Coronavirus

[TespaceX]

Businesses need to be checking vax status of patrons. The law enforcement would be no worse than checking for the sale of alcoholic beverages to the underaged.

Checking ID for alcohol, lottery, etc is not that difficult and is not polarizing.

Checking for vaccination status, on the other hand, can be very difficult. I’m not sure whether that responsibility should be borne by business owners. I know many small business owners in areas that started requiring proof of vaccination or test status. Depending on the area and clientele base, there have been occasional struggles. It’s not like the law enforcement is around to help out or anything, either. That kind of requirement policy is asking employees making just above minimum wage to deal with crazies. Sometimes, it’s just not worth the potential issues.

 

[msm859]

Yes, you are dramatizing it, but if you FORCE this healthcare decision on people, then where do you draw the line?

It's a short argument to mandating everyone go to the gym and lose weight . . . . for the public good.

I would disagree that it is a slippery slope to mandating everyone going to the gym to lose weight. Another persons weight will have zero effect on my personal health. Although I am in favor of universal health care, so I would not object to an extra tax on sugar, alcohol and tobacco etc. to offset the extra costs an unhealthy lifestyle would lead to.

 

[bkp_duke]

I would disagree that it is a slippery slope to mandating everyone going to the gym to lose weight. Another persons weight will have zero effect on my personal health. Although I am in favor of universal health care, so I would not object to an extra tax on sugar, alcohol and tobacco etc. to offset the extra costs an unhealthy lifestyle would lead to.

Another person's weight has a large effect on your insurance rates (they are determined by population, according to actuarial tables). That was my point. When you let gov into healthcare, even with something that seems as innocuous as a vaccine mandate for a pandemic, you will never get them out. And if single payer comes to fruition, you can BET the gov will want to cut costs and dictate health outcomes, and some of that will be through mandates, etc. that infringe upon your choices.

 

[msm859]

Another person's weight has a large effect on your insurance rates (they are determined by population, according to actuarial tables). That was my point. When you let gov into healthcare, even with something that seems as innocuous as a vaccine mandate for a pandemic, you will never get them out. And if single payer comes to fruition, you can BET the gov will want to cut costs and dictate health outcomes, and some of that will be through mandates, etc. that infringe upon your choices.

As I said, I would have no problem with extra taxes or surcharges based on personal unhealthy life styles. Perhaps discount when you can show healthy lifestyles. I trust we could have objective measures put in place. Smokers should pay more, obesity pay more, alcohol etc.

 

[bkp_duke]

Interesting:

An FDA Panel Says Only High-Risk Americans And Those 65+ Should Get COVID Boosters

Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration supported boosters of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for a smaller group of people after they voted against recommending it for anyone 16 and older.

www.npr.org

16-2 against boosters for anyone under 65 without "high risk"

That's not split decision, and falls in line with what we see clinically (i.e. your risk of hospitalization and/or death if you have had 2 shots and don't have comorbidities is LOW).

This decision also, largely, falls in line with the WHO recommendations.

 

[Dave EV]

As I said, I would have no problem with extra taxes or surcharges based on personal unhealthy life styles. Perhaps discount when you can show healthy lifestyles. I trust we could have objective measures put in place. Smokers should pay more, obesity pay more, alcohol etc.

Private insurance companies have been doing this for ages for life insurance policies. For health insurance, they use age at the very least.

 

[jjrandorin]

I just want to throw out there that this thread is not moderated, and it is not likely we will start moderating it now (with the exception of things like racial attacks or something like that).

So, if someone posts something offensive related to this topic you do or dont believe in, please feel free to put them on ignore from a personal level. If you dont want to do that, understand that people are going to say whatever in this thread, and act accordingly.

if something does cross into racial attacks or something, that would be different, and subject to further action up to and including banning from the site.

(moderator note: Re surfacing this quote, as we received a few new reports from this thread.)

Re surfacing this quote again.

 

[madodel]

Re surfacing this quote again.

All's good. Just friends having some disagreements. All things considered I think we get along pretty well here. Even with that occasional disagreement this thread still probably has the least noise to facts of any other. We just have to stay out of politics.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

16-2 against boosters for anyone under 65 without "high risk"

That's not split decision, and falls in line with what we see clinically (i.e. your risk of hospitalization and/or death if you have had 2 shots and don't have comorbidities is LOW).

Note as mentioned above the recommendations of the panel were unanimous approval for 65 and over and for people with the relevant comorbidities, not just immunocompromised (anyone at risk of severe COVID-19). This covers a huge number of people (and effectively everyone who wants it, really. And also unanimous (poll question, not an official vote) for:

- Anyone in jobs which put them at high risk of occupational exposure (so frontline workers - like police, paramedics, firefighters, teachers, grocery store workers, healthcare workers, etc.)

Basically exactly what one would hope for. Now they just need to ensure that people at risk understand they should get these promptly! (Of course, this second piece of information is not making it into the headlines, which is mysterious.) To be fair, the data is still REALLY confusing on exactly what is happening. It looks to me like it's likely just waning protection against infection and delta had little to do with it. Risk against severe illness seems fairly unchanged if you account for the increased number of infections (meaning there is more of a risk of severe illness but it appears to be because the first line of defense is breached - not because the secondary protection is weakening). These statements may be less true in older populations. But all the data is so confounded it's impossible to say. Definitely the right decision to just follow the signal in the data and shore up defenses of those at high risk. It seems very clear that there is some waning going on, against infection, for sure. And we want to reduce infections, to protect the vulnerable.

There's really no time to lose - or we'll be playing catchup in November.

I guess technically it's not officially approved - this was VRBPAC, not FDA. But seems like a formality, though it's not required they abide by the recommendations.

I've got my booster, even though I'm not high risk (others in my family are, and I just used up vaccine that would go to waste, so I feel I've done my part), so no longer really worried one way or the other.

 

[bkp_duke]

Note as mentioned above the recommendations of the panel were unanimous approval for 65 and over, and also unanimous (poll question, not an official vote) for:

1) People with the relevant comorbidities, not just immunocompromised (anyone at risk of severe COVID-19). This covers a huge number of people (and effectively everyone who wants it, really).
2) Anyone in jobs which put them at high risk of occupational exposure (so frontline workers - like police, paramedics, firefighters, teachers, grocery store workers, healthcare workers, etc.)

Basically exactly what one would hope for. Now they just need to ensure that people at risk understand they should get these promptly! To be fair, the data is still REALLY confusing on exactly what is happening. It looks to me like it's likely just waning protection against infection and delta had little to do with it. Risk against severe illness seems fairly unchanged if you account for the increased number of infections (meaning there is more of a risk of severe illness but it appears to be because the first line of defense is breached - not because the secondary protection is weakening). These statements may be less true in older populations. But all the data is so confounded it's impossible to say. Definitely the right decision to just follow the signal in the data and shore up defenses of those at high risk. It seems very clear that there is some waning going on, against infection, for sure. And we want to reduce infections, to protect the vulnerable.

There's really no time to lose - or we'll be playing catchup in November.

I've got my booster, even though I'm not high risk (others in my family are, and I just used up vaccine that would go to waste, so I feel I've done my part), so no longer really worried one way or the other.

I wasn't arguing against that. But what this DOES say goes right in line with the data we have to date for the mRNA vaccines:
Despite antibody titers waning (which is expected if you have read my previous posts), sufficient immune response remains in most fully vaccinated individuals to keep them out of the hospital and out of the grave.

I would bet my TSLA shares that the vast majority of those that are vaccinated but are landing in the hospital and, worse, dying, are those that are "relatively immunocompromised". I.E. the EXACT group that the FDA panel recommended a booster for (over 65 - relative immunocompromise there just by age; other specialty groups with immunocompromise; etc.).

And the healthcare workers just makes sense, they have probably a 100X exposure compared to the general population.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I wasn't arguing against that. But what this DOES say goes right in line with the data we have to date for the mRNA vaccines:
Despite antibody titers waning (which is expected if you have read my previous posts), sufficient immune response remains in most fully vaccinated individuals to keep them out of the hospital and out of the grave.

I would bet my TSLA shares that the vast majority of those that are vaccinated but are landing in the hospital and, worse, dying, are those that are "relatively immunocompromised". I.E. the EXACT group that the FDA panel recommended a booster for (over 65 - relative immunocompromise there just by age; other specialty groups with immunocompromise; etc.).

And the healthcare workers just makes sense, they have probably a 100X exposure compared to the general population.

Yes, I think it all makes sense. This decision, once it is official, allows people to make their own decisions about their risks, and anyone who wants a booster will be able to get a booster. (Essentially, everyone qualifies since any individual can choose to have elevated risk at this point.) Additionally those most at risk have been specifically called out in the "real vote" recommendation.

Meanwhile, they've not undermined confidence in the vaccine.

Best of both worlds: approved for everyone, without demoralizing anyone about the quality of their vaccination.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yes, I think it all makes sense. This decision, once it is official, allows people to make their own decisions about their risks, and anyone who wants a booster will be able to get a booster. Additionally those most at risk have been specifically called out in the "real vote" recommendation.

Note, this is the FDA Advisory board. It's not yet a full FDA-approved recommendation. It has a little bit to go before people can go out and say "the FDA approved this, give me my booster".

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Note, this is the FDA Advisory board. It's not yet a full FDA-approved recommendation. It has a little bit to go before people can go out and say "the FDA approved this, give me my booster".

Yes, as noted (modified) in my posts above. It's VRBPAC. The FDA approval and detailed verbiage will come next week for the EUA.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

approved for everyone,

* Who got Pfizer

 

[scottf200]

Smoothing out the FL new reporting methods gets you over 300 per day.
Easy to copy/past the data from: https://newsnodes.com/us_state/FL
which only gives a chart for rolling 1 week.

 

[wdolson]

Worldometers says 686k dead, 0.2066% of US population. And while I'm pretty sure the 1918 pandemic is over, Covid still has room to run. Deaths from all causes data indicates at least 100k of Covid undercount, putting us close to 0.25% by Halloween when this wave hopefully ends.

0.2066% of the population is just about 1/3 of the death percentage from the 1918 flu. And we aren't done. I strongly doubt we're going to triple the death toll by the time we're done. Though if we have a mutation that completely defeats the vaccination or previous infection with the transmission rate of Delta it could get that bad, but if that happens, we're screwed in a lot of ways.

 

[Norbert]

Worldometers says 686k dead, 0.2066% of US population. And while I'm pretty sure the 1918 pandemic is over, Covid still has room to run. Deaths from all causes data indicates at least 100k of Covid undercount, putting us close to 0.25% by Halloween when this wave hopefully ends.

Yes, and regarding the end, I'm hopeful too but I said "maybe" long before and I'm still not convinced....

Current US death rate is about 25% higher than the average since it started April 2020. So you could argue it's increasing rather than ending.

 

[madodel]

* Who got Pfizer

My wife is happy. She had Pfizer in January and she meets two of the criteria.

In local news my wife tells me the other (smaller) hospital here in our county has been on ER diversion for over a week now and her hospital is telling her that they will be limiting elective surgery. No word on elective procedures and cardiac testing. Hopefully they have figured how to keep those going to bring money into the hospital. They came close to closing down a year ago because they were getting close to not being able to pay their bills because of no surgery, procedures or testing. And while they still have a few beds they are desperate for staff. She said that critical care nurses are being paid $180/hr. I wonder how long they can afford that. That has to be more than what many if not most physicians are paid. And since it is impossible to find a rental here a lot of them are living at the hospital while working 12 hour shifts. Our county is finally over 50% full vaccination at 52.1%. Also our Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has limited a number of types of certain alcoholic purchases to no more than 2 bottles a day because of supply issues.

 

[bkp_duke]

Big gap between Pfizer, Moderna vaccines seen for preventing COVID hospitalizations

Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine does a significantly better job of preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations compared with Pfizer's shot.

www.latimes.com

 

[msm859]

Big gap between Pfizer, Moderna vaccines seen for preventing COVID hospitalizations

Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine does a significantly better job of preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations compared with Pfizer's shot.

www.latimes.com

Can't open the article but I have read other sources that the "big" gap is @ 5%. However, wouldn't that be an argument for opening up a booster shot to more people? Maybe over 50 years old? I understand not wanting to rush to give to people under 30 - especially males.
Although again it is sad that probably the only reason we are having this conversation is because there are so many people who refuse to get vaccinated.