effectiveness at preventing moderate to severe covid and death. For which it is incredible effective still.

From the article I linked:

Quote

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidelines today for where it will set the bar for approval of a vaccine, and that bar may not be as high as many would like.

First off, the agency indicated that it will require the vaccine be at least 50% more effective than a placebo in preventing COVID-19.

 

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

The 40% number, whether true or not, is not the number for for the endpoint they were looking for. They were looking at effectiveness at preventing moderate to severe covid and death. For which it is incredible effective still.

Do you get the feeling that symptom mitigation as the end goal is what the general public thought?  I think most people thought it would stop it, IME.

[Carrie12345]

Just popping in to say dh’s boss is positive for a second time. I don’t know the status of his symptoms. I’m having a hard time remembering, but I think his first go-round was before dh’s, so before mid December. 

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Do you get the feeling that symptom mitigation as the end goal is what the general public thought?  I think most people thought it would stop it, IME.

Based on what? I know we’ve made incredible improvements, but exactly how many infections have we fully eradicated? And how long did that one take?