Jump to content

Menu

The “vaccination divide” in the US


Quill
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!]

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 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.

Since symptom mitigation has been repeated ad nauseum as the goal, they must not have been paying much attention if they thought otherwise. 

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

17 minutes ago, Cecropia said:

From the article I linked:

 

Yeah, I looked at the article, but it appears they used their own effectiveness definition that doesn't match the FDA one. I don't think they intended that; that was written pre-vaccine, and the info wasn't out yet for them to know what the endpoints were. The endpoints weren't contracting the illness, they were serious illness or death. That's all that was even measured in the initial trials (because that was the initial main goal). From the actual FDA document:

Quote

FDA acknowledges the potential to request an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine
based on an interim analysis of a clinical endpoint from a Phase 3 efficacy study.
Issuance of an EUA requires a determination that the known and potential benefits
of the vaccine outweigh the known and potential risks. For a preventive COVID-
19 vaccine to be potentially administered to millions of individuals, including
healthy individuals, data adequate to inform an assessment of the vaccine’s
benefits and risks and support issuance of an EUA would include not only meeting
the prespecified success criteria for the study’s primary efficacy endpoint as
described in the guidance for industry entitled “Development and Licensure of
Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19” (Ref. 1) (i.e. a point estimate for a placebo-
controlled efficacy trial of at least 50%, with a lower bound of the appropriately
alpha-adjusted confidence interval around the primary efficacy endpoint point

estimate of >30%) but also additional safety and effectiveness data as described
below.

16 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.

As stated above, initially, preventing serious illness and death was the goal. Then we found out it prevented transmission, and that was amazing(!) news. Super happy, joy, joy. But then Delta came along. Now it still prevents most hospitalization and death (I'd call that more than just symptom mitigation), and it reduces disease, but it doesn't reduce it as amazingly as it did with previous variants.

Edited by KSera
adding bolding because formatting makes it hard to read
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Since symptom mitigation has been repeated ad nauseum as the goal, they must not have been paying much attention if they thought otherwise. 

A lot of people don't. That's been pretty clear. My husband today said he'll be mad if he gets Covid because he got vaxed. He's definitely bitter about the unclear messaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GracieJane said:

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


1) many vaccinated people have very different risk than I have as a personal health matter regardless of how they “evaluate” it.  
 

 

2) some people even if it were possible to have identical risk situations I am sure would, yes, evaluate it very differently


3) snip - privacy .   

 

4) For myself, this gives one useful way to think about cost/benefit analysis (for example, even if you disagree with him, to be able to understand how something could have a greater net negative even if it appears to have some positive stats): 

 


 

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Yeah, I looked at the article, but it appears they used their own effectiveness definition that doesn't match the FDA one. I don't think they intended that; that was written pre-vaccine, and the info wasn't out yet for them to know what the endpoints were. The endpoints weren't contracting the illness, they were serious illness or death. That's all that was even measured in the initial trials (because that was the initial main goal). From the actual FDA document:

As stated above, initially, preventing serious illness and death was the goal. Then we found out it prevented transmission, and that was amazing(!) news. Super happy, joy, joy. But then Delta came along. Now it still prevents most hospitalization and death (I'd call that more than just symptom mitigation), and it reduces disease, but it doesn't reduce it as amazingly as it did with previous variants.

I just don't think the messaging conveyed that to the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pen said:


1) many vaccinated people have very different risk than I have as a personal health matter regardless of how they “evaluate” it.  
 

 

2) some people even if it were possible to have identical risk situations I am sure would, yes, evaluate it very differently


3) snip - privacy . 

 

4) For myself, this gives one useful way to think about cost/benefit analysis (for example, even if you disagree with him, to be able to understand how something could have a greater net negative even if it appears to have some positive stats): 

 


 

A heads up for others that the person on that video is an anti-semitic conspiracy therorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi. I see from the title it's about blood clots, and blood clots are a legitimate concern, but not from a covid denier and certainly not about to give paid clicks to an anti-semite.

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I just don't think the messaging conveyed that to the general public.

That's unfortunate. I actually thought it was fairly well spread, because early on, a lot of the pushback on vaccines was "they only prevent serious illness and death, not spread, so why do you care if anyone else gets it?" and that lasted up until the research in the late Spring showing they were preventing transmission very well.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 8
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

t it was fairly well spread, because early on, a lot of the pushback on vaccines was "they only prevent serious illness and death, not spread, so why do you care if anyone else gets it?" and that lasted up until the research in the late Spring showing they were preventing transmission very well.

Which is the reason I got it. I am not really concerned for myself. I just don't want to pass it onto anyone else. So the fact that I can now is really disappointing and means that once again, I can't do anything I love to do. I had planned to join choir this month after being out of it for 18 months.  ( I sang for 40 years before that.) Lots of other stuff. Back to being a hermit. 

I HATE THIS.  And you guys will get to have me hear on the board 24/7 since I cannot go anywhere else not.  You guys are back to being my only friends. Sigh. It was so nice to start reconnecting.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 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.


and the “absolute effectiveness rate” was tiny

not 40% at all

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pen said:


and the “absolute effectiveness rate” was tiny

not 40% at all

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/

 

 

Yeah, I'm well aware. I think most of us who read a lot about this stuff know that. But what I want to know, is if I get covid, what are the chances I will be hospitalized or killed by it after being vaccinated vs without being vaccinated. That's the real world number. I get the vaccine for IF I get covid (which with Delta, now looks like darn near everyone will be exposed, unless they can really isolate hard). It matters a whole lot to me to know that 99%+ of the covid patients in my local hospital are unvaccinated. That's not a tiny effect, no matter how much covid deniers like to lean into the absolute effectiveness rate in an attempt to make it sound like lack of vaccination isn't killing people by the thousands. Which is so perplexing to me. Isn't less people dying better?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yeah, I looked at the article, but it appears they used their own effectiveness definition that doesn't match the FDA one. I don't think they intended that; that was written pre-vaccine, and the info wasn't out yet for them to know what the endpoints were. The endpoints weren't contracting the illness, they were serious illness or death. That's all that was even measured in the initial trials (because that was the initial main goal). From the actual FDA document:

Thank you. Honestly, what you quoted is a bit confusing to me, but I ran it down a bit further and found this press announcement which is written in layman's terms. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-action-help-facilitate-timely-development-safe-effective-covid

Quote

[The guidance] conveys that the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Yeah, I'm well aware. I think most of us who read a lot about this stuff know that. But what I want to know, is if I get covid, what are the chances I will be hospitalized or killed by it after being vaccinated vs without being vaccinated. That's the real world number. I get the vaccine for IF I get covid (which with Delta, now looks like darn near everyone will be exposed, unless they can really isolate hard). It matters a whole lot to me to know that 99%+ of the covid patients in my local hospital are unvaccinated. That's not a tiny effect, no matter how much covid deniers like to lean into the absolute effectiveness rate in an attempt to make it sound like lack of vaccination isn't killing people by the thousands. Which is so perplexing to me. Isn't less people dying better?

Yes. I've been up close and personal with someone on a vent. I had to make the decision to do a terminal wean. That is NOT the situation I want DH or my boys to find themselves in, nor do I ever ever ever want to have to make that decision for someone else again. Ever ever ever. It took me over three years to even halfway recover from the trauma of having to make that decision. It's been over eight years and I still can barely allow myself to think about it. Avoiding that is my #1 priority. By far. Everything else pales in comparison.

  • Sad 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cecropia said:

Thank you. Honestly, what you quoted is a bit confusing to me, but I ran it down a bit further and found this press announcement which is written in layman's terms. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-action-help-facilitate-timely-development-safe-effective-covid

Quote

[The guidance] conveys that the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated

That's a much more straightforward quote. Thanks for tracking it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

*I personally* wanted the vaccine so I would probably not be hospitalized or die if I did get COVID. So yeah, symptom mitigation.  But I also am idealistic enough to wish that almost everyone would get it so the virus would have no host. In the early part of the pandemic, when a lot of people thought it could be a one-time virus like measles or CP, I would guess a lot of people envisioned us getting to eradication by natural infection. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

*I personally* wanted the vaccine so I would probably not be hospitalized or die if I did get COVID. So yeah, symptom mitigation.  But I also am idealistic enough to wish that almost everyone would get it so the virus would have no host. In the early part of the pandemic, when a lot of people thought it could be a one-time virus like measles or CP, I would guess a lot of people envisioned us getting to eradication by natural infection. 

Yeah, I know. Now you just keep getting it over and over. We have had boardies that have had it 2 or 3 times. So it will never end.  It will just keep killing us off a little at a time.....or right now, a lot at a time. ( Well, the deaths will start in 2 weeks.  It normally takes that long for them to catch up the amount of cases.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: the vaccine only preventing 40% of cases:

The Israeli figure of 39% efficacy against Delta is the lowest number suggested by any current study. Other recent studies have provided much higher efficacy rates against Delta: 79% (Scotland), 87% (Canada), 88% (England).

Canada: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259420v2.full\

England: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

Scotland: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

So, I donate blood every 8 weeks (give or take things like my donation day was the day after I had my second covid shot, so I waited another 8 weeks because the location where I donate only offers it on 8 week cycles).  I've gotten information about my antibody status; they can tell that I have been vaccinated but have not been infected with covid because of the kinds of antibodies I have.  

That said, the Red Cross is suspending covid antibody testing.  Not sure why; maybe they've suspended the convalescent plasma thing?  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Terabith said:

So, I donate blood every 8 weeks (give or take things like my donation day was the day after I had my second covid shot, so I waited another 8 weeks because the location where I donate only offers it on 8 week cycles).  I've gotten information about my antibody status; they can tell that I have been vaccinated but have not been infected with covid because of the kinds of antibodies I have.  

That said, the Red Cross is suspending covid antibody testing.  Not sure why; maybe they've suspended the convalescent plasma thing?  

According to their website:

Quote

Last June – when much was still unknown about the COVID-19 virus – the Red Cross began testing all blood product donations for COVID-19 antibodies. With a majority of Americans now having received a COVID-19 vaccine and the discontinuation of convalescent plasma, the Red Cross has stopped testing for COVID-19 antibodies as of June 25, 2021. 

I missed it by 1 week...

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

15 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

A lot of people don't. That's been pretty clear. My husband today said he'll be mad if he gets Covid because he got vaxed. He's definitely bitter about the unclear messaging.

Yeah, I watched and waited until the respected info sources confirmed that the vax would highly likely prevent my spreading Covid, because I was not interested in vaxing to prevent myself (or my kids) from experiencing Covid symptoms.

I really hope there is a frenzy of reliable research happening to clear this up soon! 

This is so frustrating.  We're intelligent, educated people, and if we can't answer these questions, then it should be obvious why many Americans are holding back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that the Delta variant is going to just rip through, kill a bunch more, disable even more, and then still adhering to their delusions and refusing vaccines and safety protocols, Lambda will hit. Another wave of wiping people out. After that, having lost a lot of hosts and presuming that boosters become available to those who have already vaccinated, boosters tweaked for the new variants, it will finally ebb. I think it is going to get very Darwinian out there. Children, as usual, will suffer the follies of the asshat adults who don't give a damn. It has always been this way. Sigh.

I figure when the U.S. hits about 3 or 4 million dead, a few hundred thousand kids dead or disabled, orphanages have to be built, social security disability goes totally bust from the sheer number of folks needing it due to covid disability, food costs absolutely skyrocket because there aren't enough workers, and medical workers quit in droves or are dead from being overwhelmed by viral load, then a few people may go, "Well sh$t! I guess we should have paid attention."

Or maybe not. The denying and delusional furor has reached a place of being like religious mania. They may be so dogmatic that they don't care how many die, how bankrupt the nation becomes, or even if their own kids die. I know religious people who really do not care, and when their own foolishness catches up, throws their hands in the air and claim, "God's will." Blaming a deity for human complacency is their norm. I have seen a bunch of that including folks that would not get medical treatment for very treatable conditions because "God's will" and "God will heal me". So it is entirely possible that there is no amount of suffering that will cause people to take precautions of any kind unless forced upon pain of incarceration, and I doubt the country will resort to that.

I think we are heading down a very dystopian hole, and I don't think anything can be done to stop it. All you can do is do is the very best you can as individuals who see the iceberg ahead to get your own family into the " lifeboat". The rest are going to party until the hull splits open, and the ship sinks! 😠

I say this as my unvaxed nephew and his wife with a 5.5 year old and a newborn, plan a 200 person party indoor/outdoor no precautions in a county with substantial delta variant spread. My heart weeps for my two great nieces, but I can't do a thing about it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

 I know religious people who really do not care, and when their own foolishness catches up, throws their hands in the air and claim, "God's will." Blaming a deity for human complacency is their norm. I have seen a bunch of that including folks that would not get medical treatment for very treatable conditions because "God's will" and "God will heal me". So it is entirely possible that there is no amount of suffering that will cause people to take precautions of any kind unless forced upon pain of incarceration, and I doubt the country will resort to that.

My friend just told me about a conversation with her neighbor who refuses any Covid precautions because he says "if God decides it's my time, it is my time." When she asked him why, then, did he have heart surgery last year and didn't simply give in to God calling him home, his response was "because I needed it".

You can't use logic. There is such a cognitive disconnect, it's depressing.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...