Pandemic Part Deux

Yes - I shouldn't have gone with a Fox article.  Please show us where you get your numbers

I found this one also:

Terp, I've said here that given the rise of Delta and the possibility that the vaccines might wane over time, we should focus just on recent months to see how the vaxed fare against the unvaxed.  But even when you do that, every article and study shows that the vaxed are faring much better than the unvaxed.

I'm perfectly fine with "three jabs to feed your family" whatever that means.  No one ever promised or could promise that this this was a one shot and forever safe deal.  The possibility of regular shots, like the flu, was always out there.  Big deal.  Why is that  a horror?  You don't want the shot, don't take it.  Just stay away from me.

No one ever promised that variants wouldn't change the picture either.  That was always a concern. 

If you're going to criticize the authorities for saying A about something when things later evolved to B, how about admitting the fraudulence of your pet (literally) drug Ivermectin?  Not only was the big study supporting it debunked but as far as I can tell, those who issued the study have made no attempt to defend themselves.  They've gone silent.  Yet large number of fools, frankly, continue to shove it down their throats on the recommendation of unscientific media demagogues and QAnon types.

I wish this were a matter of personal choice where the only person to suffer from one's decision not to get vaccinated was one's self.  Unfortunately, we have quickly learned during this pandemic that is not the case.  A person who chooses not to get vaccinated becomes an attractive host for the virus.  If infected, that person can quickly spread the infection to others and more importantly provide the conditions the virus needs to mutate.  The likelihood that we would be battling the delta variant which has proven to put so many of our children in danger would have been reduced significantly had more of us been vaccinated.  There are some situations in which personal choice does not apply because of the impact a single person's actions can have on those around them.  

On vaccines vs post-infection immunity, when terp first raised this I was dubious as I couldn't understand what the mechanism would be, given that in both cases you're triggering an immune response. In the other thread, PeterWick pointed out that they end up targeting different parts of the virus, which could account for observed differences in immune response. That makes sense, but the conclusion of "just get infected" doesn't, as we know that even in the case of a breakthrough infection, you are much, much, much less likely to become seriously ill. So in general I'd say the best case scenario is vaccinated without a breakthrough infection, and the second best case is vaccinated with a breakthrough infection. I actually suspect that, from a medical/health perspective, the latter is when the pandemic "ends" -- most people are vaccinated, and most of those people eventually get exposed at a sufficient level to trigger a further immune response.

Given that option -- either never getting infected at all, or getting a mild infection under the protection of a vaccine -- I can't see any compelling reason to argue for "natural" immunity on its own. And I can't see any compelling reason to exclude children from such a strategy.

On vaccines reducing transmission, compare the Provincetown outbreak (that triggered the recent CDC change in masking guidelines) to the Sturgis motorcycle rally. As Ashish Jha notes in the Washington Post:

In the weeks since the rally began in early August, infection numbers have shot up more than 600 percent in South Dakota. We can expect to see big increases in other states, too, since bikers returned home from the event
...
Provincetown unfortunately also led to a spike in cases — but the infection numbers peaked quickly, dwindled and were gone three weeks later. There were very few hospitalizations and no deaths. Why? Because most of the people in Provincetown were vaccinated. That may be an indicator that population immunity from vaccinations is better and more protective than immunity from infections.

Consider also this summer’s Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago. All those attending were required to provide proof of vaccination or a negative coronavirus test. Anyone unvaccinated was required to wear masks throughout, even though the festival was outdoors. And those attending were asked to accept a “Lollapalooza Fan Health Pledge” promising they had not tested positive or been exposed to covid within two weeks or experienced any covid symptoms within 48 hours. The result? Of the hundreds of thousands of fans who attended the festival, only a few hundred have subsequently tested positive — and it is unclear whether any of them were infected at Lollapalooza.

joan_crystal said:

I wish this were a matter of personal choice where the only person to suffer from one's decision not to get vaccinated was one's self.  Unfortunately, we have quickly learned during this pandemic that is not the case.  A person who chooses not to get vaccinated becomes an attractive host for the virus.  If infected, that person can quickly spread the infection to others and more importantly provide the conditions the virus needs to mutate.  The likelihood that we would be battling the delta variant which has proven to put so many of our children in danger would have been reduced significantly had more of us been vaccinated.  There are some situations in which personal choice does not apply because of the impact a single person's actions can have on those around them.  

Exactly. This is where the "libertarian" approach breaks down, because in this case others can be harmed by someone's "personal choice".

nohero said:

Exactly. This is where the "libertarian" approach breaks down, because in this case others can be harmed by someone's "personal choice".

 the argument for making decisions for the collective good are going to fall on deaf ears with libertarian leaning people.  And vaccinations are a prime example of that.  Some of the people who are generally anti-vax have come to their conclusion through considering the benefit for themselves or their children.  Why should their kid get a measles shot when the chances of him/her coming down with measles is infinitesimal?  The reason is that when enough kids don't get vaccinated in a community, then outbreaks occur, sometimes infecting people who WERE vaccinated.  Like so many other decisions, the decision not to vax a kid might make sense on an individual risk/benefit calculation, but if enough people make that decision, it potentially has consequences for everyone.

Of all the public policies that we have in this country, I can't think of one that is more directly in opposition to libertarian ideology than vaccine mandates. Because for most diseases nowadays, the benefit of vaccination is rarely significant for the individual.  Generally vaccine programs benefit the collective.

Putting all that aside, personally I don't get refusing vaccines when adverse effects from them are so rare.  I got my flu vaccine this week as well as a shingles vaccine. And the reason isn't that I think I'll end up in the hospital or the morgue from flu or shingles.  It's that I don't want to be flat on my back with the flu, and I surely don't want to deal with the intense pain of a shingles infection.  Why would a healthy, rational person choose to take their chances with being ill when they can get a jab and significantly reduce the chances of getting sick?

terp said:

jamie said:

I found one answer - on Fox no less.  Terp - what your thought on this:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-nonvaccinated

 Its propoganda.  The vaccines help with hospitalization but going back to January means you are including numbers during the peak when almost nobody was vaccinated. 

“The vaccines help with hospitalization” is like saying “Pedialyte helps with dehydration.”  

Around here (Massachusetts) 3/4 of Covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated, even though they represent just 1/3 of the population.  

And keep in mind half the unvaccinated are under 12, and therefore at a lower risk of hospitalization by default. 

I forgot what it's like to keep up on threads that often veer off due to one poster.  I don't know why so many of the smart posters on this thread waste their time responding to that person. But I still applaud you all your patience.

Exactly

terp said:

 This would be true if the vaccine prevented infection and transmission.  Alas, it does not.  

It prevents deaths and hospitalizations and if more got vaccinated earlier there is some research that shows the variant would not have gotten as strong a toehold here as well as in India who didn't have the freedom of declining it at all. 

Tall_Mocha said:

Exactly

terp said:

This would be true if the vaccine prevented infection and transmission. Alas, it does not.

It’d be interesting to see if that affirmation survived a reading of the two articles I posted earlier on this point.

wendy said:

It prevents deaths and hospitalizations and if more got vaccinated earlier there is some research that shows the variant would not have gotten as strong a toehold here as well as in India who didn't have the freedom of declining it at all. 

 I can recall the vaccine flying off the shelves in the very beginning, they were running out of them. So the people were in fact getting vaccinated very early on. I think it’s time to come to the realization that maybe, just maybe, The Scientists don’t know what they are talking about . 

Tall_Mocha said:

 I can recall the vaccine flying off the shelves in the very beginning, they were running out of them. So the people were in fact getting vaccinated very early on. I think it’s time to come to the realization that maybe, just maybe, The Scientists don’t know what they are talking about . 

 As a medical scientist, it gets hard to follow the path of your logic sometimes. It sounds like you're aware of scientific concepts but don't take them into account when you express your frustration. The pandemic has bothered me a lot these past 20 months for several reasons, one of which is this.

PeterWick said:

 As a medical scientist, it gets hard to follow the path of your logic sometimes. It sounds like you're aware of scientific concepts but don't take them into account when you express your frustration. The pandemic has bothered me a lot these past 20 months for several reasons, one of which is this.

 Yeah, that post is a head-scratcher.

Tall_Mocha said:

 I can recall the vaccine flying off the shelves in the very beginning, they were running out of them. So the people were in fact getting vaccinated very early on. I think it’s time to come to the realization that maybe, just maybe, The Scientists don’t know what they are talking about . 

Is this satire?

DaveSchmidt said:

Tall_Mocha said:

Exactly

terp said:

This would be true if the vaccine prevented infection and transmission. Alas, it does not.

It’d be interesting to see if that affirmation survived a reading of the two articles I posted earlier on this point.

 anyone living in NJ shouldn't even need to read an article to conclude vaccinations are preventing infection and transmission. While these are correlational, enough of them can make the conclusion pretty obvious that the vaccines are working.

• Infections fell in NJ at almost the same rate as the % of vaccinated people was rising through the spring of this year
• The state removed most social distancing regulations and allowed most businesses to open "normally" by the beginning of the summer.
• While the infection rate did rise after social distancing measures were removed, the rate never rose to the heights it was in NJ from Nov-Apr
• The current positive test rate is the same as it was in November, pre-vaccine
• Hospitalizations and deaths in NJ are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated.  The pandemic in NJ is now essentially a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

While none of that is conclusive proof, it's pretty strong evidence that lots of vaccinated people aren't walking around with asymptomatic infections passing the virus.  Because if they were, with the removal of most social distancing requirements, and the arrival of the delta variant, it would be highly likely that the positive test rate would be higher than it was pre-vaccine.  But it isn't higher.

Sometimes we don't need peer-reviewed studies when the evidence is all around us.

ml1 said:

anyone living in NJ shouldn't even need to read an article to conclude vaccinations are preventing infection and transmission.

Nobody needs to read anything at all to reach conclusions. The articles are there for anyone who’s interested in possibly learning and understanding more about vaccination.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

anyone living in NJ shouldn't even need to read an article to conclude vaccinations are preventing infection and transmission.

Nobody needs to read anything at all to reach conclusions. The articles are there for anyone who’s interested in possibly learning and understanding more about vaccination.

 of course.

my comment was for the type of people who say the scientists don't know what they're talking about.

I'd like to see Terp's support for the nugget about vaccines not preventing infections.  

The early demand for vaccination is not surprising to anyone paying attention.  The first to be eligible for the vaccine were health care workers and the elderly. Health care workers were coming into daily contact with COVID - 19 patients and dealing daily with the dead and dying.  PPEs, hospital beds, and ventilators were in short supply.  Therefore, it is not surprising that so many health care workers were seeking the opportunity to get vaccinated.  The second priority was the elderly who had been told repeatedly by the media and their own families that they were at extreme risk. Most had  one or more underlying health conditions that made them highly susceptible to severe infection. All knew what was happening to seniors in congregate settings who were among the first to die in large numbers.  The elderly were scared, hiding in their homes, and competing with each other for the then limited access to the vaccine.  It is also not surprising given the early message that the elderly were were most at risk that the segment of the population with the highest rate of vaccination is those over 65 years of age.  Younger people got the message early on that this was a disease that impacted the elderly, that they might get infected but it would be a mild case from which they could easily recover with no lasting side effects.  By the time vaccine became more readily available, the message that this was a disease of the elderly had become so ingrained that many younger people remained convinced the virus could not harm them.  Even as younger and younger patients become hospitalized and died in large numbers, the reality that they could not get seriously ill from COVID did not sink in.  Therefore, they did not see the need to protect themselves to the same degree that health care workers and seniors did. Thus the demand for vaccine diminished as younger people were made eligible for vaccination.

insanity reigns

Floriduh doubles down

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/floridas-new-surgeon-general-skeptical-of-vaccines-opposes-masks/

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday that the state's new surgeon general will be Joseph Ladapo, a UCLA researcher known for opposing evidence-based mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdowns.

Instead, Dr. Ladapo advocates for the controversial idea of embracing "the reality of viral spread" to achieve herd immunity.

"Florida will completely reject fear as a way of making policies in public health," Ladapo said in a press conference Tuesday after DeSantis announced his appointment. Fear, he said, has "been unfortunately a centerpiece of health policy in the United States ever since the beginning of the pandemic and it's over here. Expiration date: it's done."

Florida has been one of the hardest-hit states in the pandemic, particularly amid the current wave driven by the hypertransmissible delta coronavirus variant. In early August, the Sunshine State accounted for 20 percent of all COVID-19 cases occurring in the US. Throughout the wave—which is finally receding in Florida—DeSantis has opposed vaccine mandates and fiercely fought mask mandates in schools.

Ladapo appears to share his thinking. In a series of opinion pieces in The Wall Street Journal, Ladapo has argued against mask mandates and vaccine mandates and played up fears about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, which have been found to be remarkably safe as well as effective. Meanwhile, Ladapo has pointed to unproven and ineffective treatments, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, as treatments for COVID-19.

In the press conference Tuesday, Ladapo declined to say that he would promote vaccines and downplayed their role in helping bring an end to the pandemic.

"The state should be promoting good health, and vaccination isn't the only path to that," Ladapo said. "It's been treated almost like a religion, and that's just senseless. There's a lot of good pathways to health, and vaccination is not the only one. So, we support measures for good health—that's vaccination, losing weight, it's exercising more, it's eating more fruits and vegetables, everything. We support it all."

Is The Worst Over? Modelers Predict A Steady Decline In COVID Cases Through March

(NPR, text-only version)

The modelers developed four potential scenarios, taking into account whether or not childhood vaccinations take off and whether a more infectious new variant should emerge.

The most likely scenario, says Lessler, is that children do get vaccinated and no super-spreading variant emerges. In that case, the combo model forecasts that new infections would slowly, but fairly continuously, drop from about 140,000 today now to about 9,000 a day by March.

Deaths from COVID-19 would fall from about 1,500 a day now to fewer than 100 a day by March 2022.

That's around the level U.S. cases and deaths were in late March 2020 when the pandemic just started to flare up in the U.S. and better than things looked early this summer when many thought the pandemic was waning.

And this scenario projects that there will be no winter surge, though Lessler cautions that there is uncertainty in the models and a "moderate" surge is still theoretically possible.

There's wide range of uncertainty in the models, he notes, and it's plausible, though very unlikely, that cases could continue to rise to as many as 232,000 per day before starting to decline.

Good luck to those who stay in Florida during the winter and want to get a 3rd shot booster.   

I still say read "Enemy of the People" by Ibsen.  He nailed our current national debate about 130 years ago.