The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[plenzmd1]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

178 hospital employees out of 25,000?  LOL.  Enjoy that suspension without pay.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/kff-post-survey-of-frontline-health-care-workers-finds-nearly-half-remain-unvaccinated/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7432058002

 

it’s a lot more than you think. My point being there is no one blanket statement to cover thoughts on the vaccine in a subset of people.

 

and remember, those 178 believed so much in  not getting the shot they are losing their paycheck, and most likely job.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

Do you want to have a dialogue or keep posturing? 
 

A “certain generation” of people has opted to posture on the Internet. It’s young and old but the act is a bore to me. Not to most so if you want to be that way, you have many dance partners. If you want to talk about the studies, let’s do that. 
 

The Cleveland study is welcome news indeed. It’s excellent that our immune response to Covid is long lasting and robust. And the Penn study is also interesting in that a single shot to those who had Covid boosts antibody levels to as high as the two-shot level. And finally the third study in the original tweet was about the minor reactions to getting a shot if you previously had Covid (similar to reactions to getting the second shot). All of those studies are compatible with one another and the third is the least new news of them all and should, I posit, merit the least consideration on whether to get vaccinated. 
 

If you’ve had Covid and don’t want to get vaccinated, OK, your choice. Seems like a single shot boost would help the cause though. A doc in the WSJ yesterday actually wrote this exact thing. Just read it this morning but it’s on point. He references both the Cleveland and Penn studies by the way. We should invite him into this thread. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-11623171303?mod=mhp

That was my point the whole time… people who have had Covid and choose not to get the shot seem to be doing so informed, and with good reason. 
 

as I mentioned, I am fully vaxed and was first in line whenever they called, but acknowledge and understand hesitation in other groups. 
 

Edited June 10, 2021 by plenzmd1

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

 
 

The Cleveland study is welcome news indeed. It’s excellent that our immune response to Covid is long lasting and robust. And the Penn study is also interesting in that a single shot to those who had Covid boosts antibody levels to as high as the two-shot level. And finally the third study in the original tweet was about the minor reactions to getting a shot if you previously had Covid (similar to reactions to getting the second shot). All of those studies are compatible with one another and the third is the least new news of them all and should, I posit, merit the least consideration on whether to get vaccinated. 
 

If you’ve had Covid and don’t want to get vaccinated, OK, your choice. Seems like a single shot boost would help the cause though. A doc in the WSJ yesterday actually wrote this exact thing. Just read it this morning but it’s on point. He references both the Cleveland and Penn studies by the way. We should invite him into this thread. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-11623171303?mod=mhp

Huh...sounds like there is much to consider, and by reviewing available information, one can make an informed choice as to what is in one’s best interest. 
 

Welcome aboard. 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/kff-post-survey-of-frontline-health-care-workers-finds-nearly-half-remain-unvaccinated/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7432058002

 

it’s a lot more than you think. My point being there is no one blanket statement to cover thoughts on the vaccine in a subset of people. 

 

 

 

That was my point the whole time… people who have had Covid and choose not to get the shot seem to be doing so informed, and with good reason. 
 

as I mentioned, I am fully vaxed and was first in line whenever they called, but acknowledge and understand hesitation in other groups. 
 

I’m assuming there was a lot of background noise as this discussion unfolded, words were misunderstood or misinterpreted, mostly because it ended up where it started.  

[Sundancer]

59 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Huh...sounds like there is much to consider, and by reviewing available information, one can make an informed choice as to what is in one’s best interest. 
 

Welcome aboard. 

 

 

 

 

Why the sarcasm? 

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

acknowledge and understand hesitation in other groups. 
 

 

Same. We'd do well to have a dialog than a bunch of yelling/shaming, which only entrenches positions. 

 

Most people would clearly benefit from the vaccine and many groups disproportionately affected by the vaccine (obese people, black people) could really use less shame, more information on its safety and lack of side effects. In my state, over 65 vaccination rate is in the upper 90s%. I don't know but I suspect that's because those people were raised to believe in vaccines (their parent's generation had polio!). Most people alive today in the US have no exposure to vaccine-preventable childhood ailments. If Covid had been killing kids at the same rate or even half the rate it killed the elderly, the reaction to the vaccine would be totally different. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

Why the sarcasm? 

 

It’s hard to say.  It could be that in less than a 24 hour span, you suggested I put words in your mouth when discussing “informed choice”, that you suggested another poster having the same general discussion was a dick and internet tough guy (his biggest fault is implying he’s good looking) and that ultimately it seems we all agree on the basic premise of informed choice—which was the original post I made and that you responded too.  
 

On the other hand, it could be that I come from a large family with quite a few brothers and sarcasm is on the menu everyday. 
 

We can definitely consider this misunderstanding on me.  I can see now where I took this off track. 
 

By the way—on the informed choice issue, I never assume that what we know today is all

that we will ever know.  I’m not suggesting you do—but if I were unvaxxed and likely immune due to prior exposure, I’d also consider where we might be in 6-12 months as additional data was available, be it due to additional research or unfortunate truths previously concealed coming out over time. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[GaryPinC]

7 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

As I said, I am not anti vax, I was first in line to be jabbed , been fully vaxed since first week in April. 
 

But to suggest that anyone who does not get the jab is a flake, or that ALL people in a given subset.. be they healthcare workers , or males, or females , or liberals, or African Americans have one view on the vaccine is short sighted and leads to distrust across the board. 

 

BTW, I guess this sentence escaped your attention. 

I am not labeling you as anti-vax or any such thing, and thanks for being willing to get jabbed.  Nor do I feel anyone who doesn't get jabbed is a flake or anything worse.  One of my problems is with those who have poor or incorrect reasons for making their arguments.  

 

And yes, congratulations, you found one legitimate "first responder".  Then you quote a KFF study that essentially looks at anyone who interacts with patients in some way ("frontline workers"), which includes appointment takers to cleaning staff.

 

If you want to argue health care workers, doctors and nurses, or first responders then realize those are all different groups, especially in terms of their risk or perceived risk to contracting Covid.  That is why I feel your Houston example really doesn't support your first responder argument.

[plenzmd1]

22 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

I am not labeling you as anti-vax or any such thing, and thanks for being willing to get jabbed.  Nor do I feel anyone who doesn't get jabbed is a flake or anything worse.  One of my problems is with those who have poor or incorrect reasons for making their arguments.  

 

And yes, congratulations, you found one legitimate "first responder".  Then you quote a KFF study that essentially looks at anyone who interacts with patients in some way ("frontline workers"), which includes appointment takers to cleaning staff.

 

If you want to argue health care workers, doctors and nurses, or first responders then realize those are all different groups, especially in terms of their risk or perceived risk to contracting Covid.  That is why I feel your Houston example really doesn't support your first responder argument.

Look at many studies, across the board , in not mandated settings, heathcare vax rates well below 70%.

 

Posted the USA today article...quick qoogle search will lend many more.

 

That usa today article is behind a firewall (not sure how i read the first time..who pays for USA Today?)...but there was a quote in there like only 40% of the Covid team at one hospital is vaxed...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

If you go back in this thread there were studies that showed the death rate was likely 0.2 to 0.4% of those infected so that's not particularly surprising.  If you took the .2% and half the US population got infected with Covid then there would be approximately 630,000 US deaths.

 

I always wondered about excess deaths to access the severity of the virus considering we basically shut down our economy to combat it.  Results released in April showed the US death rate increased in 2020 increased for the first time since 2017 with an increase of 15.9% from 2019.  Suicide actually went down 5.6% which was surprising to me considering people didn't get their usual social fix.  Here's a better explanation of the preliminary data on deaths in 2020.

 

During January–December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population. COVID-19 was the underlying or a contributing cause of 377,883 deaths (91.5 deaths per 100,000). COVID-19 death rates were highest among males, older adults, and AI/AN and Hispanic persons. The highest numbers of overall deaths and COVID-19 deaths occurred during April and December. COVID-19 was the third leading underlying cause of death in 2020, replacing suicide as one of the top 10 leading causes of death (6).

A relative of mine who was a front line worker said they tested everyone once they had enough tests regardless of cod and coded covid if positive because $$. Not sure if pervasive, but it’s possible all the data is garbage... I’m not suggesting covid wasn’t a problem, just that actual number are suspect, low early because of lack of identification and perhaps then later inflated due to financial incentive. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

A relative of mine who was a front line worker said they tested everyone once they had enough tests regardless of cod and coded covid if positive because $$. Not sure if pervasive, but it’s possible all the data is garbage... I’m not suggesting covid wasn’t a problem, just that actual number are suspect, low early because of lack of identification and perhaps then later inflated due to financial incentive. 

It’s certainly a reasonable question.  I am mindful of the challenges with the relatively small circle of friends and family most of us draw experiences from, but my neighbor died after 6 months of weight loss, pain, suffering, significant damage to her intestinal tract post-cancer, and while she was in Hospice for end of life care.  She was diagnosed with  COVID a day or two before she died, and her cause of death was listed as COVID. 
 

Money talks. 

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s certainly a reasonable question.  I am mindful of the challenges with the relatively small circle of friends and family most of us draw experiences from, but my neighbor died after 6 months of weight loss, pain, suffering, significant damage to her intestinal tract post-cancer, and while she was in Hospice for end of life care.  She was diagnosed with  COVID a day or two before she died, and her cause of death was listed as COVID. 
 

Money talks. 

and the big flip was if she died of those causes two days after getting vaxed...she died of the other causes...as it should have been.

 

Couple days ago was watching GMA, and the scoll at the bottom said a California county was revising its death count down  by as much as 30% to somewhat address the with/from debate...but i cannot find anything online to substantiate that.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

SCIENCE !!

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s certainly a reasonable question.  I am mindful of the challenges with the relatively small circle of friends and family most of us draw experiences from, but my neighbor died after 6 months of weight loss, pain, suffering, significant damage to her intestinal tract post-cancer, and while she was in Hospice for end of life care.  She was diagnosed with  COVID a day or two before she died, and her cause of death was listed as COVID. 
 

Money talks. 

I told this story a couple of months ago. Our daughter had a baby in April.  The hospital required she be tested before going to the hospital for an induced delivery. Her husband did not need to be tested, even though he was right there with her during the delivery.  Why? Because he wasn't a patient. So then why was she tested? Answer....money!  The Hospital gets more money if they can say they treated a Covid patient. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I told this story a couple of months ago. Our daughter had a baby in April.  The hospital required she be tested before going to the hospital for an induced delivery. Her husband did not need to be tested, even though he was right there with her during the delivery.  Why? Because he wasn't a patient. So then why was she tested? Answer....money!  The Hospital gets more money if they can say they treated a Covid patient. 

Maybe the virus hovers over expectant dads the way it hovers over large crowds gathered in cities across the country at the peak of the pandemic?  
 

 

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

A relative of mine who was a front line worker said they tested everyone once they had enough tests regardless of cod and coded covid if positive because $$. Not sure if pervasive, but it’s possible all the data is garbage... I’m not suggesting covid wasn’t a problem, just that actual number are suspect, low early because of lack of identification and perhaps then later inflated due to financial incentive. 

That's why you look at the actual overall raw number of deaths as a whole (regardless of cause) because those are less prone to estimates and preconceived biases (if you think the lockdowns were overly restrictive you tend to find information suggesting it was an over count and an undercount if you think they didn't go far enough).

[BillStime]

 

[Chef Jim]

6 hours ago, Sundancer said:

 

Same. We'd do well to have a dialog than a bunch of yelling/shaming, which only entrenches positions. 

 

Most people would clearly benefit from the vaccine and many groups disproportionately affected by the vaccine (obese people, black people) could really use less shame, more information on its safety and lack of side effects. In my state, over 65 vaccination rate is in the upper 90s%. I don't know but I suspect that's because those people were raised to believe in vaccines (their parent's generation had polio!). Most people alive today in the US have no exposure to vaccine-preventable childhood ailments. If Covid had been killing kids at the same rate or even half the rate it killed the elderly, the reaction to the vaccine would be totally different. 

 

No obese people could really use the shame.  

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

and the big flip was if she died of those causes two days after getting vaxed...she died of the other causes...as it should have been.

 

Couple days ago was watching GMA, and the scoll at the bottom said a California county was revising its death count down  by as much as 30% to somewhat address the with/from debate...but i cannot find anything online to substantiate that.

 

That would be Alameda county which is predominantly Oakland and Uber liberal.  I was shocked when I heard they revised it down. 

[GaryPinC]

5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Look at many studies, across the board , in not mandated settings, heathcare vax rates well below 70%.

 

Posted the USA today article...quick qoogle search will lend many more.

 

That usa today article is behind a firewall (not sure how i read the first time..who pays for USA Today?)...but there was a quote in there like only 40% of the Covid team at one hospital is vaxed...

I found many more but they were dated winter and early spring.  Some papers give content to sites like MSN and will allow free access but if you try and follow links within the article to other stories they're paywalled.    Obviously there's the older model that gives access to like 5 per month then $$.

[TSOL]

35 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

I love opinions stated as facts.