Covid-19 Politics

[blackchubby38]

Disagreement With WH Over Booster Shots Prompt Senior FDA Directors to Step Down

ttps://www.newsweek.com/disagreement...p-down-1624750


Covid-19 Booster-Shot Access May Be More Limited, CDC Committee Signals


https://www.barrons.com/articles/cov...ss-51630413273

[filghy2]

Nobody is wearing masks indoors where I live (except me and a few others). It doesn't really make much sense. 6 months out pfizer may only be 50% effective against symptomatic disease, plenty of people aren't vaccinated, and the disease numbers are obviously climbing here. Also, it's so fucking easy to wear a mask while getting a starbucks. These people want to get back to normal but you don't get there by playing pretend.

It's probably mainly complacency, but there are arguments out there that say masks are ineffective. I haven't looked at it closely, but it sounds like another example of the "if it's only partially effective it's useless" fallacy. For something that is low cost the effectiveness threshold for it to be worth doing is not high. Even if masks reduce transmission by only 10-20 per cent that is still probably worthwhile in combination with other measures. The absurd implication of this argument is that if we had 10 measures that each reduced a problem by 10% we should not do any of them.

This argument also implies that the medical establishment has been engaged in some conspiracy to force people to wear masks for no apparent reason. It's a conspiracy without any clear motive.

[broncofan]

The absurd implication of this argument is that if we had 10 measures that each reduced a problem by 10% we should not do any of them.

And yet even among those who aren't acting in bad faith it is difficult to get people to adopt multiple levels of protection against a risk. So I do think that in addition to people being disingenuous jackasses there is some baseline inability to understand risk.

I realize it's probably difficult to study mask effectiveness empirically but there are theoretical reasons why even a porous mask worn by one person could protect them. It's because the number of virions someone breathes in sets a probability they get infected (if infectious dose is the average "viral dose" needed for someone to get infected). The infectious dose may be so low in unvaccinated people that a mask that blocks 50% of the particles does not make a difference most of the time. But people who have been vaccinated have circulating antibodies that wane over time. The reason circulating antibodies are considered the most important proxy for protection from symptomatic disease is that the other parts of the immune system that are primed by a vaccine (memory b cells and t cells) tend to take at least a few days to mobilize and as such are considered more relevant to prevent severe disease.

There is also an unresolved issue of whether viral dose correlates with disease severity. It's been proven to be the case for many viruses. It's unknown whether it is for sars-cov-2 and animal models did not yield any obvious correlation but it's still possible.

Ultimately, the issue is that we have incomplete information and as you say we know mask wearing is a pretty low cost measure. The fact that it might work means it makes sense to adopt when cases are spiraling out of control.

[broncofan]

Disagreement With WH Over Booster Shots Prompt Senior FDA Directors to Step Down

ttps://www.newsweek.com/disagreement...p-down-1624750

I haven't read the newsweek article yet but will later. If the world shared vaccines and they were mobilized in ways that were likely to end the pandemic or save the most lives it would be more efficient to give the shots to people who are not yet vaccinated.

The US has purchased and is keeping a large enough store of vaccines to be able to give two shots to every eligible American. We know there are at least about 40% of people who for one reason or another are not getting their shots. We could give the vaccines to countries that need them more, but we can't use them for people who don't want the vaccine.

The data from Israel shows that effectiveness of Pfizer against symptomatic disease wanes pretty significantly after 6 months (moderna does a bit better). The protection against severe disease and death lasts longer than that. But protection against symptomatic disease does have the potential to help control the pandemic and slow spread. For immunocompromised people the booster shot makes a lot of sense and if we are not going to give away our stockpiles the booster makes sense for everyone else.

The data coming in from Israel shows that the booster does restore efficacy pretty well, even when comparing people with three shots to people who have gotten two shots. I'd say these are my preferences: 1. give vaccines away; 2. give boosters ; 3. let them sit there in the hopes people decide to get vaccinated and risk expiration of the vaccines.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Here's a link to an article from the US Food And Drug Administration on why people should not use Ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consum...event-covid-19

[sukumvit boy]

Here is a link to the official (Phase One) report from the joint WHO/China team on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 including the 'lab leak' hypothesis.
Includes some interesting subtilties at the intersection of science and politics but overall the team performed admirably ,in my humble opinion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02263-6

[Stavros]

The New York Times reports that various officials of the GOP are protesting Biden's vaccine mandates, and Mike Wallace confronted the Governor of Nebraska-

"Interviewing Ricketts on Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked the governor why he was fighting the administration’s new COVID-19 rules, especially since Ricketts insisted that he’s been encouraging vaccines and believes they work in combatting the pandemic. The Nebraska governor, meanwhile, said he felt the government shouldn’t be mandating vaccinations.
“I've talked to a number of people,” Rickets declared. “They've told me, if they make me take the vaccine, I'm just going to be fired.”

Wallace retorted that Nebraska’s school system actually requires students to be vaccinated against a series of diseases, wondering aloud why Ricketts appeared to be fine with those requirements but not a mandate for the COVID-19 shots."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-...ccine-mandates

Meanwhile in the UK, the Government, for now, has ditched the idea of creating 'Covid Passports' to show when entering various establishments....so I guess they will abolish driving licences too...? Oh, and in the US agan, Voter ID?

[blackchubby38]

So are we getting a booster shot or not:

Tensions mount between CDC and Biden health team over boosters

http://www.politico.com/news/2021/09...oosters-511529

Departing FDA regulators pan Covid boosters in paper

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...h-paper-511638

[KnightHawk 2.0]

So are we getting a booster shot or not:

Tensions mount between CDC and Biden health team over boosters

http://www.politico.com/news/2021/09...oosters-511529

Departing FDA regulators pan Covid boosters in paper

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...h-paper-511638

Agree. And not surprised at all that there's tension mounting between the CDC and President Biden's Health Team over booster shots,and the infighting between them sure isn't helping with getting important information to the american people .

[filghy2]

“I've talked to a number of people,” Rickets declared. “They've told me, if they make me take the vaccine, I'm just going to be fired.”

I'm sure some of these claims are fake bravado, but you have to wonder about the mentality of someone who not only refuses to get a potentially life-saving vaccine, but is also prepared to lose their job over it. When it came to restrictions they weren't prepared to sacrifice any income to reduce the risks of Covid. When it comes to vaccines they are actually prepared to sacrifice income to increase the risks of Covid and/or to avoid some grossly inflated risks from vaccination.