Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Rasulis]

But you have to! The Hipocritic oath says you have to.

/s

The practice is not new. Even before Covid, around 21% of pediatricians and 6% GPs in the US refused to see unvaccinated families. Partly because they think that can motivate people to get vaccinated and partly out of economic concerns because 41% of parents refused to go to a pediatric practice that accept unvaccinated families.

Some random Covid news.

COVID-19 booster shot for Pfizer, Moderna vaccines will be available Sept. 20


New Orleans Saints won't refund ticket holders who refuse vaccine or COVID-19 test

[zEmini]

Well I have gone defcon 1 on anti-maskers. I just can't take this stupidity anymore. You might get punched if I hear your bullshit.

[PhaelixWW]

Already planning on getting mine while on vacation in Vegas. Got my tickets already and then found out it’ll be 2 days after I get there. Thankfully I’m taking a bit over 2 weeks so a day or two of feeling like poo isn’t a huge deal.

I'm gonna guess that if you've already had two shots, the third isn't going to give you a strong reaction.

[Rasulis]

Really? I had a stronger reaction to the second than the first. As such I have no idea how vigorously my immune system is going to respond to being boosted. I’m bracing for a day or two of feeling washed out. If that doesn’t happen, sweet. If it does I’d rather not be unprepared and have it impact family time.

There are so many factors in play. So it is hard to say.

I had to look this up when our doctor told us that our regular annual flu shots may partially account for the mild breakthrough case (asymptomatic in my case and half a day fever in my wife's case) that we had.

Flu shot found to protect against severe effects of COVID-19

The study, titled "Examining the potential benefits of the influenza vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A retrospective cohort analysis of 74,754 patients," was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS One on August 3. This was the largest study of its kind and analyzed deidentified patient records from around the world, which strongly suggested that the annual flu shot reduces the risks of stroke, sepsis, and DVT in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu were also significantly less likely to visit the emergency department and be admitted to the intensive care unit.

Yes, we get our flu shots every year like clockwork for the last 25 plus years. Started when our children were young and kept bringing all kind of weird diseases home with them.

The analysis revealed that those who had not had the flu shot were significantly more likely (up to 20% more likely) to have been admitted to the ICU. They were also significantly more likely to visit the emergency department (up to 58% more likely), to develop sepsis (up to 45% more likely), to have a stroke (up to 58% more likely) and a DVT (up to 40% more likely). The risk of death was not reduced.

I am looking forward to a study which look at the effect of the combination of regular annual flu shots + 2 doses of Moderna vaccine.

[Rasulis]

Yeah, this is about the reaction to the mrna vaccines that produce an immune response. Not about other vaccines lessening the reaction to the virus itself. The vaccine is designed to elicit an immune response. The virus gets handled by one. Very different things.

It was just a random thing that I threw in. Not pertinent to your case.

[PhaelixWW]

Really? I had a stronger reaction to the second than the first. As such I have no idea how vigorously my immune system is going to respond to being boosted. I’m bracing for a day or two of feeling washed out. If that doesn’t happen, sweet. If it does I’d rather not be unprepared and have it impact family time.

It's just a theory, so take it with a grain of salt:

Studies are suggesting that recovery from COVID acts almost like a first vaccine shot. It primes your immune system to do the heavy work of the second dose, which is what is causing the strength of the reaction.

So people who haven't had COVID (or had only a light case) should have a worse reaction to the second dose, while those who have had COVID already should have a worse reaction to the first dose.

Yes, a lot has to do with the nature of the immune system of the recipient. While I suspect that people who have had a significant case of COVID are more likely to experience a bad reaction to the first dose, the more meaningful conclusion to come to is that people shouldn't have more than one bad reaction to a dose. If they had a bad reaction on their first, they're probably extremely unlikely to experience a bad reaction on the second, as well.

So my guess is that most people will only have one bad reaction out of their shots. Whichever dose does the most "work" is the one that's most likely to make you feel like poo, though not everyone who gets the shots will necessarily have even a single bad reaction. I didn't, but I also have long suspected that I had COVID back in late December of 2019.

I'm not sure this will ever be proved one way or the other, but it'll be interesting to see what people's reactions are like once they start doing those booster shots. It's certainly possible that the reaction might be strong in people who have had two shots, but who had them long enough ago that their antibody levels have waned significantly. We'll see.

[Zantos]

This whole thing is a mess, and walking back on guidelines isn't going to strengthen the response. Those who are fighting it are going to even harder now due to the reward for getting vaccinated being seen as being able to lose the masks and relax a bit. Now they want to take that away from being a reward for a vaccine.

What I want to know is, what happened to finding a way to treat this thing? Its all about the vaccines. I want to know what plans they have to actually treat and help cure those who have caught it. Its clear at this point that no matter what, they believe that people will catch it. Vaccinated or not. Treatment is something we just aren't hearing a lot about.

[Edge-]

This whole thing is a mess, and walking back on guidelines isn't going to strengthen the response.

You mean adjusting guidance to fit the current level of spread? Are we supposed to just ignore things going on because to adapt to changing situations would be confusing for people?

Now they want to take that away from being a reward for a vaccine.

There is no "reward" for being vaccinated. There's an amount of safety, but no "reward", and if you were looking for that it would be the programs like lotteries and free stuff for getting vaccinated.

This sucks for folks getting vaccinated, but blame the unvaccinated folks, not the medical professionals who are simply responding to current conditions.

What I want to know is, what happened to finding a way to treat this thing? Its all about the vaccines.

Well...

1. Prevention is always FAR superior to treatment. Treatment treats the symptoms, it doesn't address potential long lasting side effects. Know what does? Not getting it to begin with.

2. Research into treatment continues, vaccines were just ready first - https://covid19.nih.gov/treatments-a...-19-treatments

I want to know what plans they have to actually treat and help cure those who have caught it.

It's extremely unlikely there will be a "cure" in the sense you talk about. Again, most treatments are about mitigating symptoms more than anything else. They likely won't address long-lasting side effects.

Its clear at this point that no matter what, they believe that people will catch it. Vaccinated or not. Treatment is something we just aren't hearing a lot about.

Again, because treatment is far, far, far secondary to prevention. Prevention is how you beat something like this, see polio/smallpox etc.

[Zantos]

It’s not walking back, it’s matching the level of infection. People need to stop misrepresenting what’s happening.

Look, call it what you will. The fact of the matter is, they dangled relaxed rules and more freedoms as a reward for vaccinations and are now saying that that's not a thing any longer. By literal definition it is walking back, regardless of the reasoning behind it. And as I stated, it will have negative effects for trying to get more people on board to get vaccinated and may even draw more people who would have otherwise gotten them away as well now.

That is where we are now. The infections are out of control. It was a bad move in general to even relax the rules in the first place. I am still of the opinion that we need a national response and to stop leaving it up to the states. When you have one state leading in rising case numbers next to another that wants to lock down, its a losing battle. Especially since a lot of people work cross state around boarders.

[Edge-]

The fact of the matter is, they dangled relaxed rules and more freedoms as a reward for vaccinations and are now saying that that's not a thing any longer.

Because cases are going back up and some states don't have any ICU beds left. Hell, Texas has requested 5 morgue trucks from FEMA to deal with their dead.

By literal definition it is walking back, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

I guess you could call it that, or simply reactive to the current situation. Ever had an unexpected setback? That's what this is. Again, blame the unvaccinated for making this worse, not the medical professionals.

That is where we are now. The infections are out of control. It was a bad move in general to even relax the rules in the first place. I am still of the opinion that we need a national response and to stop leaving it up to the states. When you have one state leading in rising case numbers next to another that wants to lock down, its a losing battle. Especially since a lot of people work cross state around boarders.

Well, federal powers are limited, and even if they could the backlash would be insane. Especially given how many states like Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas are going now. So again, the problem resides with the governors and state legislatures that refuse to take action for purely ideological reasons, leaving their constituents to get covid and die.

Because there's a god-damned Death Cult in the US.

[Zantos]

You mean adjusting guidance to fit the current level of spread? Are we supposed to just ignore things going on because to adapt to changing situations would be confusing for people?

Lets be real, its not adjusting to the current levels of infection or the situation. Its a bandaid, and not a very good one. We need actual restrictions and something to curb this.

There is no "reward" for being vaccinated. There's an amount of safety, but no "reward", and if you were looking for that it would be the programs like lotteries and free stuff for getting vaccinated

Its exactly what this was seen as. The general public saw it as a means to finally get back to normal and that normal was why they are following the guidelines as is. Those who will that is. Others don't care and are ignoring it, which is what is spurring this whole thing.

Well...

1. Prevention is always FAR superior to treatment. Treatment treats the symptoms, it doesn't address potential long lasting side effects. Know what does? Not getting it to begin with.

Disagree with this sentiment. They are both equally important. Preventing a fire is whats best yes, but fixing and repairing the damage is just as important when you know it will happen to some. You need to be prepared for both of them.

Again, because treatment is far, far, far secondary to prevention. Prevention is how you beat something like this, see polio/smallpox etc.

Again, disagree with this sentiment. At this point, its not the same as those. We don't have a 100% effective treatment and this is far more likely to mutate than either of those two. Two very different beasts. Most other things that we rely on vaccines fore mutate very slowly, if at all. So using vaccines alone to prevent and eliminate them works very effectively. Covid is mutating too quickly to rely on that path alone. Every other week we are asking ourselfs "are they good vaccines against this newly found strain?"

[Edge-]

Lets be real, its not adjusting to the current levels of infection or the situation. Its a bandaid, and not a very good one. We need actual restrictions and something to curb this.

I don't disagree. But sadly that's not really gonna happen given the realities of how the country operates and how people are behaving.

Lets be real here, its exactly what this was seen as. The general public saw it as a means to finally get back to normal and that normal was why they are following the guidelines as is. Those who will that is. Others don't care and are ignoring it, which is what is spurring this whole thing.

Ok, and if the general public is mad at medical professionals instead of the unvaxxed idiots, they're channeling their anger the wrong way because they can't rub a few brain cells together.

Disagree with this sentiment. They are both equally important. Preventing a fire is whats best yes, but fixing and repairing the damage is just as important when you know it will happen to some. You need to be prepared for both of them.

Again, they're bloody well not. Prevention is, and will always be the best "treatment" for anything. Period. No questions asked. Ever. Do we need strong polio treatments in the US? No, we don't. Why? Because there are functionally no cases in the US and we don't have a need to treat a disease that people are vaccinated against.

As I pointed out, research into therapies continues, vaccines had a big leg up with the MRNA methods that allowed them to more quickly produce an effective vaccine.

[Tuor]

1. Prevention is always FAR superior to treatment.

Under normal circunstances i would say yes, its safer to drive with the sitbelt on then driving without it. Sadly these are not normal circunstances. Look at israel, 69% of population vaccinated and it exploded again like a bomb, it had already happened in the UK. But its even worst, pappers are comming out claiming that the immunity triggered by the vaccines starts falling in 80+ people in a matter of 3 months, even the same pappers report that vaccines are still usefull after 6 months.

The Rt of the virus is too high, if we want to speek in prevention there is only one way, lockdown's, sadly most countries can't afford another lockdown. This leaves only one other option, treatment.

[Rasulis]

Under normal circunstances i would say yes, its safer to drive with the sitbelt on then driving without it. Sadly these are not normal circunstances. Look at israel, 69% of population vaccinated and it exploded again like a bomb, it had already happened in the UK. But its even worst, pappers are comming out claiming that the immunity triggered by the vaccines starts falling in 80+ people in a matter of 3 months, even the same pappers report that vaccines are still usefull after 6 months.

The Rt of the virus is too high, if we want to speek in prevention there is only one way, lockdown's, sadly most countries can't afford another lockdown. This leaves only one other option, treatment.

The vaccine works extremely well in preventing hospitalization and death. San Francisco is the best example.

It has the second highest population density in the US at 18,832 people per square mile. Actually higher since more than 20% of SF lands are open space and park.

There are currently 115 hospitalized Covid patient in SF. No fully vaccinated patient. No children. Not a single fully vaccinated death due to Covid complications so far. Mortality wise, SF had 5 in June, 9 in July and 2 so far in August. All not fully vaccinated.

The Bay Area 9 counties have had only three fully vaccinated deaths due to Covid complications. The first two were over 90 and the third one was 75 years old.

There is no greater testament to the efficacy of the current Covid vaccines than what we see in SF.

[Zan15]

True he is vaccinated, and for some reason he used monoclonal antibody treatment, despite having no symptoms.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08...ositive-covid/

WHY in GOD'S name would he take something that is not approved by the FDA!!! its experimental! it has 6g in it!!! its from dead babies!!!

did i miss anything?


Also Fuck this guy for taking it while people who are actually sick need it and have no chance of being able to get it or afford it

[Forogil]

WHY in GOD'S name would he take something that is not approved by the FDA!!! its experimental! it has 6g in it!!! its from dead babies!!!

did i miss anything?

Actually that's that more correct than you probably thought.

It's, of course, emergency-use authorized, but only:

• As treatment if you have mild (or worse) disease and you are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19
• As prophylactic if you are not fully vaccinated (or immunocompromised)

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safet...ntion-covid-19
Based on the fact that he is fully vaccinated and allegedly didn't have any symptoms, I cannot see that the emergency-use-authorization is valid for him.

Also Fuck this guy for taking it while people who are actually sick need it and have no chance of being able to get it or afford it

[PhaelixWW]

Under normal circunstances i would say yes, its safer to drive with the sitbelt on then driving without it. Sadly these are not normal circunstances. Look at israel, 69% of population vaccinated and it exploded again like a bomb, it had already happened in the UK. But its even worst, pappers are comming out claiming that the immunity triggered by the vaccines starts falling in 80+ people in a matter of 3 months, even the same pappers report that vaccines are still usefull after 6 months.

Just because antibodies wane at a certain point doesn't mean the vaccines aren't still effective at blocking serious illness and death. It just means that you're more likely to get sick, but almost certainly have a weak case. If everyone were vaccinated, this wouldn't be a very big deal at all.

The Rt of the virus is too high, if we want to speek in prevention there is only one way, lockdown's, sadly most countries can't afford another lockdown.

That's not true. The more people who are vaccinated, the lower the Rt. The more people use protective measures like masks and distancing when possible, the lower the Rt. At this point, lockdowns are not the only answer.

A treatment would be nice, however, if for no other reason than for people who are immunocompromised.

[Rasulis]

I want to throw this here.

Colleges impose COVID testing fees of up to $1,500 for unvaccinated students

At some colleges and universities this fall, it’s pretty straightforward: No vaccine, no class.

At others, the approach is different: Unvaccinated students will pay fees of hundreds of dollars to cover the cost of having them regularly tested for COVID-19.

Schools that have announced fall-semester COVID testing fees so far have been based solely in states dominated by Republicans, some of whom have opposed or even outlawed mandates:

• Birmingham-Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama: $500.

“We think it’s important that the people that are requiring us to test them pay for those tests,” said Daniel Coleman, president of Birmingham-Southern College. “I don’t think it’s right for the people who don’t need to be tested to pay for those who choose not to be vaccinated.”

• West Virginia Wesleyan College in Buckhannon, West Virginia: $750.

“Students who do not submit a proof of vaccination status or who are not vaccinated will be required to undergo weekly surveillance testing,” the university said on its website. “The cost will be covered by the Covid Fee charged to all unvaccinated students.”

• Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee: $1,500.

That fee was announced earlier this summer, but it has since been rescinded. Instead, Rhodes College will now mandate vaccination. The school’s public relations team did not respond to a request seeking comment.

[Zan15]

Actually that's that more correct than you probably thought.

It's, of course, emergency-use authorized, but only:

• As treatment if you have mild (or worse) disease and you are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19
• As prophylactic if you are not fully vaccinated (or immunocompromised)

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safet...ntion-covid-19
Based on the fact that he is fully vaccinated and allegedly didn't have any symptoms, I cannot see that the emergency-use-authorization is valid for him.

of course not why would they follow the rules everyone else needs to follow.

can you imagine anyone who test positive runs out to get this treatment. supply would dry up in minutes

- - - Updated - - -

I want to throw this here.

Colleges impose COVID testing fees of up to $1,500 for unvaccinated students

Oh its going to get way worse
Wait till you guys see your insurance bills next year. Health and Life.

They can't directly charge the unvaccinated more for health insurance, though possibly under life insurance depending on state.

They CAN however charge EVERYONE more money based on good old analytics and underwriting calculations.

Can't wait to see pricing @ the macro level by locality based on vaccination rates. Oh its going to be ugly.

[Granyala]

So my guess is that most people will only have one bad reaction out of their shots.

Nope.
1st dose was AZ, "bad" reaction incl. fever etc
2nd shot was BioNtech, same "bad" reaction as above.

I've read so far, that 3rd shots are comparable in reaction to 2nd mRNA shots.