Here's a COVID thread for you

[RonJohn]

After a year of this, it’s always amazing to see how far, wide, and deep ignorance is on the science of Covid.

Relaxed mask rules: Rational or reckless?

Fully vaccinated people face very little risk from the virus, but some experts say guidelines based on an "honor system" will lead to new outbreaks.

www.yahoo.com

I don't think from the text in the article that there is deep ignorance of the science. I think there is disagreement on policy. As I stated before, the scientists should not be making policy. They should be reporting the science. Last March, the science with respect to COVID would have said to have everyone stay in their house and NEVER go outside. Using that as a policy decision would have caused more deaths from people who couldn't get food and would have further wrecked the economy. Currently the science says that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear masks. Using that as policy might cause non-vaccinated people to lie about their vaccination status if they are even asked at all, and could cause further outbreaks.

Personally, I prefer allowing people to decide for themselves, even if they are not vaccinated and end up getting COVID and dying. I am not a nanny for a 60+ year old person who doesn't want to get vaccinated, doesn't want to wear a mask, and doesn't want to socially distance. That person likely won't die, but if they do die from those decisions, it is all on them. Anyone who is worried about being in public without masks, just follow the science and get vaccinated. Once you are fully vaccinated, you personally have nothing to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't think from the text in the article that there is deep ignorance of the science. I think there is disagreement on policy. As I stated before, the scientists should not be making policy. They should be reporting the science. Last March, the science with respect to COVID would have said to have everyone stay in their house and NEVER go outside. Using that as a policy decision would have caused more deaths from people who couldn't get food and would have further wrecked the economy. Currently the science says that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear masks. Using that as policy might cause non-vaccinated people to lie about their vaccination status if they are even asked at all, and could cause further outbreaks.

Personally, I prefer allowing people to decide for themselves, even if they are not vaccinated and end up getting COVID and dying. I am not a nanny for a 60+ year old person who doesn't want to get vaccinated, doesn't want to wear a mask, and doesn't want to socially distance. That person likely won't die, but if they do die from those decisions, it is all on them. Anyone who is worried about being in public without masks, just follow the science and get vaccinated. Once you are fully vaccinated, you personally have nothing to worry about.

Right, but look at the level of worry and the disposition of nearly all the various people quoted in that article. All the hand wringing and angst is wholly unwarranted.

 

[MWBATL]

Right, but look at the level of worry and the disposition of nearly all the various people quoted in that article. All the hand wringing and angst is wholly unwarranted.

Are you really so surprised? I had become an article of faith on the left that mask wearing was good, righteous and worthy and people who questioned that policy were ignorant, stupid and selfish. Now that the science has finally turned out to be other than the left thought, their faith is shaken and they cling to their symbols and their religion.

Sad, but quite predictable.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Are you really so surprised? I had become an article of faith on the left that mask wearing was good, righteous and worthy and people who questioned that policy were ignorant, stupid and selfish. Now that the science has finally turned out to be other than the left thought, their faith is shaken and they cling to their symbols and their religion.

Sad, but quite predictable.

The current CDC Director got caught ignoring the details of the studies she based her conclusions on. This wasn’t legitimate scientific disagreement, this was either purposeful chicanery or she’s not very intelligent. It’s why folks don’t have faith in what these so called experts claim on tv. If you’d have gotten caught in private business damaging your organization like this, well you wouldn’t have a job much longer. Our government will fail her up.

The CDC Director Misrepresented the Study She Cited To Justify Her Misleading Estimate of Outdoor COVID-19 Risk

Rochelle Walensky's gloss is puzzling in light of the evidence presented in the systematic review on which she relied.

reason.com

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

While I believe that businesses have a right to dictate under what conditions you can enter their store, I have an delimma on a policy that my wife's employer started as of 5/15.

As of 5/15, those who are fully vaccinated do not have to wear a mask in their stores, including employees. If you can show your supervisor evidence of your vaccination or have already claimed your $125 gift card as a reward for getting your vaccination, you no longer have to wear a mask leaving only the employees who have chosen not to get the vaccine yet masked.

While I understand the science behind the policy, something just doesn't seem right with essentially shaming those employees who do not want to get the vaccine yet, without FDA approval no less. What say you?

 

[forensicbuzz]

After a year of this, it’s always amazing to see how far, wide, and deep ignorance is on the science of Covid.

Relaxed mask rules: Rational or reckless?

Fully vaccinated people face very little risk from the virus, but some experts say guidelines based on an "honor system" will lead to new outbreaks.

www.yahoo.com

Not reading the article. what is your perception of deep ignorance?

 

[forensicbuzz]

While I believe that businesses have a right to dictate under what conditions you can enter their store, I have an delimma on a policy that my wife's employer started as of 5/15.

As of 5/15, those who are fully vaccinated do not have to wear a mask in their stores, including employees. If you can show your supervisor evidence of your vaccination or have already claimed your $125 gift card as a reward for getting your vaccination, you no longer have to wear a mask leaving only the employees who have chosen not to get the vaccine yet masked.

While I understand the science behind the policy, something just doesn't seem right with essentially shaming those employees who do not want to get the vaccine yet, without FDA approval no less. What say you?

First, it has been given FDA approval. It just didn't go through the normal channels and received emergency use approval. That's still approval. It's not semantics.

Second, these vaccines will never go through the normal approval channels because no one is going to go back and run trials that are meaningless now that half a billion people have been vaccinated. I could envision "FDA approval" being granted based on the data coming back from all those who have been vaccinated already, but we'll see how the politicians or political appointees handle that.

Third, I absolutely agree with the dilemma as you point it out. I agree with whoever said that at this point people have had the opportunity to get the vaccination. If they decide to wait or not get it at all, it's a conscious decision by a grown adult, same as those that chose to be vaccinated, so I would suggest there should be no restrictions if they're lifting the mandate in their store. If a vaccinated or unvaccinated person wants to continue to wear a mask, they should be able to. If some are allowed to drop the mask, everyone should be able to drop the mask if they so choose.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Not reading the article. what is your perception of deep ignorance?

If you really want to know, then read the article and quotes. I’m not going to hand re-write an article I just linked to.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

First, it has been given FDA approval. It just didn't go through the normal channels and received emergency use approval. That's still approval. It's not semantics.

Second, these vaccines will never go through the normal approval channels because no one is going to go back and run trials that are meaningless now that half a billion people have been vaccinated. I could envision "FDA approval" being granted based on the data coming back from all those who have been vaccinated already, but we'll see how the politicians or political appointees handle that.

Third, I absolutely agree with the dilemma as you point it out. I agree with whoever said that at this point people have had the opportunity to get the vaccination. If they decide to wait or not get it at all, it's a conscious decision by a grown adult, same as those that chose to be vaccinated, so I would suggest there should be no restrictions if they're lifting the mandate in their store. If a vaccinated or unvaccinated person wants to continue to wear a mask, they should be able to. If some are allowed to drop the mask, everyone should be able to drop the mask if they so choose.

Emergency use approval is not the same as complete FDA approval, and none of the Covid vaccines have yet received that --- https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/cor...approved-heres-how-the-process-works/2486206/
Aside from that technicality, I agree with your post. (for whatever that might be worth --- LOL)

 

[Deleted member 2897]

First, it has been given FDA approval. It just didn't go through the normal channels and received emergency use approval. That's still approval. It's not semantics.

Second, these vaccines will never go through the normal approval channels because no one is going to go back and run trials that are meaningless now that half a billion people have been vaccinated. I could envision "FDA approval" being granted based on the data coming back from all those who have been vaccinated already, but we'll see how the politicians or political appointees handle that.

Third, I absolutely agree with the dilemma as you point it out. I agree with whoever said that at this point people have had the opportunity to get the vaccination. If they decide to wait or not get it at all, it's a conscious decision by a grown adult, same as those that chose to be vaccinated, so I would suggest there should be no restrictions if they're lifting the mandate in their store. If a vaccinated or unvaccinated person wants to continue to wear a mask, they should be able to. If some are allowed to drop the mask, everyone should be able to drop the mask if they so choose.

No, they are under emergency approval. The FDA is working on full approval, but it’s not ready yet.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No, they are under emergency approval. The FDA is working on full approval, but it’s not ready yet.

My point is the emergency approval was still by the FDA. That is FDA Approval.

 

[Milwaukee]

 

[Deleted member 2897]

723 Epidemiologists on When and How the U.S. Can Fully Return to Normal

COVID-19 cases are decreasing in the United States, and masks are no longer required everywhere, but the pandemic is not over — and will not be until younger children can also be vaccinated, epidemiologists said in a new survey by The New York Times. The true end of the pandemic — when it...

www.yahoo.com

 

[GT_EE78]

My point is the emergency approval was still by the FDA. That is FDA Approval.

No, it is FDA authorized. (as in emergency use authorization). approval is a different word with a different meaning.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No, it is FDA authorized. (as in emergency use authorization). approval is a different word with a different meaning.

Again, semantics. Emergency authorization and approval for use in this instance are essentially the SAME thing. The FDA has said "you can use these vaccines," which is the same thing they'd say if they approved them the normal way. The FDA has signed off on the use of these vaccines.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Again, semantics. Emergency authorization and approval for use in this instance are essentially the SAME thing. The FDA has said "you can use these vaccines," which is the same thing they'd say if they approved them the normal way. The FDA has signed off on the use of these vaccines.

That’s actually not true. It was only approved due to the emergency of the situation. They are two different types of approvals, and for a reason. Or else they’d only have one approval.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That’s actually not true. It was only approved due to the emergency of the situation. They are two different types of approvals, and for a reason. Or else they’d only have one approval.

Once again. FDA approval. That's what I said. It is true. These vaccines have been approved for use by the FDA. PERIOD! If they weren't, then no one would be vaccinated.

 

[GT_EE78]

Again, semantics. Emergency authorization and approval for use in this instance are essentially the SAME thing. The FDA has said "you can use these vaccines," which is the same thing they'd say if they approved them the normal way. The FDA has signed off on the use of these vaccines.

False. It's not the same thing. One difference is that long term safety tests were waived for EUA.
It's still "Emergency Use Authorization" and nothing says “emergency” like jabbing your kids with an experimental, unapproved drug.
(especially when that demographic has minuscule chances of serious infection,transmission or death)

 

[forensicbuzz]

False. It's not the same thing. One difference is that long term safety tests were waived for EUA.
It's still "Emergency Use Authorization" and nothing says “emergency” like jabbing your kids with an experimental, unapproved drug.
(especially when that demographic has minuscule chances of serious infection,transmission or death)

I'm not saying their the same thing. I'm saying there's no difference between the two in this specific instance. They will never go back and do the limited Phase 3 studies normally required to gain FDA approval. The FDA will approve the vaccines based on the real-time data from the hundreds of millions of vaccinated people. The use of the emergency authorization in this instance was akin to FDA Approval. The FDA approved the emergency authorization, which makes these vaccinations FDA approved. My point is not difficult to understand.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm not saying their the same thing. I'm saying there's no difference between the two in this specific instance. They will never go back and do the limited Phase 3 studies normally required to gain FDA approval. The FDA will approve the vaccines based on the real-time data from the hundreds of millions of vaccinated people. The use of the emergency authorization in this instance was akin to FDA Approval. The FDA approved the emergency authorization, which makes these vaccinations FDA approved. My point is not difficult to understand.

Nobody is arguing any different. We’re just explaining they will eventually have regular approval, but don’t yet.