Huh? There was nothing rude in my post. I was responding directly to your take from the video that "we should be exposed to viruses and bacteria". I was pointing out that no, obviously there are certain viruses and bacteria that NOBODY should be exposed to. It would be extremely catastrophic. If you *want* to be exposed to COVID to build your immunity, then good luck with that I guess. But I would suggest taking precautions. Even if you believe in herd immunity (which is a legitimate medical concept), I wouldn't volunteer to be in the herd. For a medical doctor to encourage exposure to a deadly virus is just stupid.
This IMO shows to me that there's no effective way to protect just the vulnerable population. They need to come into contact with the rest of the world at some point of time, and the only way to reduce the risk of transmission is if the rest of the world is also relatively devoid of the virus. Very well respected...by whom? You? The business community? Certainly not the medical community. Vaccines work by eliciting an immune response, same as the actual virus, right. Look, I'm less of a germophobe than the vast majority of the population. And I'm a big believer that being too clean is a detriment to our health just like you. I actually don't think this way because I believe we need to be prepared for infections, but out of the belief that being too clean opens us up to developing allergies and other autoimmune conditions. Look up the Hygiene Theory if you're not aware of it. It's probably more effective when this practice is done with kids, so I'll be allowing my kids to get dirty early on. With that said, while it's nice to have guiding principles in life, we live in a world full of shades of grey. There is not a single principle that can be applied to every situation. COVID is one of these situations. With COVID, not only is it a novel disease that can cause significant morbidity in the otherwise young and healthy (trust me, survivors of the ICU are not the same as before they went to the ICU, so death isn't the only way this virus can screw up your life), it is also something that minimally symptomatic and asymptomatic patients can easily spread to others. With vaccines, they can also potentially can give you all the benefits of actually getting the disease (i.e. confer immunity) without all the potential downsides (e.g. permanent reduction in lung capacity, scarring leading to frequent pneumonias in the future, ICU myopathy and neuropathy, PTSD, among many, many others). Science indicates that the best thing to do is to take the vaccine, assuming it's a good one. You can wait to see if it's a good one, but to deny it altogether indicates that you're harboring false beliefs that are not based on evidence.
Yeah, the argument "perfect data or don't report" makes no sense. It's preposterous. They cant get an exact figure on COVID deaths (probably never will with 100% certainty, as anyone who ever took statistics knows nothing is ever stated with 100% certainty, only in "confidence intervals"). But obviously we know people are dying from COVID. They have 75,000 "confirmed". But there are probably alot more. Let's hypothetically say the true figure is 100,000 as of today. Which would be more statistically accurate? To report NOTHING, or to report the 75,000 which the doctors can confirm with a degree of certainty? I'll take the best available information, thank you very much. I think most people can get a handle on the idea that more information and more study improves the accuracy of the numbers.
An article about overreacting immune systems killing people with covid19 How does the coronavirus kill?
Good post. Evidence does support getting the flu vaccine. I just don’t. It’s been working so far. I’m pretty healthy and in my 40s, I have a bit of a luxury. I will not have my healthy family will be test subjects for a fast tracked covid Vaccine, however. My 75 yr old mother may want to take that risk, but I doubt it. She’s healthier than me.
That was my argument too. You can't throw out 4300 deaths in the name of "accuracy" when the vast majority are probably correct. A low number is just as inaccurate as a high one (especially when buckeye's argument was he believed 70-80% were COVID related). In fact, having a number that is 3000-3500 lower compared to 900-1300 higher is way less accurate.
I guess I may be missing it. But what does that have to do with a healthy immune system? That seems to refer to an overreacting immune system. Couldn’t a weak immune system overreact?
I also don't get the flu vaccine. But will probably get this, because it's so much more deadly than the standard flu. However, I wouldn't necessarily want to be in the "1st batch" of vaccine in case it fails to deliver or even has a negative outcome (i.e. because it was rushed to market). I think i'll wait and see to decide first, perhaps in the 2nd go around. Though if the outbreak gets extremely severe I might change my opinion and want to go sooner, just as I might go the other way if the virus naturally goes away.
I'm going to defer to @dingyibvs because I have no idea how a weak immune system would respond to the coronavirus. My laymen brain thinks that if an immune system was weaker (meaning fewer cells) then the overreaction wouldn't be quite as severe. I have no idea what other complications that would cause though.
Many will make that decision. No doubt based on their view of the actual deadliness of the covid virus. Can’t blame anyone for going either way. Of course, I don’t blame anyone for any choice they make. Whether that’s sheltering in a place for a decade or frolicking on the beach with 20 friends.
I truly don't understand why people don't get the flu vaccine. Even if the flu isn't as likely to kill you it still SUCKS to get. I'll take a super cheap way to lower that chance by 50% all day.
In his linked article, it mentions a higher than average presence of a certain protein as causing the overreaction. It’s not clear why that protein is high and in whom.
The govt will figure out a way to make the covid vaccine mandatory, one way or another. Just don't be one of the first to line up.
Good book called "Live Dirty, Eat Clean" by Robynne Chutkan on this topic. She also did a podcast with Rich Roll if you are into podcasts.
Normally, I would have confidence in a vaccine approved by the FDA. My confidence is considerably less with the current administration since the White House will undoubtedly pressure the agency to approve any vaccine that can potentially prevent Covid-19 infection even if the vaccine hasn't been adequately tested. As far as a mandate is concerned it would probably be indirect rather than absolute, similar but more wide ranging than the current vaccination requirements for students. For example, vaccination could be required for certain occupations in which there is public contact (teaching, healthcare, retail sales, etc), possibly as a condition for transportation on public conveyances like planes or trains or as a condition to attend school.
One of Trump's personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus By Kaitlan Collins and Peter Morris, CNN 1 hr ago A member of the US Navy who serves as one of President Donald Trump's personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus, CNN has learned Thursday, raising concerns about the President's possible exposure to the virus. The valets are members of an elite military unit dedicated to the White House and often work very close to the President and first family. Trump was upset when he was informed Wednesday that the valet had tested positive, a source told CNN, and he was subsequently tested again by the White House physician. One of Trump's personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus
I'd rather be in the herd, (many of us already are BTW) than take a rushed vaccine. I doubt we will have one with good data before 12-18 months. I'm basing this on the fact that I have been a Sub investigator on over 350 clinical trials over the last 15 years.
