Page 219 of 247 FirstFirst ... 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 ... LastLast
Results 5,451 to 5,475 of 6171
  1. #5451
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    7,311
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The vaccine definitely protects against catching COVID. We've already seen in places like San Diego where breakthrough cases for vaccines are less than 0.01%. Making vaccines 99.99% effective in a vaccinated population. Even fewer of the breakthrough cases involved people becoming seriously ill.

    Even among health care workers and first responders who have a higher exposure risk, the relative risk of infection is reduced by 90% and the relative risk of getting sick is reduced by 95%.

    At the time the media accurately reported the data and said it was unknown whether the risk of transmission was also reduced by the vaccines. We now know mRNA COVID-19 vaccines reduce both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
    Exactly. And this is the reason for the new CDC guidance. Just in case anyone thinks the CDC is being inconsistent, flip-flopping, etc. Takes time to collect and analyze data.

  2. #5452
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    6,893
    Here is the NY Times article that best explains the position shift. It says this was not a political decision and not driven from the White House but rather the most recent science (as mentioned in the posts above). It claims the White House was actually surprised.


    Why the C.D.C. Changed Its Advice on Masks https://nyti.ms/3w71agK

    I dunno. Mixed feelings. I do think the CDC needs to make its decisions and guidance based on the science. It isn't their job to actually set the policy. That is where our politicians, business leaders, and the American public can step in and drop the ball completely.

  3. #5453
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    17,204
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The vaccine definitely protects against catching COVID. We've already seen in places like San Diego where breakthrough cases for vaccines are less than 0.01%. Making vaccines 99.99% effective in a vaccinated population. Even fewer of the breakthrough cases involved people becoming seriously ill.
    Huh? 99.99% effective would only be the case if 100% of the non-vaccinated were getting infected. Also, although I haven't been to SD lately I assume that, being California, a lot of people are masking and a lot of things are still restricted, Padres games for example. (Although a lot of teams would be delighted if the could get a ballpark 33% filled covid or no covid.) The CDC is betting the great results of vaccination will hold up as restrictions are eased.

    I'm not disagreeing that the vaccines are very effective and that restrictions on vaccinated people should be eased. CDC waited on easing restriction recommendations until vaccines were available for everyone who wants one. That as much as the effectiveness of the vaccines is the reason for the sudden change. (And how sudden? Should the CDC have told people we're going to ease restrictions in 2 weeks, when the data shows it's ok now?*)

    In part, the change in the CDC guidelines reflects a change from a medical approach--protect every single person from getting Covid--to an epidemiological approach--prevent transmission of the virus so that case numbers continue to fall. That's a change in approach I'm happy to see. Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent a risk averse person from wearing a mask.

    *People's shock at the change in the CDC guidelines reminds me of a very old joke, the punchline of which is "Mama's on the roof."
    https://blog.shackelfordfuneraldirec...re-mamas-roof/

  4. #5454
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,276
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Huh? 99.99% effective would only be the case if 100% of the non-vaccinated were getting infected.
    Didn't you just discuss the difference between absolute and relative risk?

  5. #5455
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,815
    ^ Yep, to summarize the previous discussion: The 95%, or whatever, vaccine efficacy numbers are relative efficacy numbers. Meaning you're 95% less likely to get sick, not that you have a 5% chance of getting sick. The odds of catching COVID or getting sick two weeks after the second shot are a lot lower than 5%.


    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    Not sure about that 0.01% breakthrough

    It’s more common than you think.
    There’s reasonable points about severity after breakthrough.
    But that number is way too low.
    The term "breakthrough" infection is something of a misnomer. The cases we know about are almost entirely from routine PCR tests. PCR tests are very sensitive but the actual viral loads are incredibly low. There are no known cases of a fully mRNA vaccinated person spreading the virus.

  6. #5456
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,276
    Also worth noting that absolute risk means nothing without knowing the time period. Any population can have an absolute risk of 0.01% of anything if you just count up the number in the population, divide by 10,000 and count until you reach that number. Useful if you click your stopwatch while counting, but not so much otherwise.

  7. #5457
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    8,558
    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    Here is the NY Times article that best explains the position shift. It says this was not a political decision and not driven from the White House but rather the most recent science (as mentioned in the posts above). It claims the White House was actually surprised.


    Why the C.D.C. Changed Its Advice on Masks https://nyti.ms/3w71agK

    I dunno. Mixed feelings. I do think the CDC needs to make its decisions and guidance based on the science. It isn't their job to actually set the policy. That is where our politicians, business leaders, and the American public can step in and drop the ball completely.
    I think it was a premature announcement that should have been put on ice until at least June. Now all these assholes are out there unvaxxed and adding stress to those of us with kids under 12.

  8. #5458
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    7,311
    Should your 12 year old get vaxxed? It's not as straight forward as you might think. This guy is a well known curmudgeon, but he's got some good points.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...001271296.html

  9. #5459
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Also worth noting that absolute risk means nothing without knowing the time period. Any population can have an absolute risk of 0.01% of anything if you just count up the number in the population, divide by 10,000 and count until you reach that number. Useful if you click your stopwatch while counting, but not so much otherwise.
    Agreed. The most important thing to know is that it's very rare to get infected once fully mRNA vaccinated, and even if infected the viral load in the nose is so low that transmission is unlikely.

  10. #5460
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    7,311
    The part I'm struggling with is balancing the AE's with the benefit. We traditionally think of the benefit as the potential to reduce short term disease. However, if we think a little further into the future you might consider vaccination the equivilent of round up where you destroy the soil on which the virus could propagate. Call it the original virus, call it a variant, doesn't matter. It's the same reason why we continue to give measles vaccines even though annually there are less than 1000 cases. Getting ahead of future outbreaks.

  11. #5461
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    6,893
    Quote Originally Posted by The SnowShow View Post
    I think it was a premature announcement that should have been put on ice until at least June. Now all these assholes are out there unvaxxed and adding stress to those of us with kids under 12.
    It definitely adds stress.

    I think it is an open question if the stress is justified. The main reason I didn't want my 11 yo to catch it was to save my wife and my ass. Do I worry she gets long covid or on of the rare kids who gets super sick. Sure. But is it rational?

    In other words what is her actual risk of severe illness or death compared to me...fully vaccinated. Is it similar? If it is why am I worried.

    I don't think we have clear guidance. Which sucks.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  12. #5462
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by huckbucket View Post
    The part I'm struggling with is balancing the AE's with the benefit. We traditionally think of the benefit as the potential to reduce short term disease. However, if we think a little further into the future you might consider vaccination the equivilent of round up where you destroy the soil on which the virus could propagate. Call it the original virus, call it a variant, doesn't matter. It's the same reason why we continue to give measles vaccines even though annually there are less than 1000 cases. Getting ahead of future outbreaks.

    It's premature to say this is a thing, but researches have identified a structural basis for a pan-coronavirus vaccine. If such a vaccine existed then in addition to COVID, it could mitigate the threat of other coronaviruses too and would probably be as routine as a measles or a tetanus shot.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-021-00596-4

  13. #5463
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    22,469
    Quote Originally Posted by The SnowShow View Post
    I think it was a premature announcement that should have been put on ice until at least June. Now all these assholes are out there unvaxxed and adding stress to those of us with kids under 12.
    It does seem a little premature to me. I got my vax as soon as I was eligible and get my second one on Tuesday. The national date for eligibility for all adults was April 19th, so 28 days from that for the Moderna vaccine is Monday. It seems like we'll have a lot more adults fully vaxxed in a few weeks, but right now many are still getting shots even if they didn't delay at all.

  14. #5464
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    9,595
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    The national date for eligibility for all adults was April 19th, so 28 days from that for the Moderna vaccine is Monday. It seems like we'll have a lot more adults fully vaxxed in a few weeks, but right now many are still getting shots even if they didn't delay at all.
    Yeah, that's the shoddy part of the media's reporting. Everybody in this country "who wanted a shot" and followed the eligibility schedule still isn't "fully vaccinated"

    And if you want to extra pedantic, if your first shot was on the 19th, and second shot on the 17th, full protection will be achieved by the 31st.

  15. #5465
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent a risk averse person from wearing a mask.
    It's a bummer masks became so politicized. It would be nice to see masks worn in the future whenever someone has a cold or the flu to prevent spreading to others, like the norm in Japan

  16. #5466
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    There are no known cases of a fully mRNA vaccinated person spreading the virus.
    I marvel at how effective these vaccines are. We should have a national honor day for the people that have developed it.

  17. #5467
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Golden BC
    Posts
    3,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Casey E View Post
    Makes sense I suppose

    How does one measure or characterize a person as populist? As it can occur on both the right and left.
    Mrs. Dougw- "I can see how one of your relatives could have been killed by an angry mob."

    Quote Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy View Post
    dougW, you motherfucking dirty son of a bitch.

  18. #5468
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The land of Genesee Cream Ale and homemade pierogies!
    Posts
    1,821
    It's 24 hours past Pfizer #2 for me.

    So far only effect is a very slight tightness in the upper arm. And I don't have the fatigue/urge to sleep as I did from #1, even tried to sleep in the late aftn yesterday but couldn't. Did a few hours of DIY work around the house today and still feeling good.
    ďThe best argument in favour of a 90% tax rate on the rich is a five-minute chat with the average rich person.Ē

    - Winston Churchill, paraphrased.

  19. #5469
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    17,204
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Didn't you just discuss the difference between absolute and relative risk?
    Exactly. If 0.01% of vaccinated got infected and 100% of the unvaccinated got infected that's a 99.99% relative risk reduction, or efficacy If we say that 1% of the unvaccinated got infected (a very high estimate for a short period of time) that's a 99% relative risk reduction. That's still pretty damn good. But if we're going to use statistics lets use accurate ones. Of course we don't know the real numbers--true incidence of breakthrough infection, period of time, true incidence of infections in the unvaccinated so any number we come up with at this point is meaningless. It's enough to say the vaccine is working very well.

  20. #5470
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    8,905
    Quote Originally Posted by DougW View Post
    How does one measure or characterize a person as populist? As it can occur on both the right and left.
    From bennymac’s OP:

    “ The most important factor is populism, which we measure using a scale comprised of four categories: trusting down-to-earth people over experts; preferring strong leadership over debate and deliberation; support for increased use of referendums and plebiscites; and believing politicians soon lose touch with the people after they are elected. “
    Not sure why you’re bringing Left or Right into this, since those were reported separately?

  21. #5471
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Donner Summit
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    He lives on the other side of town and is a walking black market pharmacy but maybe I'll risk everything and offer to give him a ride.
    Don't know if you have Uber/Lyft where you are but if you do: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...hite-house-say

  22. #5472
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    6,893
    We do. Didn't know about that. Cool!

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  23. #5473
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Exactly. If 0.01% of vaccinated got infected and 100% of the unvaccinated got infected that's a 99.99% relative risk reduction, or efficacy If we say that 1% of the unvaccinated got infected (a very high estimate for a short period of time) that's a 99% relative risk reduction. That's still pretty damn good. But if we're going to use statistics lets use accurate ones. Of course we don't know the real numbers--true incidence of breakthrough infection, period of time, true incidence of infections in the unvaccinated so any number we come up with at this point is meaningless. It's enough to say the vaccine is working very well.
    I would agree if you mean to say the numbers are imprecise, but I don't think they're meaningless because they show, as you point out, the vaccines are working exceptionally well.

    The numbers we have so far are since vaccinations began. Whether that's a short period of time is of course subjective. To Jono's point the 0.01% vaccinated infection % will either grow or shrink depending on when you stop the clock. Our intuition might suggest the number will grow because over time the percentage of breakthrough cases will increase. That could happen. The other possibility is "a vaccinated population" will see the percentage of cases shrink making the 0.01% number a high water mark because the total population infection rate was at its highest when vaccinations began.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 05-15-2021 at 02:32 PM.

  24. #5474
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,314
    Itís interesting to read the SMEs that feel that the cdc new guidance was another mistake from those working in a non-real world bubble.

  25. #5475
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    8,558

    To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    It definitely adds stress.

    I think it is an open question if the stress is justified. The main reason I didn't want my 11 yo to catch it was to save my wife and my ass. Do I worry she gets long covid or on of the rare kids who gets super sick. Sure. But is it rational?

    In other words what is her actual risk of severe illness or death compared to me...fully vaccinated. Is it similar? If it is why am I worried.

    I don't think we have clear guidance. Which sucks.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
    Yeah, Iím stressed about how many parents around us now feel kids donít need masks (except at school) and thatís premature IMO. We donít know the long term effects even if they donít get sick badly. I donít want her to have lung issues 10 years from now because we didnít continue having her mask up inside around other kids.

    Does anyone know if the Pfizer vaxx for 12-15 year olds the same two shots or a different dosage?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •