Here's a COVID thread for you

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Not sure we knew then what the impact of the vaccines on the new variants.

To EEs points, in CDC parliance, we still don't know. I mean we all know - we have no proof that any variant out there will materially evade vaccines. There is always the chance, but booster shots can hopefully catch them. But we don't know. And to the CDCs preference (zero unknowns), we will never know everything. LOL.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,237
To EEs points, in CDC parliance, we still don't know. I mean we all know - we have no proof that any variant out there will materially evade vaccines. There is always the chance, but booster shots can hopefully catch them. But we don't know. And to the CDCs preference (zero unknowns), we will never know everything. LOL.
Don’t remember the exact timing but I believe we actually had variants beginning to circulate that we didn’t know whether the vaccines were effective against. I’m not talking about new variants that might emerge in the future. For those we are now dealing with we know the vaccines work. Situations change.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Don’t remember the exact timing but I believe we actually had variants beginning to circulate that we didn’t know whether the vaccines were effective against. I’m not talking about new variants that might emerge in the future. For those we are now dealing with we know the vaccines work. Situations change.

Yep. Right now "we're" pretty sure the major vaccines are still effective against all known variants. We'll never know if another variant comes out that will evade vaccines. And that unknown will be there now until the end of time.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,237
Yep. Right now "we're" pretty sure the major vaccines are still effective against all known variants. We'll never know if another variant comes out that will evade vaccines. And that unknown will be there now until the end of time.
My point was there were new variants that CDC was worried about so there was some reason for concern. They were over the top but it was reasonable to be cautious.
 

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
Don’t remember the exact timing but I believe we actually had variants beginning to circulate that we didn’t know whether the vaccines were effective against. I’m not talking about new variants that might emerge in the future. For those we are now dealing with we know the vaccines work. Situations change.
any links to studies to support that??
i posted a link to an Israeli study earlier in the thread that said Pfizer was effective against the UK variant but not the African variant.
South africa cancelled their Moderna pruchase saying it wasn't effective against the africcan variant.
whatever UK is using must be working for the UK variant.
I've seen very little about what works with which varaint.
and nothing at all about the Brazilian or Indians variants ...
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
any links to studies to support that??
i posted a link to an Israeli study earlier in the thread that said Pfizer was effective against the UK variant but not the African variant.
South africa cancelled their Moderna pruchase saying it wasn't effective against the africcan variant.
whatever UK is using must be working for the UK variant.
I've seen very little about what works with which varaint.
and nothing at all about the Brazilian or Indians variants ...

The Pfizer vaccine is highly effective against all variants including those in South Africa and UK.

 

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
The Pfizer vaccine is highly effective against all variants including those in South Africa and UK.

thanks, interesting
NYT is not a reliable news source
this time tho,they quoted sources
72% and 75% for preventing infection, but importantly near 100% for hosp/death
thats pretty good i think
preventing infection stats are always dubious since they don't know whether or not the 75 or 95% were actually exposed.
you proved my point.
worldwide with at least 4 vaxes available and 4 variants, there's not much data about this yet.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
thanks, interesting
NYT is not a reliable news source
this time tho,they quoted sources
72% and 75% for preventing infection, but importantly near 100% for hosp/death
thats pretty good i think
preventing infection stats are always dubious since they don't know whether or not the 75 or 95% were actually exposed.
you proved my point.
worldwide with at least 4 vaxes available and 4 variants, there's not much data about this yet.

Some of the vaccines are wonky like AstraZeneca. They’ve been unreliable against some variants and the company’s been caught fudging trial numbers. At one point 25-30 countries had put it on hold. I wouldn’t touch that vaccine with a 10 foot pole…nor Russians and Chinese…
 

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
Some of the vaccines are wonky like AstraZeneca. They’ve been unreliable against some variants and the company’s been caught fudging trial numbers. At one point 25-30 countries had put it on hold. I wouldn’t touch that vaccine with a 10 foot pole…nor Russians and Chinese…
i think EU,UK and australia are only giving AZ to those over 50... seems fishy
i always take articles like this with a grain of salt (because the manufacturer participated in the study)
and they would lie if the study hadn't gone well.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
New York is trying to kill its tourism industry. They just announced all tourists will be offered a free Johnson and Johnson shot. 🤣
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
If I ever get in the market, J&J is in the lead for me.

It’s 64% effective against the South African variant and 61% in Brazil. I hate shots and needles and did fine with Pfizer - I highly recommend a vaccine like that one which is significantly more effective.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
I need to post a revision to my characterization of the CDC‘s recent prediction that cases will continue to collapse by July. I just read a more detailed summary. Apparently, they are still predicting that cases will spike between now and then. LOL. They still have that impending sense of doom week after week after week while cases fall and fall and fall.

 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,145
CDC has absolutely embarrassed itself with their handling of the pandemic. Period.

Their blatant disregard for the human and economic impact of their recommendations just astounds me. They completely went CYA on this whole thing.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
CDC has absolutely embarrassed itself with their handling of the pandemic. Period.

Their blatant disregard for the human and economic impact of their recommendations just astounds me. They completely went CYA on this whole thing.

I said recently its not fair to say they have provided no value during the one time we needed them the most...that I probably should think through recently history first before saying that. But I still haven't thought of anything bad that would have happened had they not existed (there are a lot of good things that would have happened had they not existed). And that thought is just an absolutely embarrassing indictment of them.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,059
Location
North Shore, Chicago
It’s 64% effective against the South African variant and 61% in Brazil. I hate shots and needles and did fine with Pfizer - I highly recommend a vaccine like that one which is significantly more effective.
The numbers are more accurate on the J&J vaccine because there was a larger population of participants. In the US, the numbers were closer to 75%. I'm good with that. Plus, as with everything we're seeing, reality is changing as we get more data.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,059
Location
North Shore, Chicago
CDC has absolutely embarrassed itself with their handling of the pandemic. Period.

Their blatant disregard for the human and economic impact of their recommendations just astounds me. They completely went CYA on this whole thing.
Notwithstanding the validity of what they're saying, it's not the CDC's job, nor should it be, to look at the human and economic impact of their recommendations. Their recommendations should be what is reasonable to ensure that the largest group possible stays as safe as possible. It's up to the policymakers to make policies based on these recommendations. I agree, the messaging has been handled very poorly.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Notwithstanding the validity of what they're saying, it's not the CDC's job, nor should it be, to look at the human and economic impact of their recommendations. Their recommendations should be what is reasonable to ensure that the largest group possible stays as safe as possible. It's up to the policymakers to make policies based on these recommendations. I agree, the messaging has been handled very poorly.

This cannot be overstated. The CDCs job is not to care or worry about economic impact, or really anything outside of health. They lay the facts and data out and others make decisions based on the options available.

Having said that, their messaging has indeed been poor at times, and frequently conflicts with their own previous messaging. And worse, they have taken a near eradication approach as opposed to flattening the curve and management. You can’t eradicate a novel virus in any meaningful timeframe - they’ve set recommendations and goals for outcomes far beyond what they do with other diseases. It’s been a real disappointment. The FDA has been almost as bad.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,145
Notwithstanding the validity of what they're saying, it's not the CDC's job, nor should it be, to look at the human and economic impact of their recommendations. Their recommendations should be what is reasonable to ensure that the largest group possible stays as safe as possible. It's up to the policymakers to make policies based on these recommendations. I agree, the messaging has been handled very poorly.
Can you do us all a favor and explain this to the MSM?

The use of “#science” as rallying cry made use of CDC recommendations over everything else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top