Did the CDC jump the gun?

By the way, some of the statements made in that video are plain examples of not knowing the body AT ALL. The vaccine should stay in the muscle? LOL

Vaccines and many other injections are given intramuscularly because muscle tissue is well vascularized. The injected substance is **supposed** to get into the bloodstream quickly, not stay in the muscle. There are other situations where an injection is used but they are given intravenously or in specific locations (intra-articular, like a knee or shoulder injection) or subcutaneous instead of into the muscle layer. That's just to name a few. 

Come to think of it, I wonder if they looked into putting the liposomes into a solvent like the ones used for long lasting injected doses, called depot injections. One shot delivers enough drug to last for weeks, if not a month, as it slowly gets released from the oily reservoir. Several drugs have that formulation. Doing it for this vaccine would provide a sustained introducing of the antigen to annoy the immune system. You'd develop a strong immune response but it would be a rough ride for a while.

ml1 said:

and I went back through this thread and another one on getting back to normal after COVID, and not surprisingly I didn't find instances of people wishing harm on the unvaccinated, or calling for compulsory vaccinations.  Personally I said I DON'T think we should be wishing unvaccinated people infect each other.  And I've expressed that I think private businesses like sports franchises should be able to limit contact with unvaccinated people.

 As a reminder, what you said is...

The notion that people will honestly follow the guidelines after all we've seen this past year is sheer insanity. I guess those of us who are vaccinated should just say **** those people if they infect each other.

terp said:

The nanoparticles are the package that the mRNA resides in.

As a reminder, how you prefaced a video clip about the non-disintegration of nanoparticles is …

It is not true that the mRNA disintegrates quickly.

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

Well, there are a number of doctors that seem to think that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid and that effectiveness may be increased when used in combination with other drugs.

More relevant to this discussion would be the number of doctors who recommend forgoing a vaccine in favor of risking Covid and needing the “extraordinary” measure, as the Emory doctors you linked to described it, of treatment with ivermectin should you come down with it.

 What is that number?  Do these doctors make the same recommendations regardless of factors like age, health, and the existence of comorbidities? 

 I know when my dog’s doctor prescribes ivermectin he factors in her weight. It’s expensive, but I’ll eat 5 heartgards a month as long as they’re chewy and beef flavored. My dog doesn’t really need them.

terp said:

ml1 said:

and I went back through this thread and another one on getting back to normal after COVID, and not surprisingly I didn't find instances of people wishing harm on the unvaccinated, or calling for compulsory vaccinations.  Personally I said I DON'T think we should be wishing unvaccinated people infect each other.  And I've expressed that I think private businesses like sports franchises should be able to limit contact with unvaccinated people.

 As a reminder, what you said is...

The notion that people will honestly follow the guidelines after all we've seen this past year is sheer insanity. I guess those of us who are vaccinated should just say **** those people if they infect each other.

 where is the WISH for harm to people? I don't want to see people get sick but if they take risks and get infected it's their own fault isn't it?

You see what you want to see.

terp said:

Where is the study that says hundreds of thousands of more people would die and hundreds of thousands of more people would be grappling with long term health problems without the vaccine?  That is quite an assertion.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind proving it.

And your reading comprehension could use some work.  Again, get the Trump vaccines, wear your masks.  I don't care, and I certainly don't think that makes it likely that you'd be a nzi sympathizer. 

What makes me think one would support a tyrannical regime is insisting that everyone abide by authority over their own best judgement and to wish them Ill or to celebrate their loss of rights and priveledges.  This is something you do repeatedly and have done on this thread.  You play dumb, but the posts are there.

Perhaps I am a crank, but I don't wish anyone Ill will, nor do I want to see anyone's rights or priveledges revoked.  I certainly would not make fun of that prospect. 

I'm not "celebrating" anything. But peiple need to be responsible for their decisions. And what makes you think the decision to be vaccinated isn't being made by people using their own best judgment? Do you think only those who refuse are using their judgment. I'm sure at least some of them are reflexively anti-vax and not using much thought at all. 

You definitely made an analogy public health adherence and Nazis. I don't need to argue that again 

And how is this explained if not by vaccinations? 

terp said:

What is that number? Do these doctors make the same recommendations regardless of factors like age, health, and the existence of comorbidities?

I don’t know the number. I was suggesting that, whatever it is, it would be more relevant than the “number of doctors” you suggested was relevant. (If I had to guess, I’d guess that it’s a very small number, if any at all.)

speaking of anti-vaxxers, you gotta read what this clown has to say about it.

I know this article uses a more alarming tone than I'd like, it does speak about data.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/delta-variant-vaccination-covid-surges

The risk we all face by allowing the virus access to a host population is that more variants will arise. Some won't be of concern but the arrival of the delta variant shows what also can happen. According to observed data, it spreads more easily and causes more serious illness in those who contract it. So far, scientists have not found it to be resistant to the effects of the vaccines. Let us hope that continues to be the case but know that other mutations may appear against which our vaccines do not offer protection because of a more significant change.

bikefixed said:

I know this article uses a more alarming tone than I'd like, it does speak about data.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/delta-variant-vaccination-covid-surges

The risk we all face by allowing the virus access to a host population is that more variants will arise. Some won't be of concern but the arrival of the delta variant shows what also can happen. According to observed data, it spreads more easily and causes more serious illness in those who contract it. So far, scientists have not found it to be resistant to the effects of the vaccines. Let us hope that continues to be the case but know that other mutations may appear against which our vaccines do not offer protection because of a more significant change.

 this is why refusing to vax isn't just a "personal choice." We vaccinate for ourselves of course but we also vaccinate for the safety of everyone else too. 

This is not an instance in which one individual's rights should trump the welfare of the majority. We are a single species on a single planet. What one of us does or does not do can impact everyone else regardless of that one person's intent. Unvaccinated adults are not just endangering themselves.  They are endangering our children and grandchildren who are under 12 years-of-age and providing a breeding ground for the development of variants which might be resistant to existing vaccines.  

terp said:

Where is the study that says hundreds of thousands of more people would die and hundreds of thousands of more people would be grappling with long term health problems without the vaccine?  That is quite an assertion.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind proving it.

You want a study? There already was a "study".  Before there was a vaccine, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. If there was no vaccine, that would continue. Unfortunately, that "study" is still going on in other parts of the world.

You don't need a formal "study" when simple logic tells you that the vaccine is needed to prevent additional death and long-term injury.

Maybe this will help you: It's like 2+2=4.

jamie said:

this sounds like a libertarian thread - might have to move it to politics.

 It's MOL's version of Godwin's Law, except with Libertarianism.

nohero said:

You want a study? There already was a "study".  Before there was a vaccine, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. If there was no vaccine, that would continue. Unfortunately, that "study" is still going on in other parts of the world.

You don't need a formal "study" when simple logic tells you that the vaccine is needed to prevent additional death and long-term injury.

Maybe this will help you: It's like 2+2=4.

 in January as vaccinations ramped up, the U.S. was in the middle of another surge in infections with an average of 3,000 COVID-19 deaths per day. Without vaccinations, or serious social distancing measures (which was another thing I noted in my comment) it's not much more than basic math to say it would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths. 

And given the exponential spread of the virus if unchecked it might have been even worse than that. Being anti-vax for whatever reason one might have is one thing. But denying the obvious evidence that vaccinations have crushed the infection curve is just willful blindness. 

terp said:

Where is the study that says hundreds of thousands of more people would die and hundreds of thousands of more people would be grappling with long term health problems without the vaccine?  That is quite an assertion.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind proving it.

 Wouldn't that just be the clinical trials done as part of the vaccine approval process?

PVW said:

 Wouldn't that just be the clinical trials done as part of the vaccine approval process?

 Yes. The number of infections in the control groups vs in spite of the vaccine. The rates of asymptomatic people, those with mild symptoms and those requiring hospitalization & the types of necessary treatment interventions. And more.

That data is used to assesses the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and to extrapolate the results of not administering the vaccine on a broad scale. Terp seems reluctant to accept that those trials mean something important.

bikefixed said:

PVW said:

 Wouldn't that just be the clinical trials done as part of the vaccine approval process?

 Yes. The number of infections in the control groups vs in spite of the vaccine. The rates of asymptomatic people, those with mild symptoms and those requiring hospitalization & the types of necessary treatment interventions. And more.

That data is used to assesses the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and to extrapolate the results of not administering the vaccine on a broad scale. Terp seems reluctant to accept that those trials mean something important.

 Terp seems kind of reluctant to accept that vaccines do any good at all.

drummerboy said:

 Terp seems kind of reluctant to accept that vaccines do any good at all.

 anyone reading his comments over the past few years could have predicted exactly his reaction to a mass vaccination program in response to a pandemic.  How is it critical thinking to come to your predetermined anti-"authorities" conclusion first and then work backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion? 

With regard to whether or not the rest of us were thoughtful in our decisions to be vaccinated, speaking for myself it would have taken a lot more consideration with different results on efficacy and side effects. A vaccine like those for the flu that may only be 50% effective might give me pause. Particularly if it had relatively significant probability of side effects. 

So who's using critical thought? The "freedom" people? The anti-vaxxers? Maybe. Or maybe not so much.  

With regard to whether or not the rest of us were thoughtful in our decisions to be vaccinated, one just has to look at the very high percentage of Maplewood and South Orange residents who have received at least one dose of the vaccine to have the answer to that question.

Unvaccinated people are incubators for virus variants.

nohero said:

Unvaccinated people are incubators for virus variants.

Unfortunate, but true. It worries me hreatly. It also makes me frustrated on behalf of those who legit cannot get vaccinated or have to take immune suppressants that would thwart an antibody's benefits.

nohero said:

Unvaccinated people are incubators for virus variants.

 absolutely. 

I guess there's this notion that we should respect any POV on COVID-19 vaccinations, even those who are anti-vax. And let's leave aside those who have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. For them the only rational choice is not to vaccinate. 

But for anyone else, if they really do their homework and weigh the risks there's only one choice that minimizes personal health risk and minimizes public health risk. And that's being vaccinated. 

The fact that the vaccines don't have full FDA approval yet is something of a red herring. Because there are safety protocols even for emergency authorized vaccines. We're now a year past the first test subjects and there are still no known long term side effects.  And we're almost six months past widespread rollout in the US with minimal numbers of negative reactions. 

Of course there are unknowns regarding long-term effects of the vaccines. But there are also many unknowns regarding long-term effects of a COVID-19 infection. Given the history of vaccine safety against the history of long term health consequences from viral infections again doesn't seem like that difficult a choice based on personal risk assessment. 

If the thought process is careful, deliberate and rational, based on good and truthful information it's hard to imagine how a person can come out on the anti-vax side of the issue. 

I do have sympathy for vaccine hesitancy. Asking questions in a good faith effort to truly understand is always important and commendable, and I do believe that an honest engagement with the evidence overwhelming supports getting vaccinate for the majority of people.

What is frustrating is seeing bad faith actors taking advantage of this positive, natural impulse to question to spread fear and misinformation. You can tell it's bad faith because of the glaring inconsistencies of their standards -- nit-picking small or irrelevant details in studies showing the efficacy of vaccines, for instance, while being unquestionably credulous about claims that some alternative treatment is a highly-effective, side-effect free cure. Or wild leaps of logic, for instance arguing that masks are useless and then, rather following the obvious logic of such claim to stress the importance of social distancing, arguing against social distancing as well.

Look, one shouldn't just accept a claim because Dr. Fauci or the some other official says so, but neither does one need to -- we can all see the fact that this virus has killed millions and left millions more with serious health issues. Knowing that it's a respiratory virus, we can use reason to see that social distancing limits exposure, and that barriers over your nose and mouth reduce your own potential expulsion of virus particles. We can see the dramatic decrease in cases and severity as vaccination campaigns have rolled out.

On the other hand, trusting in hydroxychloroquine or invectomine or some other treatment on the authority of some anti-establishment hero is to fall prey to "appeal to authority" argument the anti-establishmentarians claim to be avoiding. Rejecting an authority other people trust in favor of a personality you yourself trust isn't being "anti-establishment," it's just choosing an alternative establishment, and the same concerns -- that the advice could be coming from financial, political, or ideological motives rather than a place of honesty -- apply just as strongly.

Use your eyes and use your head. And for god's sake, if you have real health concerns, ask your doctor, not some random person on the internet.

bad faith? or lunacy?

PVW said:

I do have sympathy for vaccine hesitancy. Asking questions in a good faith effort to truly understand is always important and commendable, and I do believe that an honest engagement with the evidence overwhelming supports getting vaccinate for the majority of people.

What is frustrating is seeing bad faith actors taking advantage of this positive, natural impulse to question to spread fear and misinformation. You can tell it's bad faith because of the glaring inconsistencies of their standards -- nit-picking small or irrelevant details in studies showing the efficacy of vaccines, for instance, while being unquestionably credulous about claims that some alternative treatment is a highly-effective, side-effect free cure. Or wild leaps of logic, for instance arguing that masks are useless and then, rather following the obvious logic of such claim to stress the importance of social distancing, arguing against social distancing as well.

Look, one shouldn't just accept a claim because Dr. Fauci or the some other official says so, but neither does one need to -- we can all see the fact that this virus has killed millions and left millions more with serious health issues. Knowing that it's a respiratory virus, we can use reason to see that social distancing limits exposure, and that barriers over your nose and mouth reduce your own potential expulsion of virus particles. We can see the dramatic decrease in cases and severity as vaccination campaigns have rolled out.

On the other hand, trusting in hydroxychloroquine or invectomine or some other treatment on the authority of some anti-establishment hero is to fall prey to "appeal to authority" argument the anti-establishmentarians claim to be avoiding. Rejecting an authority other people trust in favor of a personality you yourself trust isn't being "anti-establishment," it's just choosing an alternative establishment, and the same concerns -- that the advice could be coming from financial, political, or ideological motives rather than a place of honesty -- apply just as strongly.

Use your eyes and use your head. And for god's sake, if you have real health concerns, ask your doctor, not some random person on the internet.

 Vaccine hesitancy is something different than what I'm trying to describe.  Because that implies that the person is still undecided and seeking information.  I'm referring to the people being described as anti-vaccination after thoughtful consideration (as opposed to the rest of us who are unquestioningly following "the authorities"). It's hard to believe anyone could go into the process of deciding whether to vaccinate in good faith, with an open mind, relying on credible sources, and come out the other end believing that the risks associated with the vaccine outweigh its personal and public health benefits.

Of course, there are a lot of people who couldn't give a **** about public health.  A person like Cole Beasley probably doesn't, although even the argument he's making regarding his own health is pretty illogical, so who knows?  But as I've mentioned before, for the "personal freedom" folks who consider themselves libertarians, this pandemic and the public health remedies have to be disorienting.  Because everything that kind of person believes flies in the face of scientists' advice, and certainly in the face of the government regulations.  But it's obvious that everyone doing what they think is best for themselves as individuals was not going to stop a pandemic.  It necessitates everyone doing their part from social distancing and mask-wearing when we can't distance, to participating in the vaccine program.

I hope someone like Cole Beasley doesn't get infected and then have to face the possibility that he infected another person who dies.  There are immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine doesn't offer much protection.  The vaccinated among us help protect those vulnerable people.  A guy like Beasley seems like a complete jerk, but I'd have to imagine even he'd be pretty shattered at the thought that someone died because he wouldn't be vaccinated.

drummerboy said:

bad faith? or lunacy?

 Lunacy. Anyone with a brain can test easily whether someone has been magnetized. You put a magnet over their head and see if the person repels the magnet.

I would love to ask these people.  How often - prior to being vaccinated - did you test your body's level of magnetization?

jamie said:

I would love to ask these people.  How often - prior to being vaccinated - did you test your body's level of magnetization?

 they would never have done that.  It would have impurified their precious bodily fluids.

This is from an email I received from a market researchers' group.  Rex Briggs (https://speakerrex.com/#)has been looking into COVID-19 infection trends for the past year or so, and in today's message he writes about vaccinations and the infection rate over the past several months (chart is below):

What do you think of the definition of insanity, "doing the same things and expecting a different outcome?" Does it apply to those not getting vaccinated?
A great way to look at time series is with an 18month overlap. It shows what we might expect if things are similar to last year - plus you get 6 month to see how last year compares to this year. I applied this approach to COVID deaths per million data, and check out how closely those not vaccinated are following the trend for last year.
What is clear: If you aren't vaccinated, COVID is just as deadly, (actually it is about 40% worse when I account for age).
Considering the trend last year, I can't help but to quote a line from a series, "Winter is Coming.
"My latest vaccination rates by county is at speakerrex.com/dash.html, under "vaccination." If anyone needs this data, it is the most comprehensive and accurate data source on vaccination rates in the US by county as of Jun18, and I am happy to share it. I had to combine CDC with CovidActNow, and individual state dashboards, sometime hand coding state data in because it wasn’t electronically readable. I complete pain, but it should help Ad Council, etc. better identify which counties need more support.

I guess if you're an anti-vaxxer, you can try to claim that the downward trend in infections that corresponds with the downward trend in unvaccinated Americans is just a coincidence.  But really?