Vaccine

More good news from CDC. Why mandates?

"The prospects for meeting a clear herd-immunity target are "very complicated," said Dr. Jefferson Jones, a medical officer on the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology Task Force."

"Vaccines have been quite effective at preventing cases of COVID-19 that lead to severe illness and death, but none has proved reliable at blocking transmission of the virus, Jones noted. Recent evidence has also made clear that the immunity provided by vaccines can wane in a matter of months."

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Desert Hound said:
More good news from CDC. Why mandates?

"The prospects for meeting a clear herd-immunity target are "very complicated," said Dr. Jefferson Jones, a medical officer on the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology Task Force."

"Vaccines have been quite effective at preventing cases of COVID-19 that lead to severe illness and death, but none has proved reliable at blocking transmission of the virus, Jones noted. Recent evidence has also made clear that the immunity provided by vaccines can wane in a matter of months."

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’d like to find a dictionary and look up the difference between “blocking” and “reducing”.

While you’re at it, ponder the difference between “wane” and “vanish”. Those two aren’t the same, either.

Trying for an honorary degree from the Grace T. School of False Dichotomy? It won’t work. That school doesn’t give honorary degrees. If you can‘t earn a PhD and tenured position, you get nothing.
 
dad4 said:
Perhaps you’d like to find a dictionary and look up the difference between “blocking” and “reducing”.

While you’re at it, ponder the difference between “wane” and “vanish”. Those two aren’t the same, either.

Trying for an honorary degree from the Grace T. School of False Dichotomy? It won’t work. That school doesn’t give honorary degrees. If you can‘t earn a PhD and tenured position, you get nothing.
Click to expand...
The vaxxed wane quickly, they don't stop the spread, new variants arise (see France specifically and a couple of other Euro countries ..a new variation is here), and this thing isn't going anywhere.

With how quickly 5he vaxx effectiveness drops it may come to pass that the best way to deal with the virus is treatments for those who get it and get sick enough to require medical intervention.

That seems more viable then taking a shot, 4-6 months later trying it again. And oh yeah having gov and companies trying to keep track of how many days since the last jab, etc. Long term that system won't work.
 
Desert Hound said:
The vaxxed wane quickly, they don't stop the spread, new variants arise (see France specifically and a couple of other Euro countries ..a new variation is here), and this thing isn't going anywhere.

With how quickly 5he vaxx effectiveness drops it may come to pass that the best way to deal with the virus is treatments for those who get it and get sick enough to require medical intervention.

That seems more viable then taking a shot, 4-6 months later trying it again. And oh yeah having gov and companies trying to keep track of how many days since the last jab, etc. Long term that system won't work.
Click to expand...
True dat Hound. Or, if you dont do wtf we say, you can;t work or try and find work. My pal Colin is tech recruiter. He had a really good placement in LA but it came with a mandate; jab or no job. His candidate was depressed for work so he took the jab and the job. I guess the company fired the dude before because he wouldnt obey and then they hired Colin's guy because he obeyed. I couldn't eat dinner without a mask in LA and so on and so forth.
 
Desert Hound said:
New variant.

This is why mandates are bad. They do nothing to stop the spread.

Learn to live with it.

Since vaxx doesn't last long hopefully they get more treatment options available. And they are. But still have a long way to go.

m.jpost.com

New COVID variant found in France: Reason for panic or not quite yet?

The spike protein of the variant known as B.1.640 has some unprecedented mutations.
m.jpost.com m.jpost.com
Click to expand...
Oh Lord, now the B.1.640 variant is rearing his ugly head. I here if you take the B and times it by 666, then it's the cousin of Mark from the Beast. Popcorn? This is some crazy ass behavior by some. This is what happens when you have no place to run and nowhere to hide.
 
dad4 said:
The two fields are more alike than you think.

In both cases, the guy in front of the camera is someone quite different from the data quant who tunes the computer model.
Click to expand...
Your right, they both need very little training to give their opinion on TV. Funny how people think because someone gives their opinion in he media they are somehow an expert. Another thing that you've fallen for hook, line and sinker.
 
dad4 said:
Yes, I am kind of baffled by the willingness to say “I never studied it, I cannot describe any of the details of it, but I trust my own ideas more than I trust the people who have done this for 30 years.”.
Click to expand...
Actually we're saying look at the data, not the opinions and projections of some lab rat. Of course you know that, but your side just likes to mischaracterize our position in an attempt to make your arguments sound more plausible. It doesn't work but I'm sure it makes you feel better.
 
Big Pharma must be feeling the heat of Congressional moves to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices because they are now lying about it in TV ads.

One take on this (the article is from August, but I saw one of the Pharma ads on senior-favorite History Channel last night) --

www.dailykos.com

New Big Pharma Harry & Louise type ad to scare folks into paying more for their prescriptions

I had to do a doubletake on this Big Pharma ad. It was reminiscent of the Harry & Louise ads that killed healthcare reform before. Big Pharma wants to keep you their cash cow ...
www.dailykos.com
 
watfly said:
Actually we're saying look at the data, not the opinions and projections of some lab rat. Of course you know that, but your side just likes to mischaracterize our position in an attempt to make your arguments sound more plausible. It doesn't work but I'm sure it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

It's all well and good to say look at the data. And as I've said, if the public engages with the output of the scientific process that has to be considered a good thing. But "looking at the data" is not just taking the gestalt of graphs that come through social media feeds with no context and a bunch of spin. Bottom line, "looking at the data" in a comprehensive way is a shit ton of hard work. For example, many that post here have convinced themselves that immunity induced through infection is "superior" to immunity induced through vaccination. A small subset of cohort studies have been discussed. What is the composite of the remarkably large amount of work that is being done?

On that topic the link below is what the CDC would consider looking at the data (updated as of last month), and this is even a distilled topline document, the sort of the thing a congress critter might scan over while they are taking a crap. But it would be a good place to start "looking at the data" in a comprehensive way. Read the studies that are cited, start blocking out the variables, compare, contrast, synthesize. And then you could obviously drill down even further, while still keeping up with the flood of new studies that are constantly coming out.

My point is that there are very few people (teams of people even) that are even in a position to comprehensively look at the data. What we are individually doing is a 21st century version of going with our gut, as has been pointed out. "Those strange yellow fruits tasted good so maybe these yellow berries will work out too" has become "this piece of information makes sense to me in terms of what I already think I know". It's the same thing.

www.cdc.gov

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
 
dad4 said:
Yes, I am kind of baffled by the willingness to say “I never studied it, I cannot describe any of the details of it, but I trust my own ideas more than I trust the people who have done this for 30 years.”.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s taking DIY a bit too far.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
It's all well and good to say look at the data. And as I've said, if the public engages with the output of the scientific process that has to be considered a good thing. But "looking at the data" is not just taking the gestalt of graphs that come through social media feeds with no context and a bunch of spin. Bottom line, "looking at the data" in a comprehensive way is a shit ton of hard work. For example, many that post here have convinced themselves that immunity induced through infection is "superior" to immunity induced through vaccination. A small subset of cohort studies have been discussed. What is the composite of the remarkably large amount of work that is being done?

On that topic the link below is what the CDC would consider looking at the data (updated as of last month), and this is even a distilled topline document, the sort of the thing a congress critter might scan over while they are taking a crap. But it would be a good place to start "looking at the data" in a comprehensive way. Read the studies that are cited, start blocking out the variables, compare, contrast, synthesize. And then you could obviously drill down even further, while still keeping up with the flood of new studies that are constantly coming out.

My point is that there are very few people (teams of people even) that are even in a position to comprehensively look at the data. What we are individually doing is a 21st century version of going with our gut, as has been pointed out. "Those strange yellow fruits tasted good so maybe these yellow berries will work out too" has become "this piece of information makes sense to me in terms of what I already think I know". It's the same thing.

www.cdc.gov

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
With all do respect, your getting too bogged down in the details and are missing the big picture. To discriminate against the unvaccinated but previously infected the burden of proof should be on the discriminators not the discriminated. They have completed failed that burden of proof no matter how you try to spin it or put it in a different context. Hence why you have the appeals court ruling and their comments:

"staggeringly overbroad"
"fatally flawed"
"grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority."

The data speaks for itself. You don't have to put it in an epidemiologists magic blender to understand what it means. You don't need to drill down or synthesize. It's not about R values or herd immunity estimates. It's all about risk assessment. The data on risks are very clear. Healthy people have virtually zero risk and kids in particular, have risks in the 1000's of one percent for any negative impacts.

Lets stop with the smoke and mirrors, the discrediting around the edges and the myopic thinking. Let's see the forest, instead of just the trees, and move on...80% of the population already has. It's only the arrogance of academics and medical experts that are keeping the failed policies alive.
 
watfly said:
With all do respect, your getting too bogged down in the details and are missing the big picture. To discriminate against the unvaccinated but previously infected the burden of proof should be on the discriminators not the discriminated. They have completed failed that burden of proof no matter how you try to spin it or put it in a different context. Hence why you have the appeals court ruling and their comments:

"staggeringly overbroad"
"fatally flawed"
"grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority."

The data speaks for itself. You don't have to put it in an epidemiologists magic blender to understand what it means. You don't need to drill down or synthesize. It's not about R values or herd immunity estimates. It's all about risk assessment. The data on risks are very clear. Healthy people have virtually zero risk and kids in particular, have risks in the 1000's of one percent for any negative impacts.

Lets stop with the smoke and mirrors, the discrediting around the edges and the myopic thinking. Let's see the forest, instead of just the trees, and move on...80% of the population already has. It's only the arrogance of academics and medical experts that are keeping the failed policies alive.
Click to expand...
So like with all extreme lunacy the fabricator attempts to lay the onus of disproving the existence of the fabricated on those they are trying to convince? Seems a bit backwards, like always.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
So like with all extreme lunacy the fabricator attempts to lay the onus of disproving the existence of the fabricated on those they are trying to convince? Seems a bit backwards, like always.
Click to expand...
Read the Appeals Court ruling and then try arguing that point of who is the fabricator. Since your anti-mandate I'm sure you will appreciate their reasoning.
 
dad4 said:
Perhaps you’d like to find a dictionary and look up the difference between “blocking” and “reducing”.

While you’re at it, ponder the difference between “wane” and “vanish”. Those two aren’t the same, either.

Trying for an honorary degree from the Grace T. School of False Dichotomy? It won’t work. That school doesn’t give honorary degrees. If you can‘t earn a PhD and tenured position, you get nothing.
Click to expand...
Talk about false dichotomy. You are just talking degrees here. As a math person you should know there is a difference between approaching but never reaching zero and zero…in there real world though they may both mean the same thing: there is literally no practical difference for example between 0 and the 2% effectiveness of the j&j vaccine as far as herd immunity

And guess what? The cdc has now quietly backed off zero covid saying it’s likely to go endemic. There is no herd immunity. Who was right? Who was wrong? You obviously are throwing in the towel on covid zero now because it’s the cdc right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top