Seriously thoughtful The Covid Vaccination Poll

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

I don't really have the energy to respond to most of this, and much of it would be for the PR forum anyway, but the CDC is in fact not telling people not to travel. This is copied directly from the CDC:

What does the CDC say about travel AFTER you're fully vaccinated?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by twowheels

People who refuse to wear masks are s and are responsible for the deaths of thousands.

I agree with the first half of your sentence, but not necessarily the second half.

I'll bet you're surprised that I always wear a mask in public, and have been vaccinated. I don't shout at others or cause scenes on airplanes. I socially distance. I stay in my home for the most part. I have never disobeyed a "mask required to enter" sign on any establishment.

And you were thinking I was the boogeyman, right?

But none of the above convinces me, deep down inside, that masks do a while lot in the general population. Just look at how people are wearing them. Probably a third of the people have their stupid nose sticking out. Probably 90% have huge gaps between the mask and their face where it crosses their nose (if they even bothered to cover their nose in the first place). You can see their lips and teeth through the gigantic gaps between their mask and cheeks. They take them on and off, shove them in pockets, on car seats, drop them on the ground then pick them up, touch them with their hands after scratching their butts... Tell me again how that mask is going to do one dang thing?! Might as well pick up a rag that's been soaking in a cesspool and strap it to your face.

Unfortunately, that is the reality of masks. Things are much different in the medical and trained person communities where people actually know how to use a mask correctly and have been fit tested with them. But a gaping mask with your nose sticking out is simply not going to do anything for anybody, even if you wear three of them at a time.

And then promoting that vaccinated people should still wear masks (even though I personally still wear one) is just laughable. My comments were that I am not going to do this forever. And you can see the same thing in the population at large. People are starting to realize that stupid advice is just stupid advice. It should be obvious to even a cretin that a microscopic virus is going to have zero problems escaping from a one square inch gap in a poor mask-to-face fit. And that mask is supposed to protect you? Tell me how that works.

Yet, I still wear a mask. I will for a while longer. But after everybody has had the vaccine made available to them (and had the time for it to take effect), the masks should go. This is my opinion. If someone wants to address what I said above, I'd be happy to read it and discuss. But please address what I have actually said, not an intentionally twisted version of it.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

I never said that. I said the people who attended were there by their own choice. And I acknowledged that the majority of the high risk population has been vaccinated (so they are at low risk of being infected by the event attendees). Is it "reasonable" for you to put words in my mouth that I never said?

Sadly, the probability is that the vast majority of the people present were not immunized and going by the images of the crowds, very few were wearing masks. As for the high risk population? Given that B.1.1.7 is fast becoming the dominant COVID-19 infection in the USA and that it is more infectious especially for the younger demographic, the COVID-19 is a disease of old folks is no longer true, the 20-49 year old group is now driving the infections. The only consolation is that they are less likely to die than the older demographics.

Originally Posted by haertig

??? I don't understand that. Must be some kind of inside joke that I am not privy too. No matter. I'll just accept it as the mocking insult/put-down it was probably intended as, and move on. I'm sure a sharp-eyed moderator will delete it.

The phrase pull the other one, it's got bells generally means that someone is joking or, less likely, intentionally deceiving.

Originally Posted by haertig

Honestly, from reading your other posts, you appear to be a sharp guy. So it baffles me that you failed to understand what I said. Both above (talking about spreading things after an event) and here, talking about the flu. I said that NOW covid is similar to the flu. Not over all its history. I was talking about right now, current times, after the higher risk population has mostly been vaccinated.



You could not have missed that, here are my exact words:

"At this point in time, where we are with the vaccinations, I view covid as being no worse than the seasonal flu."

"At this time" ... "where we are with the vaccinations" ... you simply cannot have missed that. The only other way to interpret what you just said is to attribute it to willful misconstruing my words. Is that part of you being "reasonable"?

Sadly, the numbers for April 7th, 2021 says the USA had 2564 deaths from COVID-19, an uptick from the 7 day average of 992. Still even using the 992 7 day average and calling 30,000 the average number of flu deaths over that last 20 years, that says at the current rate, a single month will have as many deaths as a year of flu deaths.

To me, a disease this is still killing that many people per day is not on the same level as the flu. I will agree that perhaps in another 6 months or so when everyone who has had the opportunity to get vaccinated and takes advantage of that opportunity, COVID-19 will drop to the same level as flu. Sadly, that is not the current status.

Originally Posted by haertig

Interesting numbers. And factual as far as I know (I didn't research them for correctness). What is also interesting is that deaths from other causes - heart attacks, cancer, diabetes, etc, - all FELL during this same time period. A time period where people were staying in their homes, delaying medical treatment. Covid must have some healing properties too, huh?

For me, the main difference between Canada and the USA was that the various levels of the Canadian government did not try to downplay the seriousness of COVID-19 and both the government and people were more willing to put up with lockdowns and closures without rising up to their hind legs screaming that their rights were being abridged. Yes, there are COVIDiots in Canada but for the most part, they are a small minority that most people laugh at.

Originally Posted by haertig

Yes. I agree. You are wasting your time. You would waste less of it if you addressed what I actually said, not what you falsely twisted it into me saying.

My opinion (with that and a toonie, you can grab a Starbucks coffee (takeout only )) is that you were being very premature in proclaiming that the pandemic is a matter of historical interest only and totally wrong in trying to claim that governments had nothing to do with controlling the spread of the disease.

Of course we then have the EU which seems to be determined to place bureaucracy above saving lives. Stupid things like Pfizer having to inform the Belgian government for every package of vaccine to be exported and then having to wait until the Belgian government informs the European Commission and wait even longer until the European Commission says it's okay to do the export.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DNSB

In the same period, Canada with a population of 37.8 million has 23,204 COVID-19 deaths from 1.03 million infections. If the USA at 328.2 million population had the same infection and death rates per million population, the number of deaths would have been 202,595 from 8.99 million infections compared to the actual 30.66 million infections and 555,231 deaths.

Could that be because Canada is overall more rural and less densely populated than the US? Or maybe because there are more international visitors coming into the US than into Canada? When you're talking about cause and effect, you can't simply state the effect and then make up the cause as if it were fact. You stated a plausible cause, "Canadians are more willing to put up with lockdowns and closures". And I stated two other equally plausible causes. Which is it? Or is it something else that we haven't touched on? One thing I have seen mentioned a lot is that covid has disproportionately affected blacks and other people of color. I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect that it may be true - Canada probably has proportionally fewer people of color than the US does. Yet another plausible explanation. I do not know that Canadians, or their government, are any better than the US at controlling covid. They may be, or they may not be. There's currently no real evidence one way of the other, only theories. Numbers tell us that the infection and death rate is lower in Canada. But they don't tell us why. You subscribe to the theory that Canada is doing better because Canadians are more willing to be subjected to lockdowns and closures. That is fine for you to believe that. But it does not make it a fact. Not yet, not without more research and proof anyway.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Of course we then have the EU which seems to be determined to place bureaucracy above saving lives.

Even more mystifying to me is that they shut down distribution of the AstraZeneca vaccine because there were reports of blood clots following injection. Then they found out that the incidence of blood clots following the vaccine was actually quite a bit lower than the incidence of blood clots in the unvaccinated population. So they started the distribution back up again. Now, I just read that they shut it down again ... for blood clots.

Apparently, AstraZeneca may be a preventative treatment for blood clots, not a cause of them.

I would have expected that when someone yelled, "Oh my God, we have a blood clot!" that the first thing someone of a scientific mind would have asked is, "Well, what is the incidence of blood clots in the general population?" Evidently that did not happen in this case, and they shut things down, panicked the population, and probably created a significant resistance to get vaccinated.

My actual concern here is that it is the media that is saying this stuff. And they have about zero credibility at this point. So I don't know what's true or what's really going on over there in Europe. But if you believe what the media is saying (quite a big stretch there!), then it is a bit puzzling what is happening.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

What does the CDC say about travel AFTER you're fully vaccinated?

Which one? I think there must be lots — here are a few web sites to check, in no particular order:


http://www.bccdc.ca/pages/default.aspx

https://www.cdc.gov/

https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En

https://ncdc.gov.ng/

I prefer an international perspective

[Almamida]

Just got my first shot of Pfizer. My partner is scheduled to get his second shot with the 3/4 weeks interval and I’m going to get mine end of July.
I’m happy.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Almamida

Just got my first shot of Pfizer. My partner is scheduled to get his second shot with the 3/4 weeks interval and I’m going to get mine end of July.
I’m happy.

Everyone I know (including myself) says it's quite a relief to get the shot. It seems like with your end of July second shot you're having to wait a little longer time than we are here where I live.

But that wouldn't bother me, really. Even two weeks after the first shot only, you are "protected enough" to be past dying and severe illness if you do catch covid. You may end up with a headache, chills, fever, aches, etc. But who hasn't had to deal with that many times in their life already? The important part, and the part that lifts the weight off your shoulders, is realizing that you're not going to be carted off to the hospital, put on a vent, then end up dying. That doesn't mean go out and party like there's no tomorrow, that kind of activity can wait - but it sure feels good to know that you are not a dead man (or woman) walking, should you catch covid. You get to go into a restaurant, take your mask off when they deliver that nice juicy hamburger to your table, and not have to worry about the person at the next table ten feet away inadvertently infecting and killing you. And you're not going to go out and infect anyone else after that burger. A few weeks ago they were wringing their hands with "We don't know if it prevents you spreading the disease". But now, the new tests and studies are showing that yes indeed, you are safe to be around others, and are not a Typhoid Mary spreading death to the rest of the population.

Boy, that first hamburger tastes good. And you're not even going to worry if they rip you off and charge $20 for the stupid thing. Enjoy it!

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

Even more mystifying to me is that they shut down distribution of the AstraZeneca vaccine because there were reports of blood clots following injection. Then they found out that the incidence of blood clots following the vaccine was actually quite a bit lower than the incidence of blood clots in the unvaccinated population. So they started the distribution back up again. Now, I just read that they shut it down again ... for blood clots.

Apparently, AstraZeneca may be a preventative treatment for blood clots, not a cause of them.

You may not be quite up to date on this. There is no dispute now that AZ causes a very specific and brand new syndrome, VIPIT, which is nothing like the common or garden variety deep venous thrombosis in the legs. The two are distinct syndromes and should not be compared.

What AZ causes is an immune phenomenon whereby the body makes an antibody that destroys its own platelets, and the syndrome causes clots in the cerebral venous sinus or splanchnic veins. Unlike regular DVT, the fatality rate of this syndrome is running at 25%, and we have no idea what risk factors there are (apart from it's skewing to younger and female), and are only just starting to learn how to recognise and treat it. Symptoms tend to be quite nonspecific - headache, abdominal pain, feeling unwell - so late diagnosis is a problem also.

Yes it is rare in the general vaccinated population - which skews elderly in early rollout phases - but it may be more common in certain subgroups that we haven't delineated yet (I'm watching closely to see if it's more common in people who already have autoimmune conditions, for example, since that tends to be a risk factor for more autoimmune conditions).

And by "rare", right now we're talking 4 per million, which means one in a million dead. Young, healthy people killed. Given that there are excellent alternative vaccines that don't carry this risk, we as a society are generally not terribly keen on just randomly knocking off people with vaccines. And I think that's ok. Being cavalier with fatal vaccine complications is a great way to cause vaccine hesitancy to spread like wildfire, and that's the last thing we need.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by haertig

Even more mystifying to me is that they shut down distribution of the AstraZeneca vaccine because there were reports of blood clots following injection. Then they found out that the incidence of blood clots following the vaccine was actually quite a bit lower than the incidence of blood clots in the unvaccinated population. So they started the distribution back up again. Now, I just read that they shut it down again ... for blood clots.

Apparently, AstraZeneca may be a preventative treatment for blood clots, not a cause of them.

I would have expected that when someone yelled, "Oh my God, we have a blood clot!" that the first thing someone of a scientific mind would have asked is, "Well, what is the incidence of blood clots in the general population?" Evidently that did not happen in this case, and they shut things down, panicked the population, and probably created a significant resistance to get vaccinated.

My actual concern here is that it is the media that is saying this stuff. And they have about zero credibility at this point. So I don't know what's true or what's really going on over there in Europe. But if you believe what the media is saying (quite a big stretch there!), then it is a bit puzzling what is happening.

This might help explain : Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) statement on AstraZeneca vaccine in response to new vaccine safety concerns ==>> https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi...afety-concerns

And Professor Allen Cheng, Co-chair of ATAGI has written this ==>> Why AstraZeneca was dropped for Pfizer for Australians under 50 — https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-...09-p57hrv.html

[haertig]

Those are good articles on the AZ vaccine. I noticed that one was published today, and the other yesterday. So this is very newly emerging information.

The last I read about this (within the last week), they were talking about generic blood clots, not these special new blood clots referenced in the above two articles.

This is why I said:

My actual concern here is that it is the media that is saying this stuff. And they have about zero credibility at this point. So I don't know what's true or what's really going on over there in Europe. But if you believe what the media is saying (quite a big stretch there!), then it is a bit puzzling what is happening.

I have noticed a trend here on MobileRead. People don't seem to read an entire post before responding in a negative way. They take a statement out of context and run with it. They ignore caveats that are mentioned. I quite clearly stated that I was concerned that we are getting these reports on blood clots from the media, and the media has no credibility. I also stated that because of this "I don't know what's true or what's really going on". I did this on purpose, because previously in this thread some people have mounted an attack based on things that were not said, and on things that were twisted to say what they didn't really say.

I appreciate the two posts immediately above that simply provided new information on the topic without going into a negative attack. I was not aware of this new information (since those articles were both published today and yesterday - probably after I made my post yesterday).

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

Those are good articles on the AZ vaccine. I noticed that one was published today, and the other yesterday. So this is very newly emerging information.

I feel like it's been a year in COVIDtime, but it's really only been days-to-weeks. This Canadian clinical guidance came out a week ago:

"Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT) following AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccination: Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals in Emergency Department and Inpatient Settings"

and the Greinacher briefing was 19 March :

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021...vid-19-vaccine

[haertig]

We don't hear too much about the AZ vaccine in the USA, since it is not used here.

What we do hear is often times delayed, and driven by a hysterical media looking to grab attention with scary headlines.

[4691mls]

Covid has been a learn-as-you-go experience for everyone, including medical experts.

Unfortunately, once the experts reversed the original recommendation about masks (at first we were told not to wear them, then as more was learned, we were told we should wear them) it seems like instead of continuing to follow the experts as more has been learned about Covid, many people reacted by not believing anything else experts said.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by haertig

We don't hear too much about the AZ vaccine in the USA, since it is not used here.

What we do hear is often times delayed, and driven by a hysterical media looking to grab attention with scary headlines.

This has been and is true of the media for its entire history, and everywhere. Journalists are not experts in every field that they report on (it's laughable how poorly they report on things that I know well, so why would I assume they do any better at other topics?), and they have a financial motivation to publish quantity over quality.

If there's a topic that one really cares about, they should go as directly to the source as possible, even if it's harder to read. I don't get my medical information from the media, I search PubMed, medrxiv, medical journals, etc and struggle through it and look up the individual words, and look at the funding sources and conflict disclosures, because even the paper abstracts are better sources of info than the general media.