No COVID boosters this Fall?

[hal2kilo]

Are we running out of vaccine? Why do we need to focus on only one group?

Because he doesn't want himself or others having their POE (purity of essence) adjusted.

 

[Pens1566]

"You would have a point if getting the booster lowers a person chance of getting COVID at all(The type of protection that the Measles vaccine gives a person), but the Booster doesn't do that either."

My original point that the COVID vaccine doesn't provide the same level of protection(As you say the pathogens are different) that the Measles vaccine provides because which would be a good reason to push more people to get vaccinated/boosted. The COVID vaccine works more like a pre-infection treatment to lower the severity of your infection. While the Measles vaccine can prevent you from getting sick at all and becoming infectious. If there was a COVID vaccine available that is shown to significantly lower the chance of someone getting COVID and being infectious that would be a good reason to try and encourage everyone to get a updated booster. Even those in low risk groups. Until we have that type of vaccine we should focus on people in the highest risk groups getting vaccinated to lower the severity of their infection.

It's becoming clearer that you really don't know what it is you're attempting to talk about here.

"Why can't vaccine for pathogen X act just like the vaccine for pathogen Y?" isn't really a great hill to die on. And now we're wandering into the whole "vaccine definition argument" territory.

I'm done here. Best of luck.

 

[Brovane]

Are we running out of vaccine? Why do we need to focus on only one group?

The potential benefits need to outweigh the potential harms, would you agree? https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24b944c1a77fbed7/209038df-full.pdf

The decrease in the chance of developing severe COVID-19 means that the potential for absolute benefit from vaccination has simultaneously decreased. Even rare vaccination-related harms, both known and unknown, now have a higher chance of outweighing potential benefits in non-high-risk populations. Some harm-benefit analyses suggested net harm of ongoing vaccination of low-risk populations. Post-vaccination myocarditis is a known risk of the Novavax vaccine, and there have been unfavorable imbalances in rates of neurological, cardiac, and thrombotic adverse events among vaccine recipients reported by the Applicant. These adverse events could represent significant risks for which studies to date have been underpowered to confidently attribute to vaccination. Although the FDA monitors the safety of all vaccines through post-market surveillance, it is important to acknowledge times at which the potential for benefit from vaccination among non-high-risk individuals is small and poorly defined.

 

[Brovane]

It's becoming clearer that you really don't know what it is you're attempting to talk about here.

"Why can't vaccine for pathogen X act just like the vaccine for pathogen Y?" isn't really a great hill to die on. And now we're wandering into the whole "vaccine definition argument" territory.

I'm done here. Best of luck.

Best of luck to you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The potential benefits need to outweigh the potential harms, would you agree? https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24b944c1a77fbed7/209038df-full.pdf

The decrease in the chance of developing severe COVID-19 means that the potential for absolute benefit from vaccination has simultaneously decreased. Even rare vaccination-related harms, both known and unknown, now have a higher chance of outweighing potential benefits in non-high-risk populations. Some harm-benefit analyses suggested net harm of ongoing vaccination of low-risk populations. Post-vaccination myocarditis is a known risk of the Novavax vaccine, and there have been unfavorable imbalances in rates of neurological, cardiac, and thrombotic adverse events among vaccine recipients reported by the Applicant. These adverse events could represent significant risks for which studies to date have been underpowered to confidently attribute to vaccination. Although the FDA monitors the safety of all vaccines through post-market surveillance, it is important to acknowledge times at which the potential for benefit from vaccination among non-high-risk individuals is small and poorly defined.

You mean this guy? Who compared the COVID response to Nazi Germany?

How Democracy Ends

COVID19 policy shows a (potential) path to the end of America

www.drvinayprasad.com

Appointed by Commissioner Martin Makary? The anti-vaxxer?

FDA Appoints New Director of CBER

Dr. Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, a hematologist-oncologist, has been chosen to lead the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at FDA.

www.biopharminternational.com

The fuck are you using this guy as your source?

If you're an antivaxxer, just fucking say it so we can ignore you right and proper right the fuck now.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

What will gun toting vengeful Trumpists do when they discover their so called God killed a beloved family member?

They'll say COVID is fake just like they have been the last five years when it has happened.

 

[Brovane]

You mean this guy? Who compared the COVID response to Nazi Germany?

How Democracy Ends

COVID19 policy shows a (potential) path to the end of America

www.drvinayprasad.com

Seems right on target to me. I kind of considered it weird that you are ok with these types of actions by the government especially considering the current regime in charge.
FYI - Not that it is any of your business, but I am current with all my vaccinations.

The key factors that currently exist and may pave the way to totalitarianism are the following:

1. Strong force, including military force, has been used in other western, democratic nations to combat a respiratory virus

2. The public has accepted severe restrictions on movement and commerce in the face of respiratory pandemic, with many calls for greater restrictions to be applied

3. The media is able to present vignettes or anecdotes about overwhelmed hospitals or the untimely death of a young person, without acknowledging the denominator or comparing the risk to other risks we accept.

4. The rise of social media corporations means that public dialog increasingly occurs in spaces that can be regulated.

5. American increasingly comfortable with regulating and censoring information

6. The idea of safety as a virtue above all other dominates the culture

7. The party that favored stronger application of force during the COVID19 pandemic is vulnerable to misuse of force for a respiratory virus from the counterparty in the future

 

[Moonbeam]

They'll say COVID is fake just like they have been the last five years when it has happened.

Pretty much what I envisioned, one form of rationalization or another. Thumbs up!

 

[Muse]

This is what happens when you put an anti-vaccine crank in charge of HHS who appoints his crank buddies. And it was egged on by bullshit media headlines for years that launder anti-vaccine propaganda as "skepticism". A lot of journalists are failing the "don't print lies" test, and fail to understand that you don't have to give equal weight to the crank and the entire body of science.

I'm at the point where I am miffed when TV news chants the Trump administration's position on an issue. My truth meter needle gets pinned to Monstrous Lie.

 

[Paratus]

The potential benefits need to outweigh the potential harms, would you agree? https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24b944c1a77fbed7/209038df-full.pdf

The decrease in the chance of developing severe COVID-19 means that the potential for absolute benefit from vaccination has simultaneously decreased. Even rare vaccination-related harms, both known and unknown, now have a higher chance of outweighing potential benefits in non-high-risk populations. Some harm-benefit analyses suggested net harm of ongoing vaccination of low-risk populations. Post-vaccination myocarditis is a known risk of the Novavax vaccine, and there have been unfavorable imbalances in rates of neurological, cardiac, and thrombotic adverse events among vaccine recipients reported by the Applicant. These adverse events could represent significant risks for which studies to date have been underpowered to confidently attribute to vaccination. Although the FDA monitors the safety of all vaccines through post-market surveillance, it is important to acknowledge times at which the potential for benefit from vaccination among non-high-risk individuals is small and poorly defined.

That’s a lot of words and no risk likelihoods numbers.

The risk of long covid symptoms is single to double digit percentages of people who have caught COVID while the risk of myocarditis was about 6-7/100,000 for vaccine recipients. Orders of magnitude lower. And the vaccine reduces your chance of long COVID by double digit percentages.

As a safety engineer I’ll take that risk trade any day of the week.

 

[Pens1566]

For the record, on myocarditis risks ... covid vaccinations have NEVER been linked to an incidence rate higher than that of the general population. Myocarditis can be caused by any infection, is almost always mild, and is most often found in adolescent males.

Additionally, the myocarditis rate in actual covid patients is something like 10x higher than gen pop.

TLDR;
Myocarditis risk chances
Vaccinated < Gen pop < Actual covid infection

Tell me, which would you pick?

For future reference, the myocarditis angle is a dead giveaway that someone is regurgitating things they don't understand, and/or haven't really looked at it.

 

[Brovane]

That’s a lot of words and no risk likelihoods numbers.

Citations are noted here.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24b944c1a77fbed7/209038df-full.pdf

The risk of long covid symptoms is single to double digit percentages of people who have caught COVID while the risk of myocarditis was about 6-7/100,000 for vaccine recipients. Orders of magnitude lower. And the vaccine reduces your chance of long COVID by double digit percentages.

What are you defining as a long COVID symptom? The risk of developing long COVID has continually declined with each new variant. Those at greatest risk of Long COVID developing from COVID are older adults (Age 65+) and those wind underlying health conditions and those who were not ever vaccinated against COVID. Are you talking about Vaccine or getting the latest booster when you say a vaccine reduces your chances of long COVID?

 

[Brovane]

For the record, on myocarditis risks ... covid vaccinations have NEVER been linked to an incidence rate higher than that of the general population. Myocarditis can be caused by any infection, is almost always mild, and is most often found in adolescent males.

Additionally, the myocarditis rate in actual covid patients is something like 10x higher than gen pop.

You would have to measure it against the population in question which is the low risk population for COVID which is those under age 50 with no known health risk's. That population has a very low risk of severe COVID and getting myocarditis from a COVID infections. So low the risk of getting COVID and myocarditis

TLDR;
Myocarditis risk chances
Vaccinated < Gen pop < Actual covid infection

Tell me, which would you pick?

Wouldn't you need to break out the population into the risk group we are talking about?

 

[Pens1566]

You would have to measure it against the population in question which is the low risk population for COVID which is those under age 50 with no known health risk's. That population has a very low risk of severe COVID and getting myocarditis from a COVID infections. So low the risk of getting COVID and myocarditis




Wouldn't you need to break out the population into the risk group we are talking about?

That actually makes the argument worse as myocarditis risk is highest among like the 12-25 age group.

All of the studies/literature are pretty clear on that ranking. And none of the results are even close. Talking order of magnitude range. It's a red herring.