Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Right. And by not even compiling and studying a major component…the cdc has lost the trust of people who want to know the best way to navigate this.

Just ignoring basic science and telling people who have had the disease to take a new drug is ridiculous. And the reason the cdc lacks any trust from a lot of people. I know some still put their trust in the cdc. But it is really hard to navigate what to believe from them.

 

First, testing for reinfection with a disease that can be asymptomatic or very mild in a significant number of people is impossible, unless we do weekly tests of everybody. Rewind 16 months, when testing was difficult to attain, and how many people thought they might have just had allergies, but really had COVID, never got tested? Without this control, any results in a large scale study would be skewed, because there is a number of people there who got a reinfection, but never confirmed their first one. How many? That's very difficult to say, which is the point.

Second, the CDC did weigh in on natural versus vaccine immunity. You just don't like what the CDC had to say.

 

Mask-wearing cuts Covid incidence by 53%, says global study

Mask-wearing cuts Covid incidence by 53%, says global study

 

So, if you add tested and proven antibodies as exempt from the mandates you’d be on board with requiring everyone else be vaccinated?

 

I don’t think anyone should be mandated to take a drug.

Fortunately osha is backing off. Unfortunately this was just a coercion tactic.

 

So do it? Why are you calling upon the medical field to do your data dissemination? You and I disagree about the extent of data that are readily available. If you are concerned about misinformation, share the valid information. It's one of the reasons I shared the CIDRAP podcast (not implying that you needed it and not using it as any kind of "told ya so." I'm simply sharing a resource that people might find of value.).

Perhaps you are misreading me here. I used RNs as an example of people who perform data entry, not the sole performers of that work. If you think hospital/medical administrators have plenty of time (time is a key resource) to provide the data you seek, then we simply disagree again. Perhaps someone in the medical field (@slightlyskeptic or the MD whose name escapes me) can speak to this.

Post 30125, but you found it.

I recommend episodes 78 (Boosters and Breakthroughs) and 64 (Straight Talk).

 

It is a primary obligation of government to promote the general welfare of the public. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the fact is a great deal of what government does helps keep us safer than we'd otherwise be and without government's public health focus based in science when it comes to fighting or preventing infectious disease, we would be in far worse shape than we are.

On the other hand, I'd argue we're in worse shape than we should be with Covid not because of govt but because of a public in which a large swath of people have been unable to grasp the dangers of Covid and have been resistant to doing their part to limit the spread.

That we are such a large country makes it much more critical to try to limit that spread. The larger the population, the more avenues and opportunities there are for virus to spread and the greater necessity to take actions that try to limit it. Again, this is about the danger of infectious disease--especially one where we didn't have treatments or immunity or vaccines--i.e. no weapons to fight it. Now that we have weapons, it's less dangerous. But it will always be dangerous because danger is in the nature of infectious disease itself. This is life.

There's a different argument to be made, albeit one near impossible to prove: lockdowns and social distancing might have suppressed the community spread of Covid than otherwise would have occurred. We only know what happened, much harder to determine what didn't. Not to mention, there is still much to be learned about the spread and why it has varied considerably, whether within the US and between nations.

I'd also suggest that from the outset, we've focused on treatment as well. In fact, treatment was a first priority because of the immediacy of the danger, with community spread and deaths skyrocketing. Vaccines being a primary tool of public health is a longer term prophylactic w/vaccines being central to our public health response because they help prevent people from getting sick in the first place. With diseases in which individuals might not respond to treatments and which the virus itself comes with some unpredictability, it makes no sense to simply rely on treatment as the first defense over the long haul because the goal is to prevent sickness and the harms coming from infection.

One other point. The development of Covid vaccines will not stop. They will be improved upon to enhance prophylactic efficacy. And quite to the contrary proclamations of some on here, vaccines have been extremely effective in slowing the spread and limiting sickness and death from Covid. We've seen this in the comparative (and striking) numbers posted on this thread a few weeks ago. Of course, they are not 100% effective--no vaccine is per se. But they are weapons that offer immense protection and combined with treatments, have helped us fare much better despite the massive outbreak of the delta variant. I hate to think where we'd be without either right now.

 

If only the cdc was promoting for better healthcare. Instead they are promoting a narrative and not doing their job. They are pushing for mandates or orders. That is not appealing or promoting. And they are doing so while ignoring for the most basic of science in natural immunity. They have been an abject failure on this pandemic. It is really unfortunate we are where we are.

 

Are you serious or just trolling?

YOU CANNOT DOSE NATURAL IMMUNITY. LETTING EVERYONE GET COVID AND ACHIEVE NATURAL IMMUNITY IS NOT PREVENTION.

The CDC is looking for ways to beat covid. That's their mission. The best way to do that is to get as many people immunized against covid as possible. The only ethical way to immunize people is with a vaccine. Again, and I'll type it slowly this time so you'll be sure to understand it - you cannot dose people with natural immunity. Seriously - natural immunity may be the greatest thing since sliced bread (time will tell), but it's not a viable strategy to just infect everyone with covid and wait to see where the chips fall. So we do what we can and try to get people to take the damn vaccine. It's really not that complicated...

 

The CDC isn't ignoring natural immunity--it's that natural immunity could only be achieved on some large scale by large numbers of people getting sick. The greater the number of those getting sick, the greater the number of long term unnecessary harmful health effects and the greater number of unnecessary deaths.

We get it, you don't like mandates, but it's people like you who are confused and worse, those spreading disinformation that basically compel mandates because those resisting increase the danger to others. It's been antivaxxer and antimasker types that have been abject failures, at either demonstrating any sense of concern for the greater good (how odd in a supposed "Christian" country) or well-informed understanding of science and public health.

 

Yeah...looking at the best ways to beat covid. Let's be honest about what works. Now the cdc has discredited itself to the point that I bet we will see a drop in many of the normal vaccinations that have long term data to support their use for efficacy and safety. Which is not good and I hope I am wrong but there are a lot of people not that look at what is happening and will allow it to cloud their judgement on drugs that have long term track records. All because a bunch of morons want to push a brand new drug into people for a disease that is not that dangerous to many. Ignoring the most basic of science. So instead of focusing on the people who are high risk we push policies that force people who are low risk to do something that is honestly...risky to them with no long term data.

No one is suggesting everyone get natural immunity as a prevention measure. But to ignore it in the fight against the disease is one of the dumbest things we could have done. THESE DRUGS ARE NOT PREVENTING COVID. Hope my caps work as well.

 

Yes they are ignoring it to a large extent. They have the ability to put guidance out that acknowledges those who have natural immunity are protected. In fact it is quite clear they are more protected than those who have taken the new drugs.

 

THESE NEW DRUGS MITIGATE THE SPREAD OF COVID. Your refusal to acknowledge this is borderline sociopathic.

 

They have data that they are not releasing publicly. Throughout the pandemic I have been somewhat regularly received information from docs in the Shands system and docs in the NFRMC system. Ok, if you don't want to release your data...fine. Then don't complain about people not participating in behavior that you'd like for them to participate in (and I say this to the docs), "why is it my problem?" they say...because you are the one seeking behavior changes, I say in return. Why should the burden fall on the folks *not* seeking behavior changes?

I'm fine with the status quo in terms of impact to me and my family (no vaccination mandate in my line of work, no vaccination mandate for the children, no mask mandate in effect for the children, we all politely oblige if we're asked to don masks on public transit or in some local stores). Before the "selfish" labelers attack: I'd like to help those who aren't (fine with the status quo), but people who want the help have to be willing to share a little bit of information, have an open mind about opposing viewpoints. It gets frustrating seeing people complain, go complain to your bosses to release the information that they have to help better inform the public. We have so much more information available, it shouldn't be a complicated technical process to export that information at regular intervals...that makes it a complicated political process.

I do when I can. Thinks like the California COVID death rate vs. the FLORIDA COVID death rate and how misleading the superficial numbers are. I think it's important for people to look at these things with an open mind and check at the door which side they were perceived to be on when they walk into the discussion. I feel good about saying the vaccinations have had a positive impact on the severity of the disease; I feel good about encouraging people to get the vaccine. I also feel good about saying that healthy children don't need them (consult with your own pediatrician, of course); I also feel good about saying our society will be just fine if some/many parents don't want their children to physically participate in the "for the good of others" project. I do think there should be more information released on the numbers of folks who have fared better than others or worse than others besides just diabetes and obesity, but some would say that is more of a privacy issue than a data distribution issue (regardless, it's not helpful).

The other thing I struggle with is how we aren't using this as an opportunity to emphasize healthier behaviors. For all the mask signs we see, how about a little "have you checked your glucose level lately?" or maybe a little "did you run/exercise for as long as you looked at your phone or computer screen today?" I just find it weird that we don't see more information presented about things like how many of those who have died (or even had extreme illness) are <65, not obese, and don't have diabetes or pre-diabetes. Maybe some of the reason that some in their 20's thought they were invincible is because they didn't know they were pre-diabetic? Isn't it possible that THIS kind of information could save lives as well? Just some food for thought.

Agree to disagree. I've seen the emails. They're sharing more information than the general public get to look at. I don't know how much time any of them have, but if I could spend 50 hours collecting and distributing data so that I don't have to spend 100 hours begging and dealing with complaints (and that's just *one* person's direct benefit from that work)....

I will check them out.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Why assume such evaluations have not been conducted?

 

I'm not. I just haven't found what I'm looking for.

I'm looking to review the ones that have been done. For example.

If mandates get you to 90% compliance and no mandates gets you to 75% compliance, what is the net differences in hospitalizations over time and deaths over time? If it's not overwhelming the hospitals, and if the people mostly receiving the damage are adults and of right mind to make their own decisions (extreme (L/R) wing jokes aside), are these damages at an acceptable level?

And with that 75%, are there potential measures that could be explored to increase that to a higher number (if necessary)?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Only thing lp

- I'm not sure how you could do that accurately because you can't run control group and keep other factors similar.

- there is state data out there that could get you in the ballpark, compare 2 states that are otherwise similar but different compliance rates. But there are other variables.

- you may be able to look at different larger counties in some states

- your desire to do all this is from a perspective of not wanting to do things being recommended. From a simplistic perspective the higher percent vaxxed the lower the spread of serious illness, period.

 

This and about 13,457 other vaccines hesitant posts again fail to recognize that not being vaxxed affects others by increasing chance of spread. Even if health care facilities aren't overwhelmed it's a waste of resources to treat unvaxxed. It isn't always just about you. It's amazing this concept will just not sink in with some.

 

Except that the CDC has acknowledged it. But you state this notion of protection as if it's something that is absolutely true. It's not "quite clear." There is variation in what has been found in terms of protection and durability of an immune response.

 

I'm in Alachua County, what spread are you talking about:

Alachua County COVID-19 Dashboard

There are about 15 people in Shands + NFRMC that are unvaccinated and have COVID. That's 15 people in a county with a population of approximately 270,000 people (nevermind the surrounding counties that utilize Shands/NFRMC services.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS