Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

Public health recommendations are as specific as they can practically be. The are not "blanket" recommendations that ignore the known differences between groups of people.

Yes, there are. If you go read the CDC's recommendations, it's that EVERYONE get vaccinated. That's the definition of a "blanket" recommendation.

 

[probinson]

This article ought to be used in a case study of how to mount a straw man attack. (Misrepresent your opponent's position and then attack that position, rather than attempt the harder job of attacking your opponent's best arguments.)

Actually, it's quite a good article that talks about the damage that public health's zealotry has done. I can see why you'd want to dismiss it.

 

[probinson]

But it does indirectly prevent infections.
People who don't even develop symptoms are
not coughing and sneezing

But they are breathing, which introduces aerosols, which is how the virus is transmitted.

 

[probinson]

You are framing the question most suitable to your view, totally ignoring the benefit of reduced hospitalization and focusing only on the complete avoidance of infection. I submit that is a ridiculous criterion on which to just the benefit of a vaccine.

I'm not talking about the "benefit of a vaccine". I'm talking about it's (near) complete inability to prevent infections. This is important because we were sold the vaccine on its ability to prevent infections. But that was never true. Pfizer was quite happy to let the media amplify their claim of 95% efficacy, all the while knowing they were going to require you to get a booster just 5 short months after the original dose. And why not? More doses means more profits!

The CDC guidelines are about public policy, and only tangentially about the medical reality.

The CDC guidelines are about whatever is politically expedient. Once upon a time, the CDC made "recommendations" that people regularly ignored (Ever ordered a medium-well steak? Then you've disregarded CDC recommendations). But with the advent of COVID, suddenly everything that the CDC said became binding. Unelected bureaucrats suddenly had an immense amount of power over the lives of Americans that they should never have been granted.

In fact there is a difference in the outcome on the average. It just doesn't figure into the guidelines. The CDC still recommends that everyone who is not vaccinated get vaccinated, and anyone qualified for a booster should get that too.

And at this point, it seems that this is once again becoming a recommendation, which is what it should have always been. But I don't think if you ask the countless people that lost their jobs and were ostracized from society because they didn't follow that "recommendation" (that was actually a mandate) that they'd agree.

In the future we may have a yearly booster, like we have a yearly flu vaccine.

Indeed. Pfizer has already said that yearly boosters will be necessary. Their shareholders absolutely agree.

 

[probinson]

That's not what "unilateral" means. It means "one-sided", not the same for every side.

Oh, you literalists...

Do you think that the CDC has allowed for any nuance in their vaccine recommendations?

 

[Estrid]

But they are breathing, which introduces aerosols, which is how the virus is transmitted.

You are just being tiresome

 

[probinson]

You are just being tiresome

Not really. You know when you breathe you expel aerosols, right? Isn't this why everyone and their brother had to wear masks forever, even if they weren't symptomatic? It can be hard to keep up with "THE SCIENCE™!"

 

[hedrick]

Initially vaccines actually did prevent spread. However that hasn't been true for a while. The data suggests a reasonable amount of protection against severe outcomes.

The Times keeps track of a wide variety of data. One is the case rate among vaccinated and unvaccinated. In early stages it was 11 to 1. Now it's 3 to 1. Still significant, in my view. Death has gone from 21 to 1 to 6 to 1. You can see a change from 11 to 6 with Delta and 3 with Omicron.

At this point I don't think I'd support making it mandatory for the general public. The difference in risk of spreading it doesn't seem large enough. Health care settings, maybe. They tend to have fairly strict vaccination requirements.

Of course it never was mandatory for the public. But some companies and institutions made it mandatory. I'd support relaxing those requirements. NJ has removed the vaccine or test requirement from schools, but left it in health care, prisons, etc.

 

[Larniavc]

Sure it is. As many as 40% of black students will be denied an equal education if they enforce the mandates in DC strictly. It can be disconcerting to realize that this is the result of what you support when you support discriminatory and ineffective vaccine mandates, but doesn't make it any less true.

What do vaccines have to do with the colour of your skin? I’ve no idea how you can compare choosing not to take a jab to being black.

Good grief, you don’t choose the colour of your skin.

Smh

 

[Larniavc]

Your inability to admit that vaccines aren't preventing infections speaks

What are you talking about? When did I ever say vaccines prevent infections? Do you think I’m another poster? Are you okay?

 

[Larniavc]

Perhaps. That's largely dependent upon your prior infection status, your age, and a myriad of other factors.

If you admit it is multi factorial why omit one of the factors that you have control over?

You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[probinson]

Initially vaccines actually did prevent spread.

I don't believe that's true for a minute. Pfizer stopped their clinical trial right when breakthrough infections would have occurred. Nifty coincidence?

The data suggests a reasonable amount of protection against severe outcomes.

Again, that is largely dependent upon your prior infection status, your age, your co-morbidities and numerous other factors. For example, there is no data whatsoever that would suggest that a healthy college student that has had 2 doses of the vaccine AND been infected with COVID would benefit from a booster. Yet there are universities foolishly mandating boosters for their students.

The Times keeps track of a wide variety of data. One is the case rate among vaccinated and unvaccinated. In early stages it was 11 to 1. Now it's 3 to 1. Still significant, in my view. Death has gone from 21 to 1 to 6 to 1. You can see a change from 11 to 6 with Delta and 3 with Omicron.

Indeed. Vaccine efficacy is waning rapidly over time.

At this point I don't think I'd support making it mandatory for the general public.

It never made sense to make this vaccine mandatory. Vaccine mandates breed distrust and increase vaccine hesitancy, the exact opposite of their stated intention.

Of course it never was mandatory for the public.

Perhaps not "mandatory", but there was some serious coercion to get people vaccinated.

In any event, it's good to see people coming around to the realization that vaccination against COVID should be a personal choice based on an individual's risk assessment.

 

[probinson]

What are you talking about? When did I ever say vaccines prevent infections? Do you think I’m another poster? Are you okay?

I'm good. Thanks for asking.

So you don't think these vaccines prevent infections? Then we agree.

 

[probinson]

If you admit it is multi factorial why omit one of the factors that you have control over?

Now I think you're confused. There are many reasons why a person may choose to not get vaccinated. For one example, the parent of a young healthy child that has had COVID and recovered may not want to introduce that child to the unnecessary potential side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the child has already had a mild case of COVID and recovered, it's unlikely that they would benefit from the vaccine.

You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Um, not sure how that applies here, but OK.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, there are. If you go read the CDC's recommendations, it's that EVERYONE get vaccinated. That's the definition of a "blanket" recommendation.

The recommendation for vaccination is more nuanced than that. It recommends boosters only for those in a higher risk group - the elderly and with certain medical conditions. Within those groups, they are blanket recommendations, and that is fine because it applies equally to all those in that group.

Actually, it's quite a good article that talks about the damage that public health's zealotry has done. I can see why you'd want to dismiss it.

Of course you would think it is a good article. But it does misrepresent the arguments it opposes. And that is why I dismiss it.

I'm not talking about the "benefit of a vaccine". I'm talking about it's (near) complete inability to prevent infections.

It is clear that you are very bothered by the way the vaccines were presented to the public, but I don't think you are going to succeed in stirring up an equal amount of resentment in others who are not already committed to that religion. You don't want to talk about the real benefits of the vaccine because it goes against your narrative that they have failed. They only have failed your very specific and made-up criteria for success. Most people would think that saving hundreds of thousands of lives is a success, not a failure. But you can go on complaining how it is more important that most people are likely to get an infection at some point in their life.

The CDC guidelines are about whatever is politically expedient.

No, they are whatever is practical. It is balance between health benefits and the cost of those benefits.

But with the advent of COVID, suddenly everything that the CDC said became binding.

Covid is a lot more serious than eating a steak medium well done. And even at that, the binding part continued only so long as it appeared to be necessary and practical. Most of those binding decision were made based on CDC recommendations, but were actually made by local authorities who respected the CDC's expertise - an expertise you are sure to try to discredit.

Indeed. Pfizer has already said that yearly boosters will be necessary. Their shareholders absolutely agree.

The fact that shareholders are happy with the company's success is not evidence that the success ws not deserved. Indeed, shareholders are always happy when the company they invest in is successful. We cannot conclude anything at all about a specific company from that universal fact.

 

[Larniavc]

Unilateral means that it is the same for everyone. EVERYONE should be vaccinated, regardless of their age, prior infection status, benefits conferred, etc.

You might want to rethink your definition, there.

 

[Larniavc]

not sure i understand your response.

Your inability to see ‘science’ is no metric of its presence or lack thereof.

 

[hedrick]

What do vaccines have to do with the colour of your skin? I’ve no idea how you can compare choosing not to take a jab to being black.

Good grief, you don’t choose the colour of your skin.

Smh

Black folks do not have as high vaccination rates in the US.

DC seems to be the only state planning to mandate Covid vaccine for schools. I've got to wonder whether they'll really do it. I think the results would be a mess. The number of people with boosters in DC is fairly small. Requiring just a primary dose doesn't seem all that useful.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm good. Thanks for asking.

So you don't think these vaccines prevent infections? Then we agree.

They reduce infection severity and transmission. As you have been told several times. But please do go on ignoring what’s being so patiently explained to you.

 

[probinson]

The recommendation for vaccination is more nuanced than that.

No, it's really not.

It recommends boosters only for those in a higher risk group - the elderly and with certain medical conditions.

That's not true. EVERYONE over the age of 5 is recommended to get a booster;

Booster #2 is recommended for EVERYONE over 50. That's about as nuanced as you get.

Within those groups, they are blanket recommendations, and that is fine because it applies equally to all those in that group.

That's simply not true. Just being over the age of 50 does not mean that your risk/benefit analysis is the same as an 80-year old immunocompromised person. Of course the risks of those 2 people are vastly different.

Of course you would think it is a good article. But it does misrepresent the arguments it opposes. And that is why I dismiss it.

It does not, but that article is not the topic of this discussion.

It is clear that you are very bothered by the way the vaccines were presented to the public, but I don't think you are going to succeed in stirring up an equal amount of resentment in others who are not already committed to that religion.

Funny choice of words. The vaccine zealotry is more like a religion than a representation of solid, evidence-based medicine.

You don't want to talk about the real benefits of the vaccine because it goes against your narrative that they have failed.

They have failed to prevent infection. That's what I've said all through this discussion.

They only have failed you very specific and made-up criteria for success. Most people would think that saving hundreds of thousands of lives is a success, not a failure.

Those modeling studies do amuse me.

But you can go on complaining how it is more important that most people are likely to get an infection at some point in their life.

Probably multiple infections, actually.

No, they are whatever is practical. It is balance between health benefits and the cost of those benefits.

Nonsense. They have been absolutely driven by political expediency.

Remember when the CDC floated the idea of a second booster for everyone, and the Washington Post reported on it, and then other countries health agencies came out and said there was no compelling data that a second booster would be beneficial for anyone over the age of 50, and once public opinion soured on the second booster, they scrapped the plan? Yeah, that's not science. It's public relations.

Covid is a lot more serious than eating a steak medium well done.

For some people, yes. For others, not so much.

And even at that, the binding part continued only so long as it appeared to be necessary and practical. Most of those binding decision were made based on CDC recommendations, but were actually made by local authorities who respected the CDC's expertise - an expertise you are sure to try to discredit.

The CDC has sold their credibility all throughout the pandemic. Trust in the agency is at historic lows. I can promise you that's not because I discredited them, but because it has become clear to anyone not fully subsumed in the branch covidian ways that the CDC is little more than a political pawn.

The fact that shareholders are happy with the company's success is not evidence that the success ws not deserved. Indeed, shareholders are always happy when the company they invest in is successful. We cannot conclude anything at all about a specific company from that universal fact.

That may be, but you sure do seem to be downplaying the conflict of interest here. Do you really think that Pfizer wants you to be healthy and protected for COVID, or do you think they want you to subscribe to their quarterly vaccination program for life?