|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 8, 2021 20:11:26 GMT -6
Josh - one of the biggest issues is the fact that vaccines don't keep you from catching any particular virus - they act as pre-event stimuli so your immune system reacts more quickly thus minimizing degree of illness and your ability to spread the illness as a vector. As I said before - the only viral disease ever eradicated was smallpox via world wide vaccinations for true "herd immunity", the others we've "eliminated" in western countries still exist in other parts of the world because other countries don't vaccinate against them - so no global herd immunity. The talking heads didn't do a good job in covering this - I think they wanted to emphasize that vaccines work but created issues by trying to simplify the process needed to reach the levels of effectiveness they tried to portray. There are definitely nuances in how we approach vaccinations as the risk/benefit ratios are different for subsets of the population - but as a whole current data show the vaccines are very effective for reducing morbidity/mortality. But being vaccinated doesn't mean no chance of contacting/spreading illness.
I just got back from moving my son to Eastern WA for college - local news announced northern Idaho hospitals just went to crisis standards of care - haven't seen that on national news but it's a huge deal as it means the system there has crossed a threshold in ability to provide expected levels of care. Regretfully probably not the last region that will need to adopt these crisis standards - so stay safe out there.
Thank you Bill, I appreciate your input. Just to clarify a little more, my main issue is with the messaging, not the vaccines. I just don't think it's fair to be so inconsistent and confusing in your messaging and then demonize the very people you need to reach for being confused. Sorry to hear of the hospital situation in Idaho. It seems like we've toed that line many times in different places throughout the pandemic. To my knowledge no single person went without treatment that needed it so hopefully that remains the case 🙏🏼 |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,090 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 8, 2021 20:12:49 GMT -6
When talking of the "unvaccinated" we should not include those that had covid, recovered and have natural immunity. The reasons for including those who have had it and recovered are. 1. They do have some immunity, but not necessarily for any of the variants other than the one they were infected with. 2. The level of antibodies isn’t universal, don’t really know how long they will last and hard / expensive to get an accurate test of antibodies. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 8, 2021 20:36:41 GMT -6
When talking of the "unvaccinated" we should not include those that had covid, recovered and have natural immunity. The reasons for including those who have had it and recovered are. 1. They do have some immunity, but not necessarily for any of the variants other than the one they were infected with. 2. The level of antibodies isn’t universal, don’t really know how long they will last and hard / expensive to get an accurate test of antibodies. This study out of Israel suggests otherwise. Check it out if you haven’t yet: www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 8, 2021 22:05:44 GMT -6
Josh - one of the biggest issues is the fact that vaccines don't keep you from catching any particular virus - they act as pre-event stimuli so your immune system reacts more quickly thus minimizing degree of illness and your ability to spread the illness as a vector. As I said before - the only viral disease ever eradicated was smallpox via world wide vaccinations for true "herd immunity", the others we've "eliminated" in western countries still exist in other parts of the world because other countries don't vaccinate against them - so no global herd immunity. The talking heads didn't do a good job in covering this - I think they wanted to emphasize that vaccines work but created issues by trying to simplify the process needed to reach the levels of effectiveness they tried to portray. There are definitely nuances in how we approach vaccinations as the risk/benefit ratios are different for subsets of the population - but as a whole current data show the vaccines are very effective for reducing morbidity/mortality. But being vaccinated doesn't mean no chance of contacting/spreading illness.
I just got back from moving my son to Eastern WA for college - local news announced northern Idaho hospitals just went to crisis standards of care - haven't seen that on national news but it's a huge deal as it means the system there has crossed a threshold in ability to provide expected levels of care. Regretfully probably not the last region that will need to adopt these crisis standards - so stay safe out there.
Thank you Bill, I appreciate your input. Just to clarify a little more, my main issue is with the messaging, not the vaccines. I just don't think it's fair to be so inconsistent and confusing in your messaging and then demonize the very people you need to reach for being confused. I think people in positions of power and responsibility should be held to a high standard of competency and honesty. I don't think we disagree there at all. The thing is, this situation is inconsistent and confusing. It's to be expected that scientists and officials will struggle to figure out the best course of action and then present it in a way that will reach the most people. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect that they will never have to change course as new data rolls in and the scientific and social landscape changes. There are so many complicating factors, not the least of which is that some folks in positions of influence are doing everything they can to confuse the issue. People have certainly suffered and will continue to do so, but I think it's a miracle that we have a highly effective vaccine and that our economy hasn't completely crashed. That indicates a pretty high level of competency in my mind. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,090
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 9, 2021 14:52:28 GMT -6
The reasons for including those who have had it and recovered are. 1. They do have some immunity, but not necessarily for any of the variants other than the one they were infected with. 2. The level of antibodies isn’t universal, don’t really know how long they will last and hard / expensive to get an accurate test of antibodies. This study out of Israel suggests otherwise. Check it out if you haven’t yet: www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1We read the study last night ( Man my reading list gets weird when the KU and former MD Anderson and UW laboratory medicine prof is home) the study doesn’t really present that they are not getting reinfected, just that if they are it isn’t bad enough to go to a DR. Great news at the point in time of the study if you had been infected, you probably won’t get very sick the second time. But this really isn’t the biggest fear for those who have survived, in fact it tracks with what many expect. The problem is and what many fear is the reinfected because they do have antibodies probably can fight it enough that they are a large part of the asymstamtic carriers who spread it without knowing it. This far more dangerous for those around those who were infected than the people that were infected. One would have to track a group of those who were infected, levels of antibodies, but we don’t really have a practical way of doing it and we don’t even have a solid grip on what level of antibodies of the known varieties is therapeutic yet. The other thing is even if you have antibodies from a prior infection and let’s say they are effective against Delta and MU, we don’t know that they will be effective against the next variant. So why get the shot then ? Simple because we won’t know if say you were infected in Feb 2000, until we see people who were infected sick and by then it’s really a little late to get the vaccine. Having those who were infected get the vaccine is probably the one policy in this whole cluster where we actually are looking ahead rather than behind or just reacting. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 9, 2021 15:13:12 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’m following you here, the people with natural immunity or natural immunity + 1 shot did significantly better in every way than no previous infection + double shot. I’ll admit, this new way of thinking(not just you so I’m not meaning it as a direct critique) that gives so little value to natural immunity is very strange to me. It goes against everything I’ve ever known about health & the human body.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,090
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 9, 2021 17:48:35 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’m following you here, the people with natural immunity or natural immunity + 1 shot did significantly better in every way than no previous infection + double shot. I’ll admit, this new way of thinking(not just you so I’m not meaning it as a direct critique) that gives so little value to natural immunity is very strange to me. It goes against everything I’ve ever known about health & the human body. Yeah that was my thought to I think the safe over simplified version is this. Yes it offers some limited immunity , we don’t know how much or how long or from what so it’s better safe to get the shots than infect others and possibly get sick ( the lab guru is looking over my shoulder and saying I’m overly simplifying but can’t come up with anything that would make sense and can’t argue with any of the points made so go figure. Oh no she’s texting the real lab guru great moms going to call! See what you did! Now there are hard feelings my mom is going to call and I’m getting ready to head across the street to bar!🤪 |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 9, 2021 17:51:58 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’m following you here, the people with natural immunity or natural immunity + 1 shot did significantly better in every way than no previous infection + double shot. I’ll admit, this new way of thinking(not just you so I’m not meaning it as a direct critique) that gives so little value to natural immunity is very strange to me. It goes against everything I’ve ever known about health & the human body. Yeah that was my thought to I think the safe over simplified version is this. Yes it offers some limited immunity , we don’t know how much or how long or from what so it’s better safe to get the shots than infect others and possibly get sick ( the lab guru is looking over my shoulder and saying I’m overly simplifying but can’t come up with anything that would make sense and can’t argue with any of the points made so go figure. Oh no she’s texting the real lab guru great moms going to call! See what you did! Now there are hard feelings my mom is going to call and I’m getting ready to head across the street to bar!🤪 Ha! Well, I don't want to cause you that kind of trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Sept 10, 2021 11:53:26 GMT -6
Well, I don't love that.
Maybe a challenge will succeed - only way that happens is if the OSHA general duty clause has some problem, but I'm not optimistic about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 10, 2021 12:40:21 GMT -6
I was really disappointed in 46’s speech last night. Doubling down on making the unvaccinated seem like a bunch of selfish a-holes. Zero consideration for natural immunity, zero consideration for those that legitimately cannot and should not get the vaccine. Not what we need from our leadership. Someone needs to tell these guys you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Education…good, clear messaging…that is the answer, not more division.
For example he said “we have to protect our vaccinated workers from their unvaccinated co-workers.” To the average person just tuning in to find out what’s going on, that makes zero sense.
🤦🏻‍♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 10, 2021 12:52:09 GMT -6
For example he said “we have to protect our vaccinated workers from their unvaccinated co-workers.” To the average person just tuning in to find out what’s going on, that makes zero sense. Agreed Josh. 1. Healthy unvaccinated person - not going to infect or hurt anyone. 2. Healthy vaccinated person - not going to infect or hurt anyone. So...... 3. Sick unvaccinated person - almost certainly acutely aware that they could have Covid at this point in time with the news coverage. They are potentially going to infect either an unvaccinated person or a vaccinated person (to lesser extent) if they do not quarantine. 4. Sick vaccinated person - probably not as aware that they may be infected because a.) as they have been told repeatedly by the admin and CDC that "getting the vaccine will protect your from infection and death - and b.) if for some reason they do get infected, the infection will be negligible and they may not even know they have been infected." So...they are probably more likely to go about their normal lives, without fear or quarantine - potentially infecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated. So....with these "aSSumptions" in place - who are really the more dangerous persons out there? In terms of infecting others. Seriously. The narrative does not make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2021 13:04:17 GMT -6
“It’s not about your freedoms”…
WTF?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 10, 2021 13:12:43 GMT -6
“It’s not about your freedoms”… WTF? Seriously! I know I sound like a broken record but man, the MESSAGING sucks. This approach will not work. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2021 14:13:45 GMT -6
“It’s not about your freedoms”… WTF? Seriously!  I know I sound like a broken record but man, the MESSAGING sucks.  This approach will not work.  Sadly I think the messaging of that line was perfect…the gov doesn’t care about our freedoms. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Sept 10, 2021 14:33:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2021 14:39:55 GMT -6
Ive spent all of 45 seconds glancing over this and wanted to stop to say thank you. Looks like a great resource. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,090
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 10, 2021 15:58:00 GMT -6
“It’s not about your freedoms”… WTF? What freedom? Seriously I ask because your freedoms are defined in the US by the constitution and the rulings of the court. The rulings of the courts through history do not support the idea that one has these health related freedoms. You also have to be careful of where any subsequent rulings could lead to by the precedent it could set. Think about it if the Government can’t rule for mandatory care of those who might present a danger to others because of health issues all those who have been involuntary commitments could argue the Government doesn’t have that power. One might try to argue you have the right to refuse medical treatment but realize what the long term effect of that would mean for the individual. If one could convince the courts that the because of this you can’t force a Vaccine, the insurance companies and Medicare/ Medicade could then denie any payment for that person and probably sue for the cost of anyone who they could trace infection of. That’s the responsibility you take when you refuse treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2021 18:05:39 GMT -6
“It’s not about your freedoms”… WTF? What freedom? Seriously I ask because your freedoms are defined in the US by the constitution and the rulings of the court. The rulings of the courts through history do not support the idea that one has these health related freedoms. You also have to be careful of where any subsequent rulings could lead to by the precedent it could set. Think about it if the Government can’t rule for mandatory care of those who might present a danger to others because of health issues all those who have been involuntary commitments could argue the Government doesn’t have that power. One might try to argue you have the right to refuse medical treatment but realize what the long term effect of that would mean for the individual. If one could convince the courts that the because of this you can’t force a Vaccine, the insurance companies and Medicare/ Medicade could then denie any payment for that person and probably sue for the cost of anyone who they could trace infection of. That’s the responsibility you take when you refuse treatment. Freedom may be defined by the law but it isn’t derived from the law. I believe we have inalienable rights, intrinsic to us being human. The question I keep wondering is “if you don’t have the right to your own body, what rights do you really have?” Now of coarse this is complicated, nuanced discussion that crosses the boundaries of philosophy, religion, law, etc. And in practical terms, the only rights you have are the ones you’re allowed to have by those with a monopoly on violence (the government). But as for precedent, people already do deny treatment, all the time. They also die and suffer from mostly self caused harm (lung disease, heart disease etc). Insurance still pays. On then other side however, what’s the precedent saying when you force someone to do something to their own body, for someone else’s benefit? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 10, 2021 18:27:29 GMT -6
On then other side however, what’s the precedent saying when you force someone to do something to their own body, for someone else’s benefit? Just got off the phone with a buddy. He works with an international pro audio group that shall remain nameless. He's been essentially a one man consultant within the company for outside contractors for 25+ years. He is being told to get vaxed as of today. Even though his antibody test last week came back 20X's higher than the minimal "vaccine antibodies present" test needed to verify you've either had Covid (he did) or you've been vaccinated (he hasn't, and won't because of past tragedies in his family). So he's fully anti-bodied up - but as of now, outside the "law" it seems. The battle lines have been drawn by our president, and all hell is about to break loose. He will not be vaccinated, and the company will stand to loose millions in contracts without his consulting. He will not be an easy person to replace. Their HR dept is regulated by international laws and rules, and fully pro-vax. This mandate is going to be a royal $#!@storm. No one seems to be able to follow simple logic. Only fear. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 10, 2021 19:01:44 GMT -6
What freedom? Seriously I ask because your freedoms are defined in the US by the constitution and the rulings of the court. The rulings of the courts through history do not support the idea that one has these health related freedoms. You also have to be careful of where any subsequent rulings could lead to by the precedent it could set. Think about it if the Government can’t rule for mandatory care of those who might present a danger to others because of health issues all those who have been involuntary commitments could argue the Government doesn’t have that power. One might try to argue you have the right to refuse medical treatment but realize what the long term effect of that would mean for the individual. If one could convince the courts that the because of this you can’t force a Vaccine, the insurance companies and Medicare/ Medicade could then denie any payment for that person and probably sue for the cost of anyone who they could trace infection of. That’s the responsibility you take when you refuse treatment. what’s the precedent saying when you force someone to do something to their own body, for someone else’s benefit? There are decades of precedent for mandated immunization. I'm pretty sure you know this, so I'm wondering what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 10, 2021 19:07:57 GMT -6
On then other side however, what’s the precedent saying when you force someone to do something to their own body, for someone else’s benefit? No one seems to be able to follow simple logic. Only fear. Agreed, but maybe not the way you mean it. If you're the average American you've received a vaccine mandated by the government. Not sure why this is any different. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 10, 2021 19:22:52 GMT -6
What freedom? Seriously I ask because your freedoms are defined in the US by the constitution and the rulings of the court. The rulings of the courts through history do not support the idea that one has these health related freedoms. You also have to be careful of where any subsequent rulings could lead to by the precedent it could set. Think about it if the Government can’t rule for mandatory care of those who might present a danger to others because of health issues all those who have been involuntary commitments could argue the Government doesn’t have that power. One might try to argue you have the right to refuse medical treatment but realize what the long term effect of that would mean for the individual. If one could convince the courts that the because of this you can’t force a Vaccine, the insurance companies and Medicare/ Medicade could then denie any payment for that person and probably sue for the cost of anyone who they could trace infection of. That’s the responsibility you take when you refuse treatment. But as for precedent, people already do deny treatment, all the time. They also die and suffer from mostly self caused harm (lung disease, heart disease etc). Insurance still pays. Insurance companies do everything they possibly can to avoid paying. If they have any legal ground for denying coverage for unvaccinated people they will do it in an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 10, 2021 19:27:28 GMT -6
If you're the average American.... I'd LIKE to think I'm above average...  Not sure many would agree with that, but I'm sticking to my guns on that one. LOL What is "average" anyway in regards to vaccines? Statistics? |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 10, 2021 19:46:27 GMT -6
If you're the average American.... I'd LIKE to think I'm above average... Not sure many would agree with that, but I'm sticking to my guns on that one. LOL What is "average" anyway in regards to vaccines? Statistics? Haha!!! Above average in many ways...I'll vouch for your writing, mixing, and insane gear collection. Probably an above average family guy, too! In regard to vaccines? Most people who have attended public school, a university, served in the military, worked for employers who required them, etc., etc., etc. have been compelled to be vaccinated numerous times. This is not new. Be mad at the people who are continuing a long standing practice of public health policy, or be mad at the people who are using this moment as an opportunity to *divide and conquer. www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/human-resources/2015/02/can-employers-require-their-employees-to-be.html*dang it. Made another snarky comment, so I edited it. My frustration is not so much with people who are questioning the vaccine...it's more with the people who have a financial incentive to spread vaccine disinformation. They know better. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2021 20:03:35 GMT -6
 what’s the precedent saying when you force someone to do something to their own body, for someone else’s benefit? There are decades of precedent for mandated immunization. I'm pretty sure you know this, so I'm wondering what you mean. Im aware of that, I’m just stating that it’s a slippery slope and the scope of this mandate is like non we’ve ever seen. |
|
