The Sports And COVID Vaccine Thread
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
New study out Weds in the NEJM confirms this.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant.
CONCLUSIONS
Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant.
CONCLUSIONS
Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose.
From that article, assuming it is correct:
So we have at least two countries with different study results, along with private studies that also show good effectiveness against Delta. But re-read the bolded part. Both may show a waning efficacy over time, but both show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths (keeping people employed, out of the hospital, and above ground).
....which is exactly what we've been saying all along and which is the most important part of a vaccination program.
So, what's your point again? That we may need booster shots in the future? Which we already knew?
So we have at least two countries with different study results, along with private studies that also show good effectiveness against Delta. But re-read the bolded part. Both may show a waning efficacy over time, but both show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths (keeping people employed, out of the hospital, and above ground).
....which is exactly what we've been saying all along and which is the most important part of a vaccination program.
So, what's your point again? That we may need booster shots in the future? Which we already knew?
Last edited:
Not according to this survey:
AMA survey shows over 96% of doctors fully vaccinated against COVID-19 | American Medical Association (ama-assn.org)
So, 96% are already fully vaccinated and about half of the remaining plan to soon. That's 98% vaccinated. So, I guess there are "plenty" that don't, if by plenty you mean about 2% of the medical professionals (and they may have medical reasons not to do so and not an aversion to the vaccine itself, just like we have discussed).
Yeah, these doctors are SUPER concerned about side effects. To the point that 98% of doctors in the US have been or will shortly be fully vaccinated.
AMA survey shows over 96% of doctors fully vaccinated against COVID-19 | American Medical Association (ama-assn.org)
So, 96% are already fully vaccinated and about half of the remaining plan to soon. That's 98% vaccinated. So, I guess there are "plenty" that don't, if by plenty you mean about 2% of the medical professionals (and they may have medical reasons not to do so and not an aversion to the vaccine itself, just like we have discussed).
Yeah, these doctors are SUPER concerned about side effects. To the point that 98% of doctors in the US have been or will shortly be fully vaccinated.
Last edited:
You also have to take into account that many have taken the vaccines for travel purposes and not necessarily because they love the idea of these vaccines.
Anyways, my point was just because someone is deciding to not get vaccinated with one of these vaccines, it doesn't mean they're tin foiled hat conspiracy anti-vaxxers. There are well educated, well respected physicians that have chosen not to get one of THESE vaccines for various, scientific reasons. Some using the precautionary principle and wanting more data on safety, others because they've already had Covid. Others because they know about alternative treatments that work, etc.
Anyways, my point was just because someone is deciding to not get vaccinated with one of these vaccines, it doesn't mean they're tin foiled hat conspiracy anti-vaxxers. There are well educated, well respected physicians that have chosen not to get one of THESE vaccines for various, scientific reasons. Some using the precautionary principle and wanting more data on safety, others because they've already had Covid. Others because they know about alternative treatments that work, etc.
Unless one's primary care physician advises against receiving the vaccine because of existing health considerations, the available data makes it clear that there are simply no good reasons not to get it, and a great many excellent reasons to do so. The issue is that most "anti-vaxxers" or "vaccine hesitant" individuals are relying on misinformation they've encountered online or on television, or have plucked a singular data point from out of context to justify a position they had already staked out long before the possibility of mass vaccination for COVID-19 had arrived.
Rather than believing everything you see on the internet or on television, consult instead with your doctor, the overwhelming majority of whom (being, ya know, medical professionals) are going to recommend getting the vaccine. That said, if you're pregnant or have a preexisting condition that causes you to hesitate, then get a second expert opinion. But don't chase down every sensationalized, bias-affirming piece of "information" you encounter on f***ing Facebook.
Rather than believing everything you see on the internet or on television, consult instead with your doctor, the overwhelming majority of whom (being, ya know, medical professionals) are going to recommend getting the vaccine. That said, if you're pregnant or have a preexisting condition that causes you to hesitate, then get a second expert opinion. But don't chase down every sensationalized, bias-affirming piece of "information" you encounter on f***ing Facebook.
Medical professionals have also been getting people addicted to opiate pain killers for decades so excuse some of us for not just blindly trusting everything that they say. Also excuse us for not blindly trusting the CDC, WHO or Fauci who have lied to us and flipped flopped on policy more times than you can imagine.
When a long term study is able to be done, I'll get the vaccine. Until then, I see no reason to and I see no reason why anyone in sports should either unless they fully trust it. If you're at risk, get the shot and be happy you've protected yourself. The people who don't trust what's going on right now aren't necessarily just believing everything some random social media reports say, despite what your favorite media outlet tries to lead you to believe. Being forced to take medicine through coercion is pretty alarming for many of us and makes you question why would they need to coerce people if it was such a no brainer as you guys tend to believe.
When a long term study is able to be done, I'll get the vaccine. Until then, I see no reason to and I see no reason why anyone in sports should either unless they fully trust it. If you're at risk, get the shot and be happy you've protected yourself. The people who don't trust what's going on right now aren't necessarily just believing everything some random social media reports say, despite what your favorite media outlet tries to lead you to believe. Being forced to take medicine through coercion is pretty alarming for many of us and makes you question why would they need to coerce people if it was such a no brainer as you guys tend to believe.
Odds are those are also the type of medical professionals that are anti vaccine and think COVID is a hoax. The majority recommend getting vaccinated yet the anti vaxxers find the very few that dont and blast it all over social media so it looks like they have some sort of credibility, just like the majority of doctors are legit, but junkies are able to find 1 or 2 in their town that will write illegitimate prescriptions to feed their opiod addiction.
Not true. There are several reasons why the risk/benefit may not make sense for someone. And there are many experts, some among the most published doctors in the world that would agree with that sentiment.
That's cool, there's also people that are choosing not to get the vaccine for reasons that have nothing to do with misinformation or plucking some data point out of context. And experts that would support that decision.
Again, not everyone does this.
That's cool, there's also people that are choosing not to get the vaccine for reasons that have nothing to do with misinformation or plucking some data point out of context. And experts that would support that decision.
Again, not everyone does this.
Like what, precisely? The "risks" presented by the COVID-19 vaccines are so infinitesimally small as to render them irrelevant to anyone who doesn't have very specific preexisting medical condition(s) that could potentially be exacerbated by receiving the vaccine. But these individuals are few and far between. Almost 4 billion people have received at least one dose of the vaccine around the globe. Over 1 billion people are "fully vaccinated." Approximately 165 million people are "fully vaccinated" in the United States. Over 97% of hospitalizations in this country due to COVID-19 are among the unvaccinated. That number is even higher for deaths.
With so many getting safely vaccinated around the entire world, there is no data point, no data set, underreported or otherwise, that even remotely suggests that there are good reasons for the average individual to delay, avoid, or reject getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Even leaning on the deeply flawed VAERS data that you love to cite only gets you to 0.0018% of vaccination doses representing a reported and supposed cause of death. Again, the risks are infinitesimally small. Likewise, anyone for whom the vaccines are actually a genuine risk is among an infinitesimally small subset of the total population. They are the exceptions. They have good reasons to be cautious about the vaccine, but they are not the individuals standing in the way of the development of herd immunity. There are not enough of them to put a dent in that goal.
Half the country is yet to be vaccinated, and among those over the age of 12, very few of them have worthwhile reasons not to be vaccinated. Lazy? Sure. Misinformed? Of course. Politically partisan? Absolutely. Selfish? Yep, it's the American way.
However, these and many others are not good reasons to avoid vaccination, not when the Delta variant of COVID-19 still remains a tremendous hazard to public health. There are simply not that many exceptions amongst the unvaccinated population in this country to justify the amount of hesitance and outright stubbornness we're seeing, particularly in the face of unprecedented data concerning the efficacy of these vaccines and their safety. Frankly, they're a modern miracle of global cooperation and a marvel of scientific ingenuity.
There is far, FAR greater danger in getting behind the wheel of a car on any given day than there is from getting the COVID-19 vaccine. No sensible person would argue that fear of strangulation by seatbelt is a good reason not to wear one. And you certainly wouldn't cite an "expert" who claims otherwise in an attempt to argue against the safety of seatbelts, not when there is a mountain of evidence that supports the notion that wearing a seatbelt increases one's survival rate in the event of an automotive accident. This is Critical Thinking 101. You don't reach for atypical or unrepresentative evidence when trying to support a thesis. These "most-published doctors in the world" of whom you speak (who are they, by the way?) represent the exact kind of out-of-context cherry-picking of information that I referred to in my previous post.
The consensus on the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines amongst the medical community (epidemiologists, doctors, nurses, etc.) is overwhelmingly in the affirmative. It's not even close.
Again, what experts, exactly, are supporting these vague "reasons" of which you speak? And what are these reasons, other than laziness, selfishness, ignorance, political partisanship, half-baked philosophy, or the pre-existing medical conditions that I've already stipulated are a reasonable justification for why a patient might be cautioned away from getting the vaccine? I could understand a pregnant woman's reticence, but most doctors would still recommend it for the majority of these patients. Pregnant women are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19, and the vaccines represent a much, much smaller risk by comparison.
With so many getting safely vaccinated around the entire world, there is no data point, no data set, underreported or otherwise, that even remotely suggests that there are good reasons for the average individual to delay, avoid, or reject getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Even leaning on the deeply flawed VAERS data that you love to cite only gets you to 0.0018% of vaccination doses representing a reported and supposed cause of death. Again, the risks are infinitesimally small. Likewise, anyone for whom the vaccines are actually a genuine risk is among an infinitesimally small subset of the total population. They are the exceptions. They have good reasons to be cautious about the vaccine, but they are not the individuals standing in the way of the development of herd immunity. There are not enough of them to put a dent in that goal.
Half the country is yet to be vaccinated, and among those over the age of 12, very few of them have worthwhile reasons not to be vaccinated. Lazy? Sure. Misinformed? Of course. Politically partisan? Absolutely. Selfish? Yep, it's the American way.
However, these and many others are not good reasons to avoid vaccination, not when the Delta variant of COVID-19 still remains a tremendous hazard to public health. There are simply not that many exceptions amongst the unvaccinated population in this country to justify the amount of hesitance and outright stubbornness we're seeing, particularly in the face of unprecedented data concerning the efficacy of these vaccines and their safety. Frankly, they're a modern miracle of global cooperation and a marvel of scientific ingenuity.There is far, FAR greater danger in getting behind the wheel of a car on any given day than there is from getting the COVID-19 vaccine. No sensible person would argue that fear of strangulation by seatbelt is a good reason not to wear one. And you certainly wouldn't cite an "expert" who claims otherwise in an attempt to argue against the safety of seatbelts, not when there is a mountain of evidence that supports the notion that wearing a seatbelt increases one's survival rate in the event of an automotive accident. This is Critical Thinking 101. You don't reach for atypical or unrepresentative evidence when trying to support a thesis. These "most-published doctors in the world" of whom you speak (who are they, by the way?) represent the exact kind of out-of-context cherry-picking of information that I referred to in my previous post.
The consensus on the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines amongst the medical community (epidemiologists, doctors, nurses, etc.) is overwhelmingly in the affirmative. It's not even close.
Again, what experts, exactly, are supporting these vague "reasons" of which you speak? And what are these reasons, other than laziness, selfishness, ignorance, political partisanship, half-baked philosophy, or the pre-existing medical conditions that I've already stipulated are a reasonable justification for why a patient might be cautioned away from getting the vaccine? I could understand a pregnant woman's reticence, but most doctors would still recommend it for the majority of these patients. Pregnant women are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19, and the vaccines represent a much, much smaller risk by comparison.
Last edited:
1. The bolded part actually proves my point when you look at what I was quoting. Doctors aren’t perfect, no one is. The majority help more than they harm, but there are a few, that many likely would consider imperfect that actually causes more harm than good by doing stuff like intentionally adding to the opioid crisis or covid by calling it a hoax or spewing anti-vaxxer nonsense. (Don’t get this confused with doctors actually warning patients about the risks due to medical conditions)
2. That study “suggests” that medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death. The statistic are based on a 5 year old study that took data from 4 older smaller studies from 2000-2008 and extrapolated the numbers based on admission rates from 2013. I’m not saying the study is crap but it’s not as exact as actually counting the numbers of death due to medical errors. This is totally simplifying it but the Spurs won 3 titles from 2000-2008. Based on the amount of titles that could be won in 20 years, I can extrapolate that they should have 7-8 titles by 2020. Didn’t happen. Why? Because there are other factors. I don’t know what the parameters were in the other studies. Did they use extrapolated data? Did they happen to use hospitals with higher rates vs the avg. Did they take into account years of larger population growth etc? From what I gather (I could be totally wrong) they just took older smaller study data and got the new numbers based on % x higher admission rates or in my case % x amount of championships that could be won.
2. That study “suggests” that medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death. The statistic are based on a 5 year old study that took data from 4 older smaller studies from 2000-2008 and extrapolated the numbers based on admission rates from 2013. I’m not saying the study is crap but it’s not as exact as actually counting the numbers of death due to medical errors. This is totally simplifying it but the Spurs won 3 titles from 2000-2008. Based on the amount of titles that could be won in 20 years, I can extrapolate that they should have 7-8 titles by 2020. Didn’t happen. Why? Because there are other factors. I don’t know what the parameters were in the other studies. Did they use extrapolated data? Did they happen to use hospitals with higher rates vs the avg. Did they take into account years of larger population growth etc? From what I gather (I could be totally wrong) they just took older smaller study data and got the new numbers based on % x higher admission rates or in my case % x amount of championships that could be won.
Wrong. They were widely available, legit doctors prescribing and a reason pharmaceutical companies are looking to settle with a settlement in the tens of BILLIONS. Were these bad doctors? I am sure there was a bad seed or two among them but I am also pretty sure most were doing what they thought was right. What the current literature was telling them.
Wasn't heroine first developed and touted as the miracle drug for morphine addiction?
Wasn't heroine first developed and touted as the miracle drug for morphine addiction?
You have brought up herd immunity several times but is it even attainable? That was the goal but they don't know. Did not these medical savients think things would get better last summer only for them to get worse? That is okay, they didn't know and we are still finding out.
That statement is very partisan in itself. Putting down those who disagree with you. A lite-demonization of them. Painting them with a broad brush. The minority communities are among those resistant to taking the vaccine. One community is particular has good reason given the pharmaceutical companies use of them in the past. I don’t believe those minority communities are the partisans you are depicting them as.
Half the country is yet to be vaccinated, and among those over the age of 12, very few of them have worthwhile reasons not to be vaccinated. Lazy? Sure. Misinformed? Of course. Politically partisan? Absolutely. Selfish? Yep, it's the American way. .......
.......
Herd immunity is definitely attainable, but people have to get the vaccines. Same with the flu shot. It works. But when less than 50% get the shot every year, it prevents herd immunity from being achieved. I posted earlier in this thread about it (repeated below). And the protection rate from the current vaccines is MUCH higher than 80%.
Vaccines Need Not Completely Stop COVID Transmission to Curb the Pandemic - Scientific American
Vaccines Need Not Completely Stop COVID Transmission to Curb the Pandemic - Scientific American
Please remember, I am pro-immunization. Just not forced. Widespread vaccination would absolutely help minimize the impact of covid but that article is dated. It was published prior to the vaccine being widely or even available other than in the limited trials being run. It was no more than a hypothetical. Since then we have had newer strains and have now shown a diminishing effectiveness over time in Isreal.
That diminishing return doesn't mean that the vaccination isn't warranted but I do think it puts legitimate doubts on the herd immunity that was hoped for. Isreal, I believe was over 60% vaccination but despite their strong advocacy couldn't hit 70%. They are seriously considering a third booster shot.
That diminishing return doesn't mean that the vaccination isn't warranted but I do think it puts legitimate doubts on the herd immunity that was hoped for. Isreal, I believe was over 60% vaccination but despite their strong advocacy couldn't hit 70%. They are seriously considering a third booster shot.
I think all statistics when it comes to this need to be taken with a grain of salt. When you see the covid death count, are all these people dying because of covid or are people dying with covid? Is the VAERS count a bunch of malarkey or is there some truth to it and it's being suppressed by those who have a vested interest in the vaccine? Almost every time we're told something "factual" about this whole ordeal, it turns out to be wrong within a few months.
It's not fair to only question things you don't believe in and blindly follow the things you do. I say question the validity of everything. Stats aren't stats if they are manipulated into making you believe something that isn't true. Science isn't science if it's funded by a company that has an interest in the science looking a certain way once the tests have been done. What we think are the best minds in the world don't always have our best interests at heart.
The push to get us all vaccinated started with "c'mon man", then morphed into "Everyone in the state of Alabama gets a sixer of Natty Light" to now them pushing to make people's lives incredibly difficult if they don't just go get the shot. I'd like them to prove that we won't be a part of a class action lawsuit in 10 years over the long term side effects of this thing. But the coercion going on around it makes people trust it even less.
It's not fair to only question things you don't believe in and blindly follow the things you do. I say question the validity of everything. Stats aren't stats if they are manipulated into making you believe something that isn't true. Science isn't science if it's funded by a company that has an interest in the science looking a certain way once the tests have been done. What we think are the best minds in the world don't always have our best interests at heart.
The push to get us all vaccinated started with "c'mon man", then morphed into "Everyone in the state of Alabama gets a sixer of Natty Light" to now them pushing to make people's lives incredibly difficult if they don't just go get the shot. I'd like them to prove that we won't be a part of a class action lawsuit in 10 years over the long term side effects of this thing. But the coercion going on around it makes people trust it even less.
If people don't believe the coercion isn't happening, I don't know what to say. It is still "voluntary" at my place of employment but I was just listening to the people of power, discussing the different standards that would be applied to the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. While I can understand the reasoning, it feels dirty, smells dirty and is dirty. give an inch and have a mile taken.
give an inch and have a mile taken.Again, you are making a blanket statement based on the small %. Getting a valid prescription for oxy was available from legit doctors prescribing legit pain yes. But this opioid crisis are from the small amount of crappy doctors running drug mills pumping out hundreds to thousands of prescriptions a day of high dose oxy or fentanyl or whatever to people they know well and true do not need them and are just addicted. They drive across state boarders in hoards to these specific “pain clinics” to do this. There are documentaries and news reports on this happening. To say it’s the majority of legitimate doctors that cause this is irresponsible when it’s the minors bad ones that are the main cause. Can a good doctor unknowingly get a patient addicted? Yes it’s possible. But chances are that would be a small percentage of the overall problem vs bad doctors pumping hundreds of thousands of pills into the streets. This situation is just another example of what we all have been talking about. Taking a small percentage and blowing it up to make it the excuse. Doctors against the shot, deaths from the vaccines, breakthrough cases from the vaccinated etc. it’s all a very small %. But all it takes is one unfactual meme on Facebook or Twitter to get shared and all these people on the fence will keep holding off. My main problem isn’t those that can’t get the shot. Or even the few that legitimately don’t get the shot because they researched it or are waiting to see longer effects from it (but still wear masks and social distance). I honestly think they are a minority of the problem. My problem is with the ones who won’t get the shot and won’t wear masks going to super spreader events like nothing is wrong and blasts fake info on social media to get others to do the same as them. They are the ones who are hurting the cause and the reason we can get back to normalcy.
Wrong. When these came in the market, they weren't expected to have the addictive properties that they have now shown to have. That data was manipulated hidden whatever you want to call it. That is why there will be a settlement in the tens of Billions. There were bad doctors but the BAD actors were the pharmaceutical companies pushing their pill of choice. Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise to the general public? Because it is effective. Same type pushing the vaccines.
We have an opiate crisis in rural America because as the supply line was starved off, cheap heroine took the pills place. I live in rural America and I see it first hand. And I only see the tip of the iceberg.
We have an opiate crisis in rural America because as the supply line was starved off, cheap heroine took the pills place. I live in rural America and I see it first hand. And I only see the tip of the iceberg.
Lol every time you say “wrong” you keep moving the goal post or veer off the original topic. Original quote was doctors get people addicted to pain meds. I said a minority is purposely getting them addicted and the majority don’t. You said I was wrong and legit doctors AND big pharma are the reason for the opioid crisis. Again I never said the drug manufacturer wasn’t the problem, just the bad doctor were the main reason cuz they over prescribe illegitimately. Apparently I was wrong again, and now you’re saying the drug and the pharmaceutical companies are the reason. Which wasn’t part of the original question and something I never denied. We’re talking about majority of good doctors vs some bad. But if you want to live your life grouping all doctors together, all cops, all liberals/conservatives etc because a few bad apples then you do you but you might miss out on meeting good people who have different views.
I think you guys are both correct but as we all do when debating, we tend to exaggerate.
IMO there are a lot more bad doctors than you're implying. It seems as if you're mainly talking about these pill mills where doctors were basically being legal drug dealers but there's a ton of people that get addicted thanks to their own general practitioner. I know 3 people who are addicted to opiate pills and two go to Sutter and the other goes to Kaiser. Their doctors don't have a vested interest but they're still hurting these guys by either being lazy and taking the easy way out, not caring or just unaware.
When it comes to information about the vaccine, I trust that my doctor knows more about it than I do in a general sense but I don't trust that he understands the vaccine at the molecular level and can tell me with certainty that it's safe in the long run or not. How many class action lawsuits have come about due to prescription meds having nasty effects on people? I'm sure thousands of really good doctors prescribed these because all the information they had available told them it was safe. It's one of the reasons why I don't take medicine until I feel like I really have to.
IMO there are a lot more bad doctors than you're implying. It seems as if you're mainly talking about these pill mills where doctors were basically being legal drug dealers but there's a ton of people that get addicted thanks to their own general practitioner. I know 3 people who are addicted to opiate pills and two go to Sutter and the other goes to Kaiser. Their doctors don't have a vested interest but they're still hurting these guys by either being lazy and taking the easy way out, not caring or just unaware.
When it comes to information about the vaccine, I trust that my doctor knows more about it than I do in a general sense but I don't trust that he understands the vaccine at the molecular level and can tell me with certainty that it's safe in the long run or not. How many class action lawsuits have come about due to prescription meds having nasty effects on people? I'm sure thousands of really good doctors prescribed these because all the information they had available told them it was safe. It's one of the reasons why I don't take medicine until I feel like I really have to.
The statistics regarding COVID-19-related deaths do need to be taken with a grain of salt, but not at all in the way you're describing. You're not wrong to assume that looking exclusively at the raw mortality data for a disease like COVID-19 might not tell the whole story, but it is far more likely that the death toll of COVID-19 has been majorly underreported rather than even minorly overreported. This is primarily due to the differences in reporting methodologies from country to country, particularly in those with a shortage of COVID-19 testing supplies.
So instead of looking at the raw numbers as they've been reported, it's more useful to look at "excess mortality". It's kinda like analytics for epidemiology that accounts for the deaths a country would expect to experience under "normal" conditions; it helps to discard some of the noisy data and creates a better understanding of the actual mortality impacts of COVID-19, given the incredible multitude of factors that shape the difficulty of ascribing responsibility for death to a disease like COVID. Almost all studies of "excess mortality" during the pandemic have arrived at the conclusion that many, many more have died as a result of this disease than is being currently reported.
It's good to be inherently skeptical. I consider myself a skeptic. But to "question the validity of everything" is an undergraduate's excuse for not critically engaging with the substance of a particular issue. The skeptic's eye must always be informed by the best data available. Otherwise the skeptic is forever paralyzed against making rational, reasonable decisions within the context of the reality in front of them. That paralysis defeats the practical purpose of skepticism, which is to aid an individual in making rational, reasonable decisions that emanate from consideration of data and reliance on the expertise of those who are most qualified, rather than making irrational, unreasonable decisions that emanate from the way we may feel about a subject.
As far as I can tell from the post I've quoted, you don't seem personally hesitant about the vaccines as a result of the best available data; the skepticism you're expressing here seems rooted instead in annoyance over being told what you "should" do by various authorities after feeling jerked around by those same authorities. But spite is not the haven for a skeptic; it's the haven for a partisan. Yes, the data has moved constantly throughout the pandemic, and strategies have been adjusted accordingly by the relevant authorities. The messaging has often been... well, a mess. Mistakes were made along the way. This can be frustrating, but it doesn't change the fact that we should be making decisions based on the best available data, because that protects the greatest number of people and saves the greatest number of lives.
When expert opinion is offered on the subject of who should take shelter from a tornado, advising changes by the minute because tornadoes often shift course quickly and dramatically. When expert opinion is offered on the subject of taking shelter from an incoming hurricane, advising changes on a daily basis as models and predictions about the hurricane's path are adjusted to reflect new data. A global pandemic is an even more enormously complicated and dangerous event than your garden variety natural disaster, and responses to it must be flexible and adaptable as more is learned about the virus. And then there is the further complication of the virus itself changing dramatically as it mutates within the bevy of available hosts it can seek out. Hence the push for mass vaccination in an attempt to achieve something close to herd immunity before further mutations in the virus occur, which could potentially render the current vaccinations moot.
This is especially relevant now that the Delta variant of COVID-19 is the most dominant strain in the United States. We should not be responding to a pandemic with an r0 somewhere between 5 and 8 (Delta) as we do to a pandemic with an r0 around 2 or 3 (Alpha). The Delta variant has represented an extraordinary rise in the transmissibility and infectivity of the disease. It spreads much more easily, clusters much more easily, and presents in the human body with a greater "viral load" than the earliest variants of COVID-19. In other words, the Delta variant is not necessarily more "deadly" than earlier variants of COVID-19, but it can result in deadlier outcomes because of how much more efficiently it moves and presents in the body.
If you're looking for proof that you "won't be a part of a class action lawsuit in 10 years over the long term side effects of this thing", you're not going to find it. Under no circumstances could that ever be proven for any preventative measure. It's not magic. It's not a suit of armor. There are always edge cases in matters of medicine. There are always very rare side effects, even amongst the most heavily-tested and vetted of vaccinations. And for a disease with a considerably lower r0, we might have the luxury of waiting to determine if we as individuals might end up one among the 0.000x% who experience any long-term side effects of note. But when it comes to public health with respect to developing herd immunity to COVID-19, the risks of waiting far outweigh the risks of getting the vaccine. Hell, catching even a mild case of COVID-19 can have long-term ramifications on an individual's health, no matter their age. Even young athletes in the best shape of their lives have experienced lingering side-effects from these kinds of mild cases. 23-year-old Jayson Tatum, who had no prior respiratory conditions, was relying on an inhaler long after recovering from his experience with COVID.
Given the extraordinary transmissibility of the Delta variant, there is simply a much greater risk of experiencing long-term effects from the disease (again, no matter your age) than experiencing any comparably severe side effect to the COVID-19 vaccine. Skeptics of these vaccines behave as if there wasn't a clear and transparent process that any individual can learn about with a simple glance at the FDA's or CDC's or WHO's respective websites, or any of a dozen other reputable sources with readily available information about the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, from research to trial to implementation to mass distribution. These vaccines weren't created by some whacky uncle in his hobby shop. They were a global cooperation between some of the most respected medical institutions on the entire planet and have since been approved by scores of governmental agencies seeking to protect their populations. In the US, "emergency approval" does not mean that the vaccines weren't vetted properly. It simply means that they were vetted according to a different set of guidelines in order to accommodate the, ya know, emergency that the pandemic represented upon its arrival.
So instead of looking at the raw numbers as they've been reported, it's more useful to look at "excess mortality". It's kinda like analytics for epidemiology that accounts for the deaths a country would expect to experience under "normal" conditions; it helps to discard some of the noisy data and creates a better understanding of the actual mortality impacts of COVID-19, given the incredible multitude of factors that shape the difficulty of ascribing responsibility for death to a disease like COVID. Almost all studies of "excess mortality" during the pandemic have arrived at the conclusion that many, many more have died as a result of this disease than is being currently reported.
It's good to be inherently skeptical. I consider myself a skeptic. But to "question the validity of everything" is an undergraduate's excuse for not critically engaging with the substance of a particular issue. The skeptic's eye must always be informed by the best data available. Otherwise the skeptic is forever paralyzed against making rational, reasonable decisions within the context of the reality in front of them. That paralysis defeats the practical purpose of skepticism, which is to aid an individual in making rational, reasonable decisions that emanate from consideration of data and reliance on the expertise of those who are most qualified, rather than making irrational, unreasonable decisions that emanate from the way we may feel about a subject.
As far as I can tell from the post I've quoted, you don't seem personally hesitant about the vaccines as a result of the best available data; the skepticism you're expressing here seems rooted instead in annoyance over being told what you "should" do by various authorities after feeling jerked around by those same authorities. But spite is not the haven for a skeptic; it's the haven for a partisan. Yes, the data has moved constantly throughout the pandemic, and strategies have been adjusted accordingly by the relevant authorities. The messaging has often been... well, a mess. Mistakes were made along the way. This can be frustrating, but it doesn't change the fact that we should be making decisions based on the best available data, because that protects the greatest number of people and saves the greatest number of lives.
When expert opinion is offered on the subject of who should take shelter from a tornado, advising changes by the minute because tornadoes often shift course quickly and dramatically. When expert opinion is offered on the subject of taking shelter from an incoming hurricane, advising changes on a daily basis as models and predictions about the hurricane's path are adjusted to reflect new data. A global pandemic is an even more enormously complicated and dangerous event than your garden variety natural disaster, and responses to it must be flexible and adaptable as more is learned about the virus. And then there is the further complication of the virus itself changing dramatically as it mutates within the bevy of available hosts it can seek out. Hence the push for mass vaccination in an attempt to achieve something close to herd immunity before further mutations in the virus occur, which could potentially render the current vaccinations moot.
This is especially relevant now that the Delta variant of COVID-19 is the most dominant strain in the United States. We should not be responding to a pandemic with an r0 somewhere between 5 and 8 (Delta) as we do to a pandemic with an r0 around 2 or 3 (Alpha). The Delta variant has represented an extraordinary rise in the transmissibility and infectivity of the disease. It spreads much more easily, clusters much more easily, and presents in the human body with a greater "viral load" than the earliest variants of COVID-19. In other words, the Delta variant is not necessarily more "deadly" than earlier variants of COVID-19, but it can result in deadlier outcomes because of how much more efficiently it moves and presents in the body.
If you're looking for proof that you "won't be a part of a class action lawsuit in 10 years over the long term side effects of this thing", you're not going to find it. Under no circumstances could that ever be proven for any preventative measure. It's not magic. It's not a suit of armor. There are always edge cases in matters of medicine. There are always very rare side effects, even amongst the most heavily-tested and vetted of vaccinations. And for a disease with a considerably lower r0, we might have the luxury of waiting to determine if we as individuals might end up one among the 0.000x% who experience any long-term side effects of note. But when it comes to public health with respect to developing herd immunity to COVID-19, the risks of waiting far outweigh the risks of getting the vaccine. Hell, catching even a mild case of COVID-19 can have long-term ramifications on an individual's health, no matter their age. Even young athletes in the best shape of their lives have experienced lingering side-effects from these kinds of mild cases. 23-year-old Jayson Tatum, who had no prior respiratory conditions, was relying on an inhaler long after recovering from his experience with COVID.
Given the extraordinary transmissibility of the Delta variant, there is simply a much greater risk of experiencing long-term effects from the disease (again, no matter your age) than experiencing any comparably severe side effect to the COVID-19 vaccine. Skeptics of these vaccines behave as if there wasn't a clear and transparent process that any individual can learn about with a simple glance at the FDA's or CDC's or WHO's respective websites, or any of a dozen other reputable sources with readily available information about the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, from research to trial to implementation to mass distribution. These vaccines weren't created by some whacky uncle in his hobby shop. They were a global cooperation between some of the most respected medical institutions on the entire planet and have since been approved by scores of governmental agencies seeking to protect their populations. In the US, "emergency approval" does not mean that the vaccines weren't vetted properly. It simply means that they were vetted according to a different set of guidelines in order to accommodate the, ya know, emergency that the pandemic represented upon its arrival.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. If a doctor prescibes medications based on the information available, that doesn't make them a bad doctor. I have stained teeth because of medications mom was given while pregnant. Those doctors were not bad but the medication given was. I agree there are bad doctors with bad intentions but they are the minority.
All kinds of vaccines are mandated in the US - for school, for international travel, etc. I'm OK with it if we can't get enough folks to go voluntarily. We've already lost over 610,000 lives in the US (or 1 out of approximately every 540 people). This is a public health emergency, not a botox injection to smooth your skin. The infection rates are on the rise again and hospitals are seeing surges of patients. Until people start taking this seriously more folks are going to die, including those that can't get vaccinated (under 12, valid health issues, etc.) through no fault of their own.
While the specific numbers may be dated, the overall idea is valid. It's common science and common sense. But it requires much more than 50% vaccination rates.
The declining efficacy over time just means booster shots will likely be required (which is expected and not a big deal). The problem is, we have/had the opportunity to clamp down on Delta NOW in the US (with most people having been vaccinated in the last 3-4 months and free vaccines available to everyone over 12). It's those NOT getting vaccinated that are causing the continued spread and increase in cases! The longer everyone waits to get vaccinated, the longer it will take to get to a herd immunity situation. At this rate, it will likely be after the booster shots are starting to to out. With thousands more needlessly dead and untold millions suffering hospitalization, long COVID, and death.
I'm firmly convinced that if polio was was around now instead of in the early 1950's, we would not be able to eliminate it. It wouldn't happen.
While the specific numbers may be dated, the overall idea is valid. It's common science and common sense. But it requires much more than 50% vaccination rates.
The declining efficacy over time just means booster shots will likely be required (which is expected and not a big deal). The problem is, we have/had the opportunity to clamp down on Delta NOW in the US (with most people having been vaccinated in the last 3-4 months and free vaccines available to everyone over 12). It's those NOT getting vaccinated that are causing the continued spread and increase in cases! The longer everyone waits to get vaccinated, the longer it will take to get to a herd immunity situation. At this rate, it will likely be after the booster shots are starting to to out. With thousands more needlessly dead and untold millions suffering hospitalization, long COVID, and death.
I'm firmly convinced that if polio was was around now instead of in the early 1950's, we would not be able to eliminate it. It wouldn't happen.
Last edited:
- Status