Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk


Mrs Whiggins

Recommended Posts

And a lay press article laying out some of the issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/health/covid-boosters-fda.html

 

 

 

F.D.A. Outlines a Plan for Annual Covid Boosters

In advance of a scientific meeting on Thursday, officials proposed offering new shots to Americans each fall, a strategy long employed against the flu.

To simplify the makeup and timing of the shots, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to retire the original vaccines and offer only the bivalent doses for primary and booster shots.Credit...Alisha Jucevic for The New York Times

 

Americans may be offered a single dose of a Covid vaccine each fall, much as they are given flu shots, the Food and Drug Administration announced on Monday.

To simplify the makeup and timing of the shots, the agency also is proposing to retire the original vaccines and to offer only bivalent doses for primary and booster shots, according to briefing documents published on Monday.

The proposal took some scientists by surprise, including a few of the F.D.A.’s own advisers. They are scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the country’s vaccine strategy, including which doses should be offered and on what schedule.

“I’m choosing to believe that they are open to advice, and that they haven’t already made up their minds as to exactly what they’re going to do,” Dr. Paul Offit, one of the advisers and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said of F.D.A. officials.

There was little research to support the suggested plan, some advisers said.

Spoiler

“I’d like to see some data on the effect of dosing interval, at least observational data,” said Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the advisers and editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. “And going forward, I’d like to see data collected to try to tell if we’re doing the right thing.”

Still, Dr. Rubin added, “I’d definitely be in favor of something simpler, as it would make it more likely that people might take it.”

Only about 40 percent of adults aged 65 and older, and only 16 percent of those 5 and older, have received the latest Covid booster shot. Many experts, including federal officials, have said that the doses are most important for Americans at high risk of severe disease and death from Covid: older adults, immunocompromised people, pregnant women and those with multiple underlying conditions.

In its briefing documents, the F.D.A. addressed the varying risks to people of different ages and health status.

“Most individuals may only need to receive one dose of an approved or authorized Covid-19 vaccine to restore protective immunity for a period of time,” the agency said. Very young children who may not already have been infected with the virus, as well as older adults and immunocompromised people, may need two shots, the documents said.

But some scientists said there was little to suggest that Americans at low risk needed even a single annual shot. The original vaccines continue to protect young and healthy people from severe disease, and the benefit of annual boosters is unclear.

Most people are “well protected against severe Covid disease with a primary series and without yearly boosters,” said Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious disease physician and senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The F.D.A. advisers said they would like to see detailed information regarding who is most vulnerable to the virus and to make decisions about future vaccination strategy based on those data.

“How old are they? What are their comorbidities? When was the last dose of vaccine they got? Did they take antiviral medicines?” Dr. Offit said. At the moment, the national strategy seems to be, “‘OK, well, let’s just dose everybody all the time,’” he said. “And that’s just not a good reason.”

According to the F.D.A.’s suggested plan, officials would choose the annual vaccine’s composition each June, targeted to fight whatever variant is circulating.

But this year, the booster was quickly outpaced by newly evolved variants. It might make more sense to develop vaccines that target parts of the coronavirus other than the so-called spike protein, which changes less frequently, some researchers said.

They also criticized the agency’s proposal to use the current “bivalent” vaccine, which was designed to counter both the original Wuhan variant and the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants that were circulating last summer, when the agency decided on the makeup of the booster doses.

Some studies have suggested that combining both variants in the booster dose has undermined their effectiveness. Because of a biological phenomenon called imprinting, preliminary research suggests the bivalent vaccine elicits a stronger immune response to the ancestral variant than to the newer variants.

A monovalent vaccine targeted only to the newer variants might have been more powerful, experts said.

“This makes no sense, based on what we’ve learned from the current bivalent vaccine and imprinting,” Dr. Gounder said of the F.D.A.’s proposal. “Why not switch to a monovalent Omicron vaccine?”

The F.D.A. advisers said they hoped the meeting on Thursday would allow for robust discussion of those questions. But others were more skeptical.

The voting questions “are framed in such a way as to force a certain outcome,” Dr. Gounder said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

The regulators continue to undermine themselves. There have been key defections from the FDA over the booster strategy. People that pay attention to these sorts of things and understand what is being discussed recognize what is happening and the damage to the credibility of the FDA and the CDC. I strongly disagree with this condescending notion that someone is a "message board hero" for wanting to discuss and debate these topics. Analogizing to climate change debate is bullshit coded rhetoric. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Skipper said:

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that posted a link to a study on this page to support a position.  See several posts up.

Lol.  Yeah, from Nature Communication.  Any other work you want to post?  Sorry, but you’ve been anti-vax from minute one here.  Maybe go back to Daily Texan and take Ana with you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Skipper, the vaccine is good at two things, reducing the chance of infecting others, and lessening the harm of infection. Given the likelihood that children will be infected repeatedly, as will adults, minimizing the effects of Covid infection is critical, for there is evidence that subsequent infection is more harmful than the first.

As you noted, the belief that herd immunity will solve the Covid problem was wrong. I suggest that your belief that Covid will negligibly affect healthy kids and college students might also be wrong. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/repeat-covid-is-riskier-than-first-infection-study-finds-2022-11-10/

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. It's wild how discussions about COVID vaccine deployment and boosting strategy have become this in-group/out-group political signal. If discussing and debating the booster strategy makes one anti-vax, there are a lot of physicians and epidemiologists and former FDA officials that are somehow now classified as anti-vax because they want data and hard endpoints. What a world. There are a lot of lurkers and objective readers of the exchange of the last few pages. It's hard to imagine any of them read P's posts and think "yeah, that's a really well thought out and considered position, the Nature portfolio of medical journals is garbage". 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. It's wild how discussions about COVID vaccine deployment and boosting strategy have become this in-group/out-group political signal. If discussing and debating the booster strategy makes one anti-vax, there are a lot of physicians and epidemiologists and former FDA officials that are somehow now classified as anti-vax because they want data and hard endpoints. What a world. There are a lot of lurkers and objective readers of the exchange of the last few pages. It's hard to imagine any of them read P's posts and think "yeah, that's a really well thought out and considered position, the Nature portfolio of medical journals is garbage". 

Holy shit, could you be any more condescending or biased?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The regulators continue to undermine themselves. There have been key defections from the FDA over the booster strategy. People that pay attention to these sorts of things and understand what is being discussed recognize what is happening and the damage to the credibility of the FDA and the CDC. I strongly disagree with this condescending notion that someone is a "message board hero" for wanting to discuss and debate these topics. Analogizing to climate change debate is bullshit coded rhetoric. 

20-40 year olds are like 70-80% vaccinated. Yet, that same age group - as parents - has made the decision to vaccinate their children at the following rates:

6 months to 2 years - 5%
2-4 years - 8%
5-11 - 38%

The CDC recommends that all of the above should be vaccinated  

These are not right wing, anti vax crazies. Well, some might be, but when you are talking about 90%+ in some age groups, it’s safe to say that the public does not trust that the CDC knows what’s best for their children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, could you be any more condescending or biased?

WRT to the former, I can certainly try.  However, I am not sure that I can exceed the condescension displayed here by the people demanding data from posters to support their position while they refuse to consider the same request to the regulators dictating public health policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

WRT to the former, I can certainly try.  However, I am not sure that I can exceed the condescension displayed here by the people demanding data from posters to support their position while they refuse to consider the same request to the regulators dictating public health policy. 

You literally missed half the posts today.  Dude.  "Show your work."

For fuck's sake.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You literally missed half the posts today.  Dude.  "Show your work."

For fuck's sake.

I don't think that I missed anything.  What are you asking me to show?  Maybe you don't understand how evidence based medicine and how regulatory decision making is supposed to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that I missed anything.  What are you asking me to show?  Maybe you don't understand how evidence based medicine and how regulatory decision making is supposed to work?

Maybe you missed the "show your work" missive.  Unsurprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am still not sure what position you are asking me to prove up with evidence.

Read the thread.  I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for you to suss out the basic conflict of the day, but maybe I'm overestimating things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Read the thread.  I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for you to suss out the basic conflict of the day, but maybe I'm overestimating things.

TBH, I find it hard to pin down exactly what point y'all were arguing. I do see that the only one that posted anything resembling data for consideration was dismissed cause they posted a peer-reviewed paper from the Nature portfolio. Which was dismissed for some reason without any actual discussion of the data. Looks like a clown show to me, so not surprised that you would be front and center. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not interested in leading pigs through the data trough.  That's your thing.  The data are out there, in prison studies among others.  I summarized what I previously read at a high level.

We get it, you're Rand Paul, with hopefully better hair.  You certainly aren't any smarter or easier to deal with.  Yay, liberty!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 10:28 AM, Skipper said:

Yep.  The vast majority of the educated people I know got the initial vaccine but have since been making their own decisions on kids, boosters etc. and don't really think a right or wrong answer.  Except for this one friend of my wife's that wears "trust the science" like a badge of honor.  Their family has had COVID at least 2X (maybe 3, who's counting) and each have gotten themselves and their kids vaxed/boosted as early as possible (as in the day available while making sure everyone knows about on social media).  I mean their recently turned 6 year old has at least 2 (maybe 3) confirmed infections (that were never a big deal) + 4 shots in the last 2 years.  That is flat out insane to me and I can't imagine any Dr. that actually has dug into the research would advise that is actually needed or should even be recommended.  But that's what the CDC, in their refusal to provide any nuanced guidance, are technically going with.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

Skipper has stated Doctors that dig into the research wouldn’t recommend Covid vaccinations for kids. I’m not a doctor. That is my point. They are the ones that should be digging into the research and they currently recommend vaccinations. (Yes, I understand there is an argument that CDC doctors are providing improper recommendations)
 

11 hours ago, Skipper said:

I have kids and thus know dozens of kids.  Every single kid we know has had COVID.  Less than 1/2 the kids we know have been vaccinated.   It hasn't been a big deal for ANYONE we know vaccinated or not. You know why? Because statistically it's not a big deal for kids.  Period. Why are statistics and facts so hard for you?   We all know you hate kids so maybe just sit these out.

10 hours ago, Skipper said:

Then what exactly is the benefit to the college population specifically or society generally by boosting healthy college students.  Show your work.  Because on an individual basis, there is actually data that net harm may be statistically more likely than net benefit (both extremely rare obviously).


The work is provided below by Willfully Horn. The study shows reinfection causes worse health outcomes. 

10 hours ago, Skipper said:

Very short term benefit for infection meaning no real population level benefit.  Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine | Nature Communications


“In conclusion, this study demonstrates significant waning of VE of the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine against infection within a few months after administration, though significance was not reached as to a milder waning effect against severe disease, probably due to limited numbers. This waning effect against infection should prompt policy discussion as to vaccine development and future dose allocation, particularly to low-risk populations. Additional information could assist to comprehensively estimate the effectiveness of the three-dose strategy.”

This study shows the vaccines efficacy wanes after a couple months agains infection, however no significance was reached to show any waning effect against severe disease. 

9 hours ago, Skipper said:

Umm.  There are a lot of doctors and scientist that believe current CDC guidelines are not appropriate.    There is a lot of medical debate on this topic.  The reality is that when it comes to kids/young adults and vaccine recs, the US is on an island with the blunt approach.  The usual suspects on this board continue to show their complete inability to perform any critical analysis or have nuanced discussions.  

 

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

@Skipper, the vaccine is good at two things, reducing the chance of infecting others, and lessening the harm of infection. Given the likelihood that children will be infected repeatedly, as will adults, minimizing the effects of Covid infection is critical, for there is evidence that subsequent infection is more harmful than the first.

As you noted, the belief that herd immunity will solve the Covid problem was wrong. I suggest that your belief that Covid will negligibly affect healthy kids and college students might also be wrong. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/repeat-covid-is-riskier-than-first-infection-study-finds-2022-11-10/


“Altogether, the findings show that reinfection further increases risks of all-cause mortality and adverse health outcomes in both the acute and postacute phases of reinfection. The findings highlight the clinical consequences of reinfection and emphasize the importance of preventing reinfection by SARS-CoV-2.”

 

Going through all of these posts, it’s not hyperbolic to say that Skipper is anti-vaccine, even though I didn’t say that, but nowadays I understand how even the implication may be construed. My apologies. He’s definitely not pro-vaccine for non adults. My earlier point still stands, that none of use are doctors, and while we can all google something, and find a study to support an argument, that doesn’t mean we know what we’re reading. These are just two reports. Did we all read the hundreds and thousands of other reports, and how they fit together? Did we all spend years studying statistical analysis of medical reports? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Skipper has stated Doctors that dig into the research wouldn’t recommend Covid vaccinations for kids. I’m not a doctor. That is my point. They are the ones that should be digging into the research and they currently recommend vaccinations. (Yes, I understand there is an argument that CDC doctors are providing improper recommendations)
 

I never said that.   I said that I don't think any PED that has dug into the data would recommend that a child that a healthy young child that is both boosted and has 2 confirmed natural infections in a 2 year window would state it's necessary to continue boosting as soon as possible.  My personal PED I discussed with recommended vax but didn't feel strongly after our kids had a natural infection that was a non-event.  Basically likely no real benefit or harm was my takeaway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that @Skipper is anti-vax. 

Vaxed and Boosted  but apparently anti-vax on this board.   Just like numerous Biden voters are "Republicans" any time any liberal positions are challenged over here. The group think is strong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what exactly is the benefit to the college population specifically or society generally by boosting healthy college students.  Show your work.  Because on an individual basis, there is actually data that net harm may be statistically more likely than net benefit (both extremely rare obviously).

Because college students are around-

-professors
-grandparents
-staff members
-parents

And not every college student is a strapping athlete?

Young =/= perfect health
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Vaxed and Boosted  but apparently anti-vax on this board.

Sorry, I was told that you were anti-vax from minute one and you should go back to another sub while someone in the background whined about condescension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Authority is less about consent of the governed and more about a shared belief that authorities know what the hell they are doing, and that they do so under the rule of truth, to paraphrase a Michael Ventura observation. The CDC’s truth has been called into question, but what I find most telling is the implication that everyone is wrong, except for the outlier dissidents.

John Hopkin’s, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and the American Lung Organization all agree that children should be vaccinated. But, it’s all a big conspiracy. The deep state. This ongoing narrative makes Putin types happy. 
 

Color me surprised.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiy54-Fx9_8AhXXlGoFHVZJBQAQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lung.org%2Fblog%2Fwhy-children-should-get-covid-19-vaccine&usg=AOvVaw3HbsVHNCEsTvCjLad3Ldte
 

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parents-need-to-know
 

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
citation
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Skipper said:

I never said that.   I said that I don't think any PED that has dug into the data would recommend that a child that a healthy young child that is both boosted and has 2 confirmed natural infections in a 2 year window would state it's necessary to continue boosting as soon as possible.  My personal PED I discussed with recommended vax but didn't feel strongly after our kids had a natural infection that was a non-event.  Basically likely no real benefit or harm was my takeaway.

Apologies. Your original post that I quoted was not clear. So your personal PED did recommend vaccination? Or recommended it but not strongly due to your child’s medical history? Or didn’t recommend vaccination? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, that's a little confusing.  So your PED just hasn't dug into the data yet?

I was going to make a crack about listening to the experts- unless they contradict your priors, but I realized I'm doing the exact same thing in reverse.  My PCP is a little kooky and was telling me I didn't really need the vax (because I was young and healthy) even during the early OG waves when most everyone was clamoring to get a shot.  I ignored his advice and got the shot as soon as I could because I live close to grandparents and didn't want to be the one to get them sick.

It is a bit confusing to know what's best for my 3 kids.  They've all gotten the shot and had natural infections since then that have all been pretty much non events.  The data seem all over the place and anyone can find a study to support whatever the believed in the first place.  My oldest is a 13 y.o. boy and is really the only one that falls into a category where the risk/reward of the vax seems to possibly be in question.  But from what I've read, even for his age group the probabilities of heart issues is greater from covid infection than it is from the vax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Going through all of these posts, it’s not hyperbolic to say that Skipper is anti-vaccine, even though I didn’t say that, but nowadays I understand how even the implication may be construed. My apologies. He’s definitely not pro-vaccine for non adults. 

Using that same logic, is it hyperbolic to say that the majority of parents of young children are anti-vaccine, or definately not pro vaccine?  Most have come to the exact same conclusion as skipper.

90%+ of parents of 6 mos-4 years are "anit-vax", including 85%+ in both California and New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Apologies. Your original post that I quoted was not clear. So your personal PED did recommend vaccination? Or recommended it but not strongly due to your child’s medical history? Or didn’t recommend vaccination? 

Recommended when available (before officially available) then by the time we saw him again, both kids had COVID (complete non-events, colds we'd had that year were worse) and it was a soft rec.  Was not pushing it at all.  Basically said could make it less likely they would get it again soon but good to know they have some immunity and it wasn't meaningful.  FWIW - I had discussions about Covid and kids generally with numerous doctors when my son was hospitalized at Texas Children's this fall (random/rare throat infection) when it was absolutely jam packed with sick kids (8 hour ER wait, etc.). It was all flu and RSV.  They were seeing some kids test + for Covid in the ER but almost all upper respiratory admissions were flu and RSV and really no COVID per multiple doctors.

Regardless, this thread went off the rails of my original point and I'm not going to have as much time to bicker next couple of days.  COVID is really barely on my radar at this point and whether or not people or their kids continue to get boosted is a personal choice, and outside of the high risk population, (who are also backstopped by Paxlovid) I just don't think it will move the needle from a personal or societal standpoint.  My concern is that the need/benefit for the shots were oversold in young population and that is having an impact on uptake of the actual necessary/beneficial vaccines. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of that podcast that was posted yesterday but I agree the messaging has been terrible and while the anti-vax messaging is also to blame, I think we're just beginning to see the fallout.

Edited by Skipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Using that same logic, is it hyperbolic to say that the majority of parents of young children are anti-vaccine, or definately not pro vaccine?  Most have come to the exact same conclusion as skipper.

90%+ of parents of 6 mos-4 years are "anit-vax", including 85%+ in both California and New York.

Cool. I know you want to turn this into a label argument, but I’d rather not. If you are correct with your parental statistics, that saddens me. Of course, we also see low Flu vaccinations. I understand they’re both personal choices. I advocate for Flu vaccinations too because not only does it protect or lessen the Flu for me, but also helps lessen the flu in general for more vulnerable people. Same principle, it serves me no purpose to get the MMR vaccine. I did because I believe, as my parents did, that protecting the vulnerable in society is important. 

9 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Recommended when available (before officially available) then by the time we saw him again, both kids had COVID (complete non-events, colds we'd had that year were worse) and it was a soft rec.  Was not pushing it at all.  Basically said could make it less likely they would get it again soon but good to know they have some immunity and it wasn't meaningful.  FWIW - I had discussions about Covid and kids generally with numerous doctors when my son was hospitalized at Texas Children's this fall (random/rare throat infection) when it was absolutely jam packed with sick kids (8 hour ER wait, etc.). It was all flu and RSV.  They were seeing some kids test + for Covid in the ER but almost all upper respiratory admissions were flu and RSV and really no COVID per multiple doctors.

Regardless, this thread went off the rails of my original point and I'm not going to have as much time to bicker next couple of days.  COVID is really barely on my radar at this point and whether or not people or their kids continue to get boosted is a personal choice, and outside of the high risk population, (who are also backstopped by Paxlovid) I just don't think it will move the needle from a personal or societal standpoint.  My concern is that the need/benefit for the shots were oversold in young population and that is having an impact on uptake of the actual necessary/beneficial vaccines. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of that podcast that was posting but I agree the messaging has been terrible and while the anti-vax messaging is also to blame, I think we're just beginning to see the fallout.

So your PED did recommend the vaccination for your child, but after learning the updated medical history, revised the recommendation as a soft recommendation because of recent infection. That is a little different than the message of your previous posts where you said doctors need to dig into the science, Covid doesn’t affect kids, etc. Do you not agree?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Cool. I know you want to turn this into a label argument, but I’d rather not. If you are correct with your parental statistics, that saddens me. Of course, we also see low Flu vaccinations. I understand they’re both personal choices. I advocate for Flu vaccinations too because not only does it protect or lessen the Flu for me, but also helps lessen the flu in general for more vulnerable people. Same principle, it serves me no purpose to get the MMR vaccine. I did because I believe, as my parents did, that protecting the vulnerable in society is important. 

So your PED did recommend the vaccination for your child, but after learning the updated medical history, revised the recommendation as a soft recommendation because of recent infection. That is a little different than the message of your previous posts where you said doctors need to dig into the science, Covid doesn’t affect kids, etc. Do you not agree?

 

I don't necessarily agree.  It was still "recommended" but his message was take it or leave it. No hard sell because otherwise healthy and no clear benefit (benefit was it might make it less likely they get it again the next couple of months).  See above post from Don on uptake stats.  You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe).  You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold.   My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available". It's a nuance but I think a nuance that matters from a trust standpoint. That's what concerns me.  You are going to have some portion of those same parents that aren't going to trust other vaccine recs that actually do provide a clear and convincing benefit.   It's a point one of the dr's in that podcast posted yesterday was making to some extent before I had to turn it off.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

I don't necessarily agree.  It was still "recommended" but his message was take it or leave it. No hard sell because otherwise healthy and no clear benefit (benefit was it might make it less likely they get it again the next couple of months).  See above post from Don on uptake stats.  You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe).  You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold.   My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available". It's a nuance but I think a nuance that matters from a trust standpoint. That's what concerns me.  You are going to have some portion of those same parents that aren't going to trust other vaccine recs that actually do provide a clear and convincing benefit.   It's a point one of the dr's in that podcast posted yesterday was making to some extent before I had to turn it off.

There is a lot to unpack here. 

1.  "You have messaging from the powers that be (CDC/FDA) that kids need to be vaccinated but without trials or evidence of actual benefits (only evidence presented is that it is safe)."

           - I don't have the time nor inclination to provide you with all the studies, trials, and etc. that vaccinating kids is beneficial to the the child and the community at large. There was a study posted by Willfully Horn on this thread that showed how multiple infections led to worse health outcomes, but yet, you ignore that data point because it does not fit the narrative you want to believe. Yes, I read the study you provided, and agreed with, and I'm sure it is the reason why your doctor did not "hard sell" you on your child being boosted, because they had a recent infection, and it would serve no purpose getting boosted. That is not incongruous with other vaccine recommendations. But to my larger point this entire time, I'm not a doctor, and reading medical studies should be left to the people who know how to interpret not only the presented here but along with the other million studies. 

2.  "You separately have millions of parents that did not vaccinate their kids that in turn saw millions of COVID infections in their otherwise healthy children that were generally no more than a cold."

            -  This statement is a good example of anti-vaccination rhetoric. My child had the Flu/Measles/Chickenpox/Etc and they were fine. That could be true, however, that doesn't mean every person/child will be fine after the Flu/Measles/Chickenpox/Etc. Increasing vaccinations in the entire community better protects the entire community.

 

3. "My larger point is studies weren't done to prove there was a benefit in that population yet it was still "recommended" rather than made "available".

              - Again, this in untrue. Refer to Willfully Horn's post about multiple infections leading to worse outcomes as one example. Not to mention, you don't have any evidence presented so far to support this claim. Do I have the time to find all the studies done that the CDC considered to show you that covid vaccinations, and vaccinations in general, benefit the population as a whole? No I don't. Do I believe the CDC, and the medical community at large, have recommended vaccinations without doing any studies proving their benefit? No I do not. 

4. Is there a communication issue? Absolutely. Your distrust of the information has proven this, and clearly the messaging needs to be refined and simpler, with access to all the supporting information. There may already be a resource like that. I don't know, but I'm not one that requires it to agree to vaccinations. 

Okay, done with lunch break, need to do more work. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Looks like a clown show to me, so not surprised that you would be front and center. 

You know who sees a lot of clown shows? Clowns.


image.jpeg.271bc6642e1b992f0876d062cabbe7b8.jpeg


Swine? Really? In my day, I did a bit of teaching. Never called one who had yet to learn a swine.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Is the same level of disdain directed to the CDC for recommending flu vaccines for children? Is the low rate of vaccination among kids a sign that the CDC is wrong?

Do we refer to those who don’t get the flu vaccine as “anti vax?”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Is the same level of disdain directed to the CDC for recommending flu vaccines for children? Is the low rate of vaccination among kids a sign that the CDC is wrong?

 

17 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

20-40 year olds are like 70-80% vaccinated. Yet, that same age group - as parents - has made the decision to vaccinate their children at the following rates:

6 months to 2 years - 5%
2-4 years - 8%
5-11 - 38%

The CDC recommends that all of the above should be vaccinated  

These are not right wing, anti vax crazies. Well, some might be, but when you are talking about 90%+ in some age groups, it’s safe to say that the public does not trust that the CDC knows what’s best for their children. 

RJ doesn’t provide a link to his data, but, folks over 40, and under 20, vaccinate their kids in numbers that pull up the average.

“As of January 4, 2023, the CDC recorded:

1.9 million US children ages 6 months-4 years have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine

  • Representing 11% of 6 months-4 year-olds”

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

Do we refer to those who don’t get the flu vaccine as “anti vax?”

Personally, I think of anti-vaxxers as those who espouse conspiratorial rationale, or the "do your own research" crowd. I'm not sure who the "we" is in your question. And, lets be honest, the majority of those (adults) refusing the vaccine from 2021 - present fall in one of those two crowds.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Lol.  Yeah, from Nature Communication.  Any other work you want to post?  Sorry, but you’ve been anti-vax from minute one here.  Maybe go back to Daily Texan and take Ana with you.

Don't have anything to add to this argument, but Nature Communications is a highly respected journal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I've never gotten a flu shot but have gotten every other vaccine recommended to me, including covid and its boosters. what would you call me?

I think you’re refusing a vaccine that’s proven to help reduce the spread of the flu. In other words, you’re selfishly killing people. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

RJ doesn’t provide a link to his data, but, folks over 40, and under 20, vaccinate their kids in numbers that pull up the average.

“As of January 4, 2023, the CDC recorded:

1.9 million US children ages 6 months-4 years have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine

  • Representing 11% of 6 months-4 year-olds”

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/

My data came from the CDC website, last update in October as the information is no longer updated.  But use 89% instead of 90%+ and the point remains the same. 
 

https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/Archive-COVID-19-Vaccination-and-Case-Trends-by-Ag/gxj9-t96f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Today in FAFO 

 

 

from the article:

Quote

 

In December of 2020 he tweeted "I have a very low risk of A) Getting COVID and B) dying of it if I do. Why would I risk getting a heart attack or paralysis by getting the vaccine?"

He even recorded a parody song - Vaxman - mocking the vaccine.

In July, he told his audience he had COVID and he expected to be back soon.

But later updates from family and friends indicated how serious it was.

Valentine's brother said Phil regretted not being more pro-vaccine and wrote if he got back on the radio he would encourage people to get vaccinated.

According to family, Valentine fought hard, but was unable to beat the virus.

 

Ice Hockey Dancing GIF by NHL

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...