Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
I work ER and Urgent Care, and subsequently see covid cases essentially every day of all ages. Haven't seen ANYONE with any significant pulmonary burden since Omicron. No BiPAP, no high flow, no vents. Only admissions have been for covid related dehydration in elderly, mild associated acute kidney injury, etc.
In my opinion there's not much/if any clinical benefit on boosters based on my observations of vax'd/unvax'd.
So couldn’t boosters be helping keep people out of your ER? Especially elderly / immunocompromised / chronically ill?
My point is, I haven't seen someone sick with covid for a very long time, vaccinated or not. And at this point, pretty much everyone has had covid, vaxed, or likely both. So how do you infer what the "immunity" is from, or where the potential clinical benefit is coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
When I was getting chemo last year, both my oncologist and the cancer team in general had not seen critically ill cancer patients with Omicron. She was "meh" on boosters. The infusion nurses had the same observations. That's not speaking of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, of course.
My mother had Covid twice in a six week period this year. She's had all the vax. She was quite ill the last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I've had a couple friends on the west side who have recently contracted Covid. One for the first time (fully vaxxed) and she was very sick. The other for the 2nd time.
I've not had Covid, yet. Fully vaxxed and boosted *knocks wood*
That you know of.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
:D
Was she hospitalized, did she get IV fluids in the ER, did she require supplemental oxygen?Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Did the vax help her? How do we infer clinical benefit in her case? You could look at her case and assume she did, or didn't have clinical benefit.
Covid sucks, it's uncomfortable, it can knock you down, but it's typically not associated with critical illness anymore. My patient demographic covers the entire spectrum of age, health, comorbidities.
Why is that? Better treatment? Changes to the virus?Quote:
it's typically not associated with critical illness anymore
She's in Assisted Living where there is nursing staff. They did want to send her to the ER but she refused and they treated her there (that was the second time she got it the first she was in a Rehab center that had full medical staff). No IV or Oxy though it would have been helpful but since she refused medical treatment not much could be done. Did get Paxlovid both times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Did the vax help? Maybe? Probably? She did get Covid twice in 6 weeks.
I only responded because up thread your post said "My point is, I haven't seen someone sick with covid for a very long time, vaccinated or not."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...270?via%3DihubQuote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Some diseases were up, some were down. Most were not statistically significantly up or down. More up than down. Ofc, they selected specific diseases of interest identified in other studies.
As for the decimals - those are from the 95% confidence intervals. In the paper everything is expressed with confidence intervals. But those are confusing to the average Forbes or forum reader, and also awkward to put in a sentence. They derived these using the "exact Poisson distribution," if that means anything to you (above my paygrade).Quote:
vaccine adverse events of special interest (AESI) in 2020 [3]. AESI selection was based on their pre-established associations with immunization, specific vaccine platforms or adjuvants, or viral replication during wild-type disease; theoretical concerns related to immunopathogenesis; or supporting evidence from animal models using candidate vaccine platforms
Given all the distrust, having numbers is useful. The numbers are small, probably not clinically significant - I think "not clinically significant" is doctor-speak for don't worry about it (IANAD). Problem is I suspect most of those with trust problems aren't going to take these results as "everything is ok." It's tough when maybe 1% of the population has enough statistics background to begin to understand the study.
1% is being very, very generous.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Doomed we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Here’s the cdc early report on the booster vax effectiveness against symptomatic covid. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7304a2.htm
My wife’s case load continues to be affected by covid, where she hasn’t been visited by her full weekly case load since December because of covid (if covid+, they don’t see her). Multiple faculty at her work have also been out with covid over the past 4 weeks. Unclear if it’s being spread through the workplace or if infections are via people doing their thing in the community, but when administrators/leaders get sick, work systems bog down.
So while she felt awful and was probably weak, dehydrated, and probably had a poor appetite, maybe mild hypokalemia from not eating, she recovered without what we classify as significant disease burden or critical illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Paxlovid probably helped her, but she wasn't by any means, critically ill. That's my point.
People feel like shit, but they aren't getting that sick. The definition of "sick" is very different for healthcare workers than it is for lay people. One is based on reality, the other is subjective.
But unless these “not so sick” elderly/chronically ill covid patients are not boosted then I fail to see how this anecdotal evidence supports the idea that boosters are no longer advisable in that population
So has Covid mutated to where it is now which is no longer deadly ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
The real question isn’t if the vaccine/booster is dangerous but if it is less dangerous than catching Covid without the jab. Also, the public health issue isn’t confined to individual disease burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Obligatory fuck Sinclair. Bummer that is all you have KQ but that shit is insidious propaganda masquerading as local news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
How do we explain essentially zero admissions for covid positive patients in a diverse population of vaccinated+boosted, "undervaccinated", and unvaccinated?
Are they not getting admitted because they survived first exposure and have normal inferred immunity from infection?
Are they not being admitted because covid is less virulent?
Are they not being admitted because of vaccine/booster?
I have no idea.
We now have a population who is not covid naive/has some level of protection from either from vax, vax+booster, natural infection, or all of the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
LOL! It's my nightly sport - scoffing and yelling at the news. Quite entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghosthop
Which I think would lead you to form no conclusions other than “people (on a population scale) are not getting as sick as they previously were”Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
To give a population a degree of immunity, have their severity of infection go down, and then conclude they therefore didn’t need that immunity seems illogical to me.
My partner's Dad is in the hospital with covid. It's it's 2nd go-around. I believe he's been vax'd back in the day - but prob not up on boosters. We're entering the 2nd overnight stay - not sure when he may be discharged, just hoping he eventually does. Everyone is concerned.
Just one data point.
Late last year my parents were stricken. My dad's second time; first time was life threatening. Better this time - treatment is better. Mom had a real terrible time of it, doesn't sound like she's recovered yet.
I get that it's not like it was - and thank god; 'normal' people get sick and recover. But even within the last year, an aging collection of aunts / uncles / relatives had rough recovery and some with trips to the hospitals. If you're vulnerable, being vigilant makes sense to me. Sucks its still a thing but not being in a world wide health crisis changes the calculus.
Good point and agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Maybe they have better thots and prayers ?Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
maybe they took vitamin D
Good post. We were just talking about this today. Our friends, family in Chicago don't really get this or understand the nuance on some topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
It is survival. We need our neighbors and so we can't alienate them. Works both ways.
QUOTE=KQ;7031226]LOL! It's my nightly sport - scoffing and yelling at the news. Quite entertaining.[/QUOTE]
I can rarely watch TV news. It isn't really informative. The stuff from the right is mostly propoganda designed to confuse people, and I think it works.
My mom always has CNN in when I go over there. Drives me nuts.
I'd rather read excerpts from groups like right wing watch that put misonformation in context.
Thanks for digging that up. The authors do specifically state that the purpose of such studies is primarily for screening vaccination trials and post-approval vaccinated populations for potential vaccine complications. And there's nothing new here--these potential vaccine complications have been known for a couple of years. Tables 3 and 4 show that most of the conditions they looked at showed no increased risk with vaccination and some showed lower incidence than expected, leading one to question if the increased incidence of certain conditions is random variation. (I'm inclined to believe the differences are real though.) The data on myocarditis and pericarditis is more convincing and has been understood for a long time. And the conditions seem to be temporary if I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
What is valid and important about the paper is that it establishes the UPPER limit of the risk of these vaccine complications--that is, given the nature of this kind of study it is very unlikely to be higher than the numbers in the paper.
What Sinclair or Rudy Giuliani or Alex Jones choose to do with the study, whattayagonnado? If they didn't have this data they'd make some up.
Is there anything to the "excess deaths" meme going around in some circles? Is it just bad math or out of context or explainable? Don't want to watch videos as may pollute brain with stuff that just has to be removed later.
Where KQ lives I;m not sure "pile of horseshit" is much of an insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
I've always been struck how people who live exemplary lives of caring and service can have bizarre and even hateful beliefs. It boggles my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
The decimal thing in science papers is a pet peeve of mine--because it often implies a greater degree of accuracy than is warranted by the methodology. People are more likely to believe you if you say 5.3 than if you say about 5, even though the latter is more accurate. If the IRS can do without cents science should be able to do without decimals. As long as my mechanic uses thousandths when he's grinding my cylinder head.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Another thing ppl around here do is send their kids over to help free of charge. Not a bad lesson to teach them IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
I can't say that I never experienced spontaneous acts of kindness from my neighbors when I lived in the city but they were few and far between. Most ppl there seem to operate with their heads down more than here. Ppl here are always watchful.
What idiocy is going around now?Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
Essentially zero? Where are you getting that stat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...933044&thumb=1
All I got on that is the jet fuel people have decided there were no excess deaths and the pandemic is a lizard people conspiracy that didn't happen irl. All the vaxxed people were tricked, and any day now (or two years ago), they'll suddenly drop dead from 5g, mega clots, or turbo cancer, except some of us who got the saline injection. But that was from a few months ago, so maybe it's the same again or maybe they remixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
Folks who don't trust anything, will believe anything.
Not really. you can't really say that factually. There are many ways the data has been corrupted. Possibly the biggest being counting the recently vaxed as unvaxed in the mass public human trials fucked the data. There should have been three categories, vaxxed, unvaxxed, and recently vaxxed, to differentiate short term vax reactions from covid infections that were merely coincidental. Really, most of these people were probablyu experiencing vax reactions and not just happened tobe coincidentally getting covid. Even if it was covid, statistically significant amounts of people getting covid after getting vaxed would be a problem. The people who did this aren't stupid. It was done on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
Plus, I'm really not aware of any good data on efficacy for the vax. I'm just aware of a long narrative of ever changing numbers. Remember the 99% efficacy claims? Its funny, many people claim to not remember these claims. The above data problems have not only fucked the data for adverse reactions, but also, for efficacy.
So, like usual, you're smug bullshit is without substance or basis in science.
Hmm. Distorting someone elses views to the extreme, so that they are easy to mock and attack, is called a strawman. Its typically something mid wits with huge amounts of cognitive dissonance who can only exist in echo chambers feel the need to do, and not something intellectually serious people arguing in good faith feel the need to resort to.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Remember those controlled opposition videos showing fat people trying to fool you into thinking the vax sites were magnetized by using their fatsweat to stick a fork to their arm? Yea, because of that, we know there must be NO problems with the vax at all and its just great and the pharma companies should probably get MORE money given to them liability free. Ya know, you could probably just donate money to them.
Why don't you just do the math yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
Magical thinking, or based in hard data?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
CDC early estimate for newest booster was 49% (confidence interval 19-68%) against symptomatic infections at 7 weeks post vax. They recommend updated vax for ages >6 mos. At time of study booster uptake was only 22% of US population over age 18.
Per CDC available data only 48% US over age 65 has received bivalent (old) booster. 94% of those over 65 have received initial two dose series.
As of December 2022 95% of the US population was sero-positive for Covid antibodies either from vax, infection, or both.
How do we differentiate true benefits of latest booster against clinically significant disease burden in a population who is already > 95% sero-positive?
All data above available on CDC.
I’ve given up arguing about vaccines. These two images from the NYT tell the story pretty clearly. Those living in areas with lower vaccination rates are dying at a higher rate. I’ve become OK with that, the lord helps those who help themselves.
Attachment 487666
Attachment 487667
Those maps mirror obesity/diabetes and other comorbidities very closely especially on Native reservations (Navajo). They also don’t capture/isolate efficacy of boosters.
I don't know how widespread but its that Dr Campbell guy. It looks like every time he comes up in my you tube feed he's on about it. Haven't seen a rebuttal from others as maybe they have moved on so won't give him any time. but Campbell does cite papers so was wondering if just taking out of content or what.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles