“The Covid vaccines aren’t truly vaccines”

[Pam in CT]

3 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

There is a difference to me between vaccines that require a series and shots that are yearly and hope to catch the anticipated strains, like a flu shot. 

Yes. The difference is driven by how *the diseases* behave. Not by the "design" of how the vaccines attempt to work.  The design goals are (roughly) the same: reduce transmission at a macro public health level; improve individuals' ability to fight the disease if exposed; and eventually to reduce the society-wide prevalence of the disease so it's extremely rare for anyone to be exposed -- ie "herd immunity."

Those goals are the same; but diseases are different. Some diseases mutate particularly fast & often (like regular flu, and now COVID), so new variants will emerge that beat prior vaccines and prior infection. Some do that, some don't.  For some diseases, immunity wanes over time (like tetanus), so boosters are needed.  But those differences arise from differences in how the diseases behave. Not the goals ("design") of the vaccine.

 

59 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don't see that as the same as flu (and eventually covid) shots that are an educated guess about what’s actually going around. If adults aren’t getting titres and boosting every vaccine needed then they could be contributing to others getting sick. Many of us said from the beginning the covid vaccine will end up like an annual flu shot. Tetanus vaccine wears off what ? 10 years. Are people really going to get covid boosters 1-3 times a year? 

Yes. If that is what it takes: sign me up. Here is my arm. 

I would LIKE a better alternative: sure. I would LIKE, very much, to get ahead of this variant whack-a-mole.

But wishing doesn't make it true.

[AbcdeDooDah]

12 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Yes. The difference is driven by how *the diseases* behave. Not by the "design" of how the vaccines attempt to work.  The design goals are (roughly) the same: reduce transmission at a macro public health level; improve individuals' ability to fight the disease if exposed; and eventually to reduce the society-wide prevalence of the disease so it's extremely rare for anyone to be exposed -- ie "herd immunity."

Those goals are the same; but diseases are different. Some diseases mutate particularly fast & often (like regular flu, and now COVID), so new variants will emerge that beat prior vaccines and prior infection. Some do that, some don't.  For some diseases, immunity wanes over time (like tetanus), so boosters are needed.  But those differences arise from differences in how the diseases behave. Not the goals ("design") of the vaccine.

 

Yes. If that is what it takes: sign me up. Here is my arm. 

I would LIKE a better alternative: sure. I would LIKE, very much, to get ahead of this variant whack-a-mole.

But wishing doesn't make it true.

I don't care if people call it a vaccine or not. 

If you want to sleep getting as many shots as they tell you you need, good for you. But I'm hearing a lot people, some here, say they're done. So where does that lead? Herd Immunity by natural infection. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don't see that as the same as flu (and eventually covid) shots that are an educated guess about what’s actually going around. If adults aren’t getting titres and boosting every vaccine needed then they could be contributing to others getting sick. Many of us said from the beginning the covid vaccine will end up like an annual flu shot. Tetanus vaccine wears off what ? 10 years. Are people really going to get covid boosters 1-3 times a year? 

Well tetanus is different anyway because you don’t get it from people breathing on you at a birthday party. Tetanus does wane but that’s also why, if you present to the ER with certain types of injuries, they will give you a tetanus shot. 
 

I do anticipate annual Covid shots (likely in combination with flu) going forward. Personally, I have no problem with it and I had begun to get annual flu shots a few years before Covid came to town. My dd was required to get them because she worked with infants and I figured I would start too in a show of solidarity. (Besides which, the flu kicked my butt when I got it maybe ten years ago and it started seeming like a good idea to thwart it if I possibly could.) 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Quill said:

Well tetanus is different anyway because you don’t get it from people breathing on you at a birthday party. Tetanus does wane but that’s also why, if you present to the ER with certain types of injuries, they will give you a tetanus shot. 
 

I do anticipate annual Covid shots (likely in combination with flu) going forward. Personally, I have no problem with it and I had begun to get annual flu shots a few years before Covid came to town. My dd was required to get them because she worked with infants and I figured I would start too in a show of solidarity. (Besides which, the flu kicked my butt when I got it maybe ten years ago and it started seeming like a good idea to thwart it if I possibly could.) 

How about 3 times a year? That's not going to last long with the general population. The physical and monetary costs from lost work are too high, especially when nothing changes. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

How about 3 times a year? That's not going to last long with the general population. The physical and monetary costs from lost work are too high, especially when nothing changes. 

If it takes three times a year, I would do that, but it’s not what I am anticipating and have not heard that theorized; I have only heard many people in science and medicine saying it would likely be a Covid annual booster and/or a combination annual Covid and flu booster. 
 

I think the lost work is a really excellent reason to not pass Covid around the community interminably. It’s the main reason I hope to avoid catching Covid at this point. 
 

I was just reading a letter from the head of my local hospital center and, not gonna lie, it’s scary as hell. This is a person who presumably has no agenda. I forwarded it to my husband. Desperate measures and all…

[AbcdeDooDah]

I mean, 3 times in a year isn't a theory, it's reality.

Some places, 4.

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I mean, 3 times in a year isn't a theory, it's reality.

Some places, 4.

But going forward? Is that what you’re hearing to expect for years to come? 

[maize]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

I mean, 3 times in a year isn't a theory, it's reality.

Some places, 4.

A three-shot initial series is common for vaccines, including many childhood vaccinations.

That doesn't mean three shots will be needed every year.

There is a decent chance that a three shots series followed by yearly boosters could become the recommendation.

It may also be that as different schedules are tried we will determine a different schedule is best.

[Pam in CT]

re difficulties associated with multiple boosters

12 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don't care if people call it a vaccine or not. 

If you want to sleep getting as many shots as they tell you you need, good for you. But I'm hearing a lot people, some here, say they're done. So where does that lead? Herd Immunity by natural infection.

The problem is, new variants beat immunities afforded by prior infection as surely as they beat immunity afforded by vaccination. Because the new variants are different.  That's the whack-a-mole.

 

8 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

How about 3 times a year? That's not going to last long with the general population. The physical and monetary costs from lost work are too high, especially when nothing changes. 

Yup. It sucks.

But we do not have a better option. 

We can HOPE that this variant, or the next one, will eventually mutate to mild enough for enough people that it "looks" like the old regular flu. But the variant after THAT could mutate into one that is MORE virulent.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure you're right that plenty of Americans won't go for annual or more-frequent-than-annual boosters.  Plenty of Americans haven't gotten even the initial shot.  But "natural immunity" isn't going to get us through this either. At this point we're just grinding on hoping we (by which I mean, the world, we're all in the same petri dish) get lucky with how the disease evolves.

[maize]

The most recent recommendation I have heard for flu shots for young children is a two shot series the first year they get a flu vaccine, and one yearly shot after that. It can take more than one initial shot to develop basic immune memory, and following boosters are often spaced out more.

It varies from vaccine to vaccine though.

[ScoutTN]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I mean, 3 times in a year isn't a theory, it's reality.

Some places, 4.

Sure, right now, when this wretched virus is still new. I am glad to do what is necessary and helpful for my own health and for my community and everyone.      I find it unlikely that this scenario will remain unchanged or unimproved over the next several years. 
 

The communicable diseases we typically are vaccinated against have been around and killing people for centuries. Effective vaccines for most of these have only available for less than 100 years. Medicine changes over time. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

But I'm hearing a lot people, some here, say they're done. So where does that lead? Herd Immunity by natural infection. 

 

It’s looking like we can’t get there that way. With omicron, it appears prior infection offers very little protection against disease, unfortunately. Hopefully it will help prevent severe disease (although the first US omicron death was in someone who had had a prior Covid infection, but hopefully that turns out to be the exception rather than the rule). 

[AbcdeDooDah]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

It’s looking like we can’t get there that way. With omicron, it appears prior infection offers very little protection against disease, unfortunately. Hopefully it will help prevent severe disease (although the first US omicron death was in someone who had had a prior Covid infection, but hopefully that turns out to be the exception rather than the rule). 

And we won't get there with vaccination. How then?

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

And we won't get there with vaccination. How then?

I don't know. I'm not willing to throw the towel in on vaccination though just because we don't have it all figured out yet. I'm still optimistic that we're on the path to having this not be a permanent issue of the magnitude it is now. I think vaccines will be a part of that solution. As someone else said above, the fact that we are at 3 shots in the first year doesn't mean that would be the long term plan. The immune response changes with lengthening intervals between shots, and it seems not unlikely we would end up with a series much like other vaccines, that starts with multiple shots, and then has one or more boosters down the road.

Surely just having a million Americans die of this every two years forever and our hospitals swamped and HCW working in a constant hell isn't a good solution either, so we're going to have to have something other than that. Maybe we'll be lucky and omicron will be the one that gets us over the hump to it being a much milder thing going forward. Much too soon to tell, though.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, maize said:

The most recent recommendation I have heard for flu shots for young children is a two shot series the first year they get a flu vaccine, and one yearly shot after that. It can take more than one initial shot to develop basic immune memory, and following boosters are often spaced out more.

It varies from vaccine to vaccine though.

Almost twenty five years ago my son’s pediatrician recommend this due to his asthma.

[Katy]

14 hours ago, goldberry said:

I have seen such nasty comments on our local Facebook page in the vein of "Your health is not my responsibility! I don't need to wear a mask, why would I wear one to protect YOU?  If you have risk factors you should just stay home!"  There is definitely no vibe of "taking care of each other".  As a Christian who believes in "seek not your own advantage, but that of the other person" it's very discouraging and sad to see other Christians rage about "Not my problem!" 😥   

We do stay home. I’m completely fine with that but I think when hospitals get overwhelmed they should triage the anti-vaxxers to a ward to die instead of to ICU beds. 

One of DH’s coworkers had a sister recently hospitalized for covid. Not vaccinated.  One hospital refused to take her. They said they didn’t have the treatment she wanted and they were saving their one remaining ICU bed for someone vaccinated or there for trauma or heart attack, not for someone who chose to get sick.

Another hospital did take her but the nurses kept making comments. Apparently  she had a hot flash and wanted to cut off her hair. The nurse said, “No, you want to look pretty in your coffin.” Apparently every nurse working there said similar things about how she was going to die. They’re done hiding their contempt for idiots. She lived. She’s still not vaccinated. 

9 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

And we won't get there with vaccination. How then?

We won’t get there. This will become like the flu. Endemic.

[Dianthus]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Another hospital did take her but the nurses kept making comments. Apparently  she had a hot flash and wanted to cut off her hair. The nurse said, “No, you want to look pretty in your coffin.” Apparently every nurse working there said similar things about how she was going to die. They’re done hiding their contempt for idiots. She lived. She’s still not vaccinated. 

What a horrible thing to say.

[Dianthus]

When dh gets boosted, I want to go back to normal. Unvaxxed people have made their choice. I'm feeling done with masking, etc. At least half of our community does not mask, and I go some places where we are among the 10% masked, and our masks don't do much of anything in that situation. The virus is getting more contagious but less severe and we won't be able to avoid it forever. Unvaxxed people have made their choice.

Eta: our neighbor is a Dr, and he is not masking in public, though he does in clinic. We haven't discussed but we notice when recently at an event. Our pediatrician also thinks this is overblown. She says vax and don't worry about. This makes it easier for me to come to this decision.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Spirea

[Dmmetler]

13 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don't care if people call it a vaccine or not. 

If you want to sleep getting as many shots as they tell you you need, good for you. But I'm hearing a lot people, some here, say they're done. So where does that lead? Herd Immunity by natural infection. 

 

Except when viruses mutate, you don't get there. You might be immune to the flu for the rest of that season, but next year, you're vulnerable again, which is why flu shots are yearly. The same seems likely to happen with COVID. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

21 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Except when viruses mutate, you don't get there. You might be immune to the flu for the rest of that season, but next year, you're vulnerable again, which is why flu shots are yearly. The same seems likely to happen with COVID. 

Yep . Science.

Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down. 

 

[kokotg]

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Yep . Science.

Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down. 

 

Really? I remember a lot of comparisons to the Spanish Flu when this started. I don't think anyone has ever objected to making comparisons about how the flu mutates vs. covid or how the vaccines might/do work. People objected to the seriousness of covid being dismissively compared to a common flu year. Given that in a bad year the flu might cause 50,000 deaths in the US vs. 400,000 or so for covid, I think those objections were very much warranted.

[Moonhawk]

23 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Yep . Science.

Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down. 

Equivocation. Before, when people "mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath" they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down"). There was hope at the beginning of Covid that it would not become endemic (whether or not that was actually possible is a timeline we'll never get to see). Now, because the people who insisted that flu and Covid were the same in severity and concern refused to take any mitigating steps, it IS like the flu in being endemic. So, partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yay, maybe we humans are figuring out our own version of ESP: fake it 'til you make it.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Moonhawk

[AbcdeDooDah]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Equivocation. Before, when people "mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath" they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down"). There was hope at the beginning of Covid that it would not become endemic (whether or not that was actually possible is a timeline we'll never get to see). Now, because the people who insisted that flu and Covid were the same in severity and concern refused to take any mitigating steps, so now it IS like the flu in being endemic. So, partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yay, maybe we humans are figuring out our own version of ESP: fake it 'til you make it.

It's a virus. There was no reason to think it wouldn't behave like one. Much of the world still doesn't have 1 shot so becoming endemic was inevitable. 

[Tanaqui]

You seem to be saying that all viruses "behave" the same way. If that were the case, we'd need frequent measles, polio, and chickenpox shots as well, just like the flu.

[Moonhawk]

9 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

It's a virus. There was no reason to think it wouldn't behave like one. Much of the world still doesn't have 1 shot so becoming endemic was inevitable. 

That is both true now, and maybe even always the most probable outcome, and still besides the point. You are equivocating on why people were being "shut down" about the flu comparison. The fact that now it is "like the flu" being endemic has nothing to do with people being shut down about it being "like the flu" in severity and concern. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Moonhawk

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

That is both true now, and maybe even always the most probable outcome, and still besides the point. You are equivocating on why people were being "shut down" about the flu comparison. The fact that now it is "like the flu" being endemic has nothing to do with people being shut down about it being "like the flu" in severity and concern. 

I don’t think you can know that every single instance was solely about severity. There were plenty of people saying there was no  reason to believe it wouldn’t behave like a virus and is like a flu. 

[Tanaqui]

Again, not all viruses behave the same way. And if you're arguing about conversations that happened nearly two years ago, this is the internet - you can provide a link to somebody saying what you claim and being shut down rather than asking us to trust you.

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Tanaqui said:

Again, not all viruses behave the same way. And if you're arguing about conversations that happened nearly two years ago, this is the internet - you can provide a link to somebody saying what you claim and being shut down rather than asking us to trust you.

Moonhawk can provide proof that all mentions of the flu were about severity. That’s her claim. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don’t think you can know that every single instance was solely about severity. There were plenty of people saying there was no  reason to believe it wouldn’t behave like a virus and is like a flu. 

Their point was almost always that it was ridiculous for people to be worrying about it or taking preventative measures and that the pandemic was overblown because it’s “just the flu.”  I still see people saying that daily, even now, when this has killed so many people and continues to overwhelm hospitals (and estimates are without the vaccine, 2 million Americans would have died so far). 

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Spirea said:

What a horrible thing to say.

It is horrible, but if you didn’t think this was coming you haven’t been listening to nurses. They aren’t going to get fired, they’re forcing overtime as it is because so many people are burned out they’re quitting in droves. Nursing is hard when it isn’t a pandemic. But when you have a bunch of people who chose not to get vaccinated you’re treating people who chose to get sick. You’re treating people who chose to die. And even if this particular woman wasn’t spewing venom about how they’re liars and covid is a hoax, most of them are getting harassed and assaulted by patients dying of covid who insist it’s fake multiple times a day. 

[Kassia]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

. But when you have a bunch of people who chose not to get vaccinated you’re treating people who chose to get sick. You’re treating people who chose to die

My family and I are all double vaxxed and all but one are boosted.  I am super careful about Covid.  My FIL died as a result of covid restrictions last year.  But I feel like the people who aren't getting vaxxed are doing so because of fear and ignorance.  I don't feel like they are choosing to die or get sick.  They are afraid of the vaccines, feel manipulated by the government, and/or think Covid isn't something serious. I don't think any of them are intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's lives even though that's what they are essentially doing.  It's just a horrible situation for everyone.  And just one more thing that causes division in society.  I feel terrible for the HCWs and terrified of the hospital situation right now but it's hard for me not to feel compassion for people who won't get vaccinated.

[Dianthus]

2 minutes ago, Kassia said:

My family and I are all double vaxxed and all but one are boosted.  I am super careful about Covid.  My FIL died as a result of covid restrictions last year.  But I feel like the people who aren't getting vaxxed are doing so because of fear and ignorance.  I don't feel like they are choosing to die or get sick.  They are afraid of the vaccines, feel manipulated by the government, and/or think Covid isn't something serious. I don't think any of them are intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's lives even though that's what they are essentially doing.  It's just a horrible situation for everyone.  And just one more thing that causes division in society.  I feel terrible for the HCWs and terrified of the hospital situation right now but it's hard for me not to feel compassion for people who won't get vaccinated.

I see this. I know a lot of antivaxxers. Our area is only around 50%. It's frustrating. I don't want them to get sick. But they know there's a vaccine. They do have the opportunity to research and choice to vaccinate. My family needs to live a normal life. We can't keep restricting because others won't vaccinate. I feel we've done what we can and need to let it go and run its course.

[Moonhawk]

27 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I don’t think you can know that every single instance was solely about severity. There were plenty of people saying there was no  reason to believe it wouldn’t behave like a virus and is like a flu. 

Seriously? This is the standard you want to hold me to?

Conversely, if we are requiring absolutes, if I can find one place where they were shutting down the comparison due to the severity and concern reasons, your argument would be null. This is a ridiculous assertion to try and use to cancel out my point.

23 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Moonhawk can provide proof that all mentions of the flu were about severity. That’s her claim. 

Ahh, but I did make sure to leave [at the time I thought a petty and pedantic loophole] of:

they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down")

If THIS is the standard by which we are going hold each other to, I can now only assume that your original stance was that ALL flu comparisons were endemic-only, not regarding severity. In fact, I'll even cut you a break and only hold you to "overwhelming majority" instead of "all". 

You seriously believe that the overwhelming majority of people saying "its like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic were only meaning it would be endemic and not that it would have the same symptoms, outcomes and death rates of the flu? And that any time people were arguing with them it was because they didn't think it would be endemic? And that because it is now endemic all of these people are being proved right?  This is your stance? 

I hope you can see this new standard is problematic at best. Can we back away from this ridiculous standard of 'all', or do you sincerely think that the overwhelming majority of "like the flu" comparisons were only about it becoming endemic and not about severity, outcomes, and death rates? 

But, if you want to hold to this standard (and be held, conversely), yes, I will get sources. *

*eta: but also note that I would be sourcing to prove only my original assertion that: flu comparisons were about severity and concern as the primary message and what was being shut down; and I will allow myself to admit that I'm sure some people were asserting it becoming endemic (since that seems to be a given/implied in my original post) though the "shut downs" were primarily focused on severity and concern. If we need to be so precise about this.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Moonhawk

[AbcdeDooDah]

8 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Seriously? This is the standard you want to hold me to?

Conversely, if we are requiring absolutes, if I can find one place where they were shutting down the comparison due to the severity and concern reasons, your argument would be null. This is a ridiculous assertion to try and use to cancel out my point.

Ahh, but I did make sure to leave [at the time I thought a petty and pedantic loophole] of:

they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down")

If THIS is the standard by which we are going hold each other to, I can now only assume that your original stance was that ALL flu comparisons were endemic-only, not regarding severity. In fact, I'll even cut you a break and only hold you to "overwhelming majority" instead of "all". 

You seriously believe that the overwhelming majority of people saying "its like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic were only meaning it would be endemic and not that it would have the same symptoms, outcomes and death rates of the flu? And that any time people were arguing with them it was because they didn't think it would be endemic? And that because it is now endemic all of these people are being proved right?  This is your stance? 

I hope you can see this new standard is problematic at best. Can we back away from this ridiculous standard of 'all', or do you sincerely think that the overwhelming majority of "like the flu" comparisons were only about it becoming endemic and not about severity, outcomes, and death rates? 

But, if you want to hold to this standard (and be held, conversely), yes, I will get sources. 

 

No, I think it was silly to say I was not correct in the first place. I'm not going looking for every single instance and neither should you. I assume people are conversing here in good faith and don't start nitpicking words when I don't like what someone says.

ETA: Where are you getting "overwhelming majority" from?

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Katy]

12 minutes ago, Kassia said:

My family and I are all double vaxxed and all but one are boosted.  I am super careful about Covid.  My FIL died as a result of covid restrictions last year.  But I feel like the people who aren't getting vaxxed are doing so because of fear and ignorance.  I don't feel like they are choosing to die or get sick.  They are afraid of the vaccines, feel manipulated by the government, and/or think Covid isn't something serious. I don't think any of them are intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's lives even though that's what they are essentially doing.  It's just a horrible situation for everyone.  And just one more thing that causes division in society.  I feel terrible for the HCWs and terrified of the hospital situation right now but it's hard for me not to feel compassion for people who won't get vaccinated.

While I agree with you from a place of rest… You might feel different if you’d been getting harassed and assaulted every day you work by people claiming the pandemic isn’t real.  It’s been over two years now.

People who are being starved of oxygen aren’t pleasant. They’re frequently delusional and violent. Couple that with a few years of swallowing conspiracy theories and you’re often dealing with full blown psychosis. Even if I wasn’t staying home with my high risk child I would have quit ages ago. I can count on one hand the number of shifts I had like that when I was in nursing. Now they are every day. Half the people I knew in the job have quit in the last year. It’s just not worth it. 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Can we back away from this ridiculous standard of 'all', or do you sincerely think that the overwhelming majority of "like the flu" comparisons were only about it becoming endemic and not about severity, outcomes, and death rates? 

Zooming out from the present argument, I feel a need to reiterate once again that endemic doesn’t mean what people seem to think it does. It’s not synonymous with not severe/no big deal.

 Also,

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

13 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

 

*eta: but also note that I would be sourcing to prove only my original assertion that: flu comparisons were about severity and concern as the primary message and what was being shut down; and I will allow myself to admit that I'm sure some people were asserting it becoming endemic (since that seems to be a given/implied in my original post) though the "shut downs" were primarily focused on severity and concern. If we need to be so precise about this.

Pretty sure that’s what I said. I never made a precise statement nor asked for preciseness.

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Moonhawk]

6 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

No, I think it was silly to say I was not correct in the first place. I'm not going looking for every single instance and neither should you. I assume people are conversing here in good faith and don't start nitpicking words when I don't like what someone says.

I guess, to me, it is silly to think that the majority, overarching narrative behind "it's just like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic til now has been about it becoming endemic instead of it being "not a concern" in terms of severity and concern. 

I assume we converse in good faith here, too, which is why I was caught off guard by the new standard. 

So, while I do not think you were correct in the first place when characterizing the overall narrative behind flu comparisons, I understand we obviously disagree on that. And that's fair enough. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

21 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I guess, to me, it is silly to think that the majority, overarching narrative behind "it's just like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic til now has been about it becoming endemic instead of it being "not a concern" in terms of severity and concern. 

I assume we converse in good faith here, too, which is why I was caught off guard by the new standard. 

So, while I do not think you were correct in the first place when characterizing the overall narrative behind flu comparisons, I understand we obviously disagree on that. And that's fair enough. 

Again, where are you getting “majority, overwhelming, overarching, “ etc.? 

You said , “In fact, I'll even cut you a break and only hold you to "overwhelmingmajority" instead of "all". “

What new standard? I was asked to provide sources by Tanaqui.

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[wathe]

17 minutes ago, KSera said:

Zooming out from the present argument, I feel a need to reiterate once again that endemic doesn’t mean what people seem to think it does. It’s not synonymous with not severe/no big deal.

 

 

Yes.  Many endemic infectious diseases have huge burden of illness.

Malaria is endemic to the tropics.  627 000 deaths in 2020 - not nothing, that's for sure.

Edited December 23, 2021 by wathe

[Spryte]

Re: choosing to get sick/possibly die and how we react to that. I think it’s normal for our sympathies to wax and wane.

I’ve posted here about my anti-mask, anti-vax neighbor-friends. Big parties even when we were in actual lockdown, no masking, irritated with people who do mask, the DH ditched our friendship of years, stopped waving. Really hurt my feelings. I didn’t want them to get sick but feared they would. 

And when they both caught Covid and were taken away by ambulance for 10 days - at the same time - our family kicked into gear for them. We ran a lot of errands, built furniture they had ordered, delivered food, etc. Our compassion was there. I let go of the feeling of “you chose this!” and just went into helping-out mode. Ditto when the DH had clots in his lungs and almost died again, shortly after returning home. It helped that the wife planned to get vaccinated ASAP. And while I had friends who said they would not lift a finger to help out, I felt like any comments from me about shots, choosing it, etc would just be kicking them while they were down. And I did not intend to do that.

But. Here we are now, two months later. They don’t mask. They have people over all the time, unmasked. And he’s still on oxygen! They won’t get vaccinated, the DH is adamant. Their kid is sick, right now, and the mom wanted a Covid test for the kid, but they still went to a restaurant and ate (with sick kid). The kid’s sibling appeared, unmasked, in our open garage yesterday, breathing hard after running, trying to talk to immune compromised DS, while his sister is sick at home (I suspect flu, but still). I just told DS he had to come help me with stuff, because we try never to hurt a kid’s feelings over masking or not masking. But seriously?! The two parents nearly died. The DH almost died twice! I cannot figure out their thinking. And they know our kid is immune compromised and have witnessed us go through what that means. They *know*.

My sympathy is wearing thin. And I’m not a nurse. I can’t even imagine nurses and techs who face this every single day. Some of you might remember that my 80 yr old mom fell and was taken to an overwhelmed ER with disastrous results. I am no stranger to the effects of hospital overwhelm. It’s ugly, and real, and it impacts everyone.

So, yeh, some days I’m angry, some days I think they should go to their own private island and not suck up the hospital resources for those of us doing everything we can not to get sick, and some days I feel enormous compassion. 

HCWs get my undying gratitude and respect. And if they have moments when they break and say something like that … it’s an ugly thing to say … but I can see how it happens. They must be exhausted, all the time!

[Moonhawk]

I keep scrolling up through our conversation and asking myself, "What am I missing?" 

Is this a case of 99/100 apples in the barrel are red and we are disagreeing about how green the last one is?

Because I was responding to the assertion here that:

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Yep . Science.

Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down. 

Which I was reading as saying: "People were shut down for saying that 'Covid is like the flu in that it is endemic', and now they are being proven right that it is similar to the flu for being endemic. "

To which my [paraphrased] reply was: "Most people who said 'Covid is like the flu' meant 'Covid is like the flu in that it is of the same general severity and concern', and that is what people were trying to shut down at the beginning of the pandemic." 

You respond to this with 

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Pretty sure that’s what I said. 

Sincerely, I must be missing something, because to me, my response is different from your original assertion.

If we agree on my quote, I am not sure why you keep bringing up that Covid is endemic as if it proves earlier comparisons to the flu as being right, and by implication, others were wrong for shutting them down.

After much thought, my only explanation is that you holding that one statement does not negate the other, and so that even if only 1/100 comparisons were endemic-minded, your original assertion is therefore true and my reply pointing out the 99/100 therefore does not matter? That we are both correct since both flu comparisons were made, and my original reply to you was misguided/silly because I cannot prove the actual break of the count (1 v 99 or 20 v 80 or 49 v 51), or that the breakdown doesn't matter so long as there is at least 1/100? And while that may not be "what you said", since you didn't outright disagree with me you can be implied to have agreed?

I'm really, really trying to understand what is going on here. We can let this go, I know I can make these meta posts unbearably tedious, but I want you to know that I am sincerely trying to understand what you're saying and this isn't just dying-on-this-hill on my part.

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 hour ago, Moonhawk said:

 

and I will allow myself to admit that I'm sure some people were asserting it becoming endemic 

I guess I didn’t take out enough words. Pretty sure that’s what I said.

I still would like to know. Where you’re getting “overwhelming majority, overall, overarching, etc? 

My comment about you providing sources was supposed to be a ridiculous answer to Tanaqui’s ridiculous statement that I provide sources for the words “a lot.” It didn’t come across that way, I see. I’m sorry. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Kassia]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

While I agree with you from a place of rest… You might feel different if you’d been getting harassed and assaulted every day you work by people claiming the pandemic isn’t real.  It’s been over two years now.

People who are being starved of oxygen aren’t pleasant. They’re frequently delusional and violent. Couple that with a few years of swallowing conspiracy theories and you’re often dealing with full blown psychosis. Even if I wasn’t staying home with my high risk child I would have quit ages ago. I can count on one hand the number of shifts I had like that when I was in nursing. Now they are every day. Half the people I knew in the job have quit in the last year. It’s just not worth it. 

You're right and I am sorry.  

 

28 minutes ago, Spryte said:

 

 

. And I’m not a nurse. I can’t even imagine nurses and techs who face this every single day.

 

I am no stranger to the effects of hospital overwhelm. It’s ugly, and real, and it impacts everyone.

So, yeh, some days I’m angry, some days I think they should go to their own private island and not suck up the hospital resources for those of us doing everything we can not to get sick, and some days I feel enormous compassion. 

HCWs get my undying gratitude and respect. And if they have moments when they break and say something like that … it’s an ugly thing to say … but I can see how it happens. They must be exhausted, all the time!

I agree and have experienced the hospital overwhelm as well.  It terrifies me. And, as I wrote earlier, my FIL passed away last year due to lack of staff/care and restrictions at the nursing home because of Covid (this was pre-vaccine though).  

 

[Moonhawk]

12 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I guess I didn’t take out enough words. Pretty sure that’s what I said.

I still would like to know. Where you’re getting “overwhelming majority, overall, overarching, etc? 

(You keep making these 1-2 sentence posts and I reply with 5-6 paragraphs, lol.)

When I make a statement without conditions, I generally assume that it is true for either all or generally most cases.

"Cows eat grass" to me means that either all cows or the vast majority of cows eat grass. There may be some cows that have a grass allergy, but the general rule and standard is that the cow will eat the grass. So, to me, the statement allows for other possibilities ("Maybelle and some brown-flecked cows do not like grass") but these cases do not need to be stated at the outset to be understood as possibilities, so long as they are fringe cases, ie, a very small minority compared to the whole. 

If something is not true for the majority of cases, or only true for ~50% or <50%, I assume that a qualifier will be stated. Even though I know Maybelle doesn't like grass, I will qualify it to, "Some cows do not like grass" as a necessary inclusion. If I only say, "Cows do not like grass", the statement to me is incorrect because it is not true in an understood majority of cases. Even if it's a case of, say, 70%, I will consider a qualifier necessary, "A lot of cows prefer barley to asparagus" and not leave it to the reader to possibly mistakenly assume that the all/close to all of cows do. [Please note I have no idea of cow preferences of barley and asparagus.]

So, your first statement "Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down." I did not see a qualifier especially on that second sentence. Therefore my reading comprehension is to believe you are saying that this is what was happening in the majority of cases where people mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath and were shut down.

So when I replied to it, even though I did use some qualifiers, I thought that my statement was true of the majority and did not need to include even more qualifiers to be understood as allowing for some other possibilities (ie, yes, some people were talking about the flu's endemic nature, and yes, maybe they were even shut down, BUT in the majority of cases this is not true.)

I brought in stronger-qualifiers, like overwhelming, overall, and overarching, to better communicate what I am understanding when you do not use a qualifier, as the conversation went on and once I felt held to a standard of "literally all". Me using these words is me trying to make it more apparent what I am comprehending and also what I am disagreeing with. Yes, in some cases I am sure some people compared Covid to flu becoming endemic, but it does not follow from this truth that this is what people were trying to shut down, because in the overall majority of cases the flu comparisons were about severity. 

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

Equivocation. Before, when people "mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath" they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down"). There was hope at the beginning of Covid that it would not become endemic (whether or not that was actually possible is a timeline we'll never get to see). Now, because the people who insisted that flu and Covid were the same in severity and concern refused to take any mitigating steps, it IS like the flu in being endemic. So, partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yay, maybe we humans are figuring out our own version of ESP: fake it 'til you make it.

Exactly. The whole "it's just a flu" argument started with Trump, in February of 2020, who was clearly talking about severity and explicitly comparing the number of deaths. That is the message that was picked up and amplified by RW media and was getting retweeted and reposted and memed. It even spun off into a claim that what is called covid is literally the flu, that PCR tests are fake, and the evil government is just relabeling flu deaths (and other deaths) as covid to force people to take dangerous vaccine. The idea that the people who were being "shut down" for comparing it to the flu were actually talking about it becoming endemic, and have been proven right, is gaslighting.

A few quotes from Trump, from Forbes:

2/26/20:"The flu, in our country, kills from 25,000 people to 69,000 people a year. And, so far, if you look at what we have with the 15 people and their recovery, one is — one is pretty sick but hopefully will recover, but the others are in great shape. But think of that: 25,000 to 69,000. And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done.”

3/9/20: "So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!"

3/24/20: "We lose thousands and thousands of people a year to the flu. We don't turn the country off. And actually, this year we're having a bad flu season. But we lose thousands of people a year to the flu. We never turn the country off. We lose much more than that to automobile accidents… I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter." 

Rush Limbaugh even said it was nothing more than a common cold: "We're shutting down our country because of the — the cold virus, which is what coronaviruses are. This is COVID-19, the 19th version of the coronavirus.” (Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/13/20)

The claim that it was no more severe than the flu was so widespread in RW media and social media circles that there were dozens of "fact check" type responses, like this one from Johns Hopkins https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2020/no-covid-19-is-not-the-flu or this from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eight-persistent-covid-19-myths-and-why-people-believe-them/

Anyone who thinks that people understood this concept to be about covid becoming endemic, not that it wasn't severe, are welcome to spend a day hanging out in the HCA subreddit reading the social media history of people who reposted this lie and are now seriously ill or dead

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Corraleno

[AbcdeDooDah]

I messed something up when I edited and lost the quote. Reposting below.

Edited December 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[AbcdeDooDah]

19 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

(You keep making these 1-2 sentence posts and I reply with 5-6 paragraphs, lol.)

When I make a statement without conditions, I generally assume that it is true for either all or generally most cases.

"Cows eat grass" to me means that either all cows or the vast majority of cows eat grass. There may be some cows that have a grass allergy, but the general rule and standard is that the cow will eat the grass. So, to me, the statement allows for other possibilities ("Maybelle and some brown-flecked cows do not like grass") but these cases do not need to be stated at the outset to be understood as possibilities, so long as they are fringe cases, ie, a very small minority compared to the whole. 

If something is not true for the majority of cases, or only true for ~50% or <50%, I assume that a qualifier will be stated. Even though I know Maybelle doesn't like grass, I will qualify it to, "Some cows do not like grass" as a necessary inclusion. If I only say, "Cows do not like grass", the statement to me is incorrect because it is not true in an understood majority of cases. Even if it's a case of, say, 70%, I will consider a qualifier necessary, "A lot of cows prefer barley to asparagus" and not leave it to the reader to possibly mistakenly assume that the all/close to all of cows do. [Please note I have no idea of cow preferences of barley and asparagus.]

So, your first statement "Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down." I did not see a qualifier especially on that second sentence. Therefore my reading comprehension is to believe you are saying that this is what was happening in the majority of cases where people mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath and were shut down.

So when I replied to it, even though I did use some qualifiers, I thought that my statement was true of the majority and did not need to include even more qualifiers to be understood as allowing for some other possibilities (ie, yes, some people were talking about the flu's endemic nature, and yes, maybe they were even shut down, BUT in the majority of cases this is not true.)

I brought in stronger-qualifiers, like overwhelming, overall, and overarching, to better communicate what I am understanding when you do not use a qualifier, as the conversation went on and once I felt held to a standard of "literally all". Me using these words is me trying to make it more apparent what I am comprehending and also what I am disagreeing with. Yes, in some cases I am sure some people compared Covid to flu becoming endemic, but it does not follow from this truth that this is what people were trying to shut down, because in the overall majority of cases the flu comparisons were about severity. 

I’m dizzy 🤪 (This is light-hearted. I have no hard feelings).

This is the third time my words have been nitpicked in these conversations If anyone wants to look up posts to prove it, be my guest. People claim I’m asking for precision while requiring precision from me. 

It’s all good. We can be done and back on track. Cue the Trump posts that insinuate that’s where I got my ideas.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

It’s all good. We can be done and back on track. Cue the Trump posts that insinuate that’s where I got my ideas.

I have no idea where you got your ideas about covid, but there's no question that the vast majority of people who were comparing covid to the flu were repeating what they were hearing in RW media, which was repeating and amplifying what Trump was saying, and they were specifically making that comparison as a way of minimizing the severity of covid.

Now, if you were having private conversations with friends in the spring of 2020 and were expressing the sentiment that although covid is much more severe than the flu it would eventually become endemic, and you were being "shut down" for that comment, then maybe your friends misunderstood you. But implying that anyone who said that covid was likely to become endemic was "being shut down" is simply not true. People who were comparing the severity of covid to the severity of the flu were being shut down, and rightfully so  — because they were lying.

[Guest]

Thank you, @Corraleno for posting that. That was exactly what I was thinking of. When COVID first began here, a friend of mine who works janitorial for schools in my area posted that what they were being instructed to sanitize for was THE FLU. She literally thought Covid was imaginary and she knew “the truth.” 

Other people I snoozed or hid on SM said, in one case, “Coronaviruses are the common cold; you people are hysterical over a cold!”; in several others, endless debates about “Falsified” CDC death rates. Numerous people (whom I ended up snoozing or banning) who said COVID was a Democrat hoax made to make Trump look bad. Endless rhetoric about how the flu kills tens of thousands or people per year and we do nothing about it. Hyperbolic statements about the number of people who die in car accidents, always ending with the fake rhetoric, “Should we ban cars?” 
 

Now that excess deaths (from all causes) for the past two years is several hundred thousands more than average, those same people say *nothing* about death stats anymore.