Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Does one have to be "anti-booster" if they are not "pro-booster?" Is a "wait-and-see" approach definitively unreasonable?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Without a specific reason, by definition, yes, it is unreasonable.

 

The specific reason may be "I've had COVID, I've had the original two shots to be considered 'vaccinated,' and I am seeking data that indicates that these measures are insufficient or that a booster substantially increases my protection." Notably "substantially increases" and "insufficient" may be subjective.

Just one example.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I think he’s talking about the seasonality of the virus.

Probably makes some sense, if you start seeing a spike in infections more people are going to go get their shots. During a lull in infections you would expect an opposite effect, more people delaying. It’s not totally irrational to keep an eye on the current numbers and let that play a role.

No different from the flu vaccine where you generally want to get it right before “flu season”. Problem with COVID is the seasonality is all over the place in different geographies. FL has had its worst waves in the summer (but it also had a winter wave last year, so who knows).

 

The data shows that boosters benefit people who have been vaccinated. Given that the vaccine benefits people who have had prior infections, this appears to be digging in for no good reason. The ever increasing lines of how much data is needed appears to be more of a cover for something else.

 

Nope, but good try. It's obvious I was right. It was a waste of resources when we choose to do it the way the US did it. The WHO's way of vaxxing the world first before boosters was the way to go. Also IF we didn't vax the previously infected we would've save countless lives worldwide.

 

Nope, but good try. If you haven't previously had Covid, the vaccine increases your protection. If you have previously had Covid, the vaccine increases your protection. Both are factual statements based upon the data you provided. Therefore, since a person either has or has not previously had Covid, it is factual to say that the vaccine increased protection for every person regardless of prior Covid status.

 

If Pfauci said boosters every month, covid crazies would line up, no questions asked.

 

What about vaccinated plus previously had COVID? What if it's been less than 4 months since vaccination? How would you describe the measurability of the advantage gained? I think some folks few this as a "what's the harm?" While others view it as a "what's the benefit?" And then there's the matter of how much does it take to move the needle of "significant" relative to a given situation.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

As to your first question, it likely is a complex answer based on the nature of your hybrid immunity. If you had an infection in March 2020 and a vaccine in February 2021, it seems likely that a booster would help you. If your vaccine or Covid bout was in September 2021, then it probably is unnecessary on a personal level.

I don't believe that boosters have been authorized at this stage for less than 4 months since vaccination for the general public. If the data shows they should be, then they will be. You started with the notion that "what's the harm" was essentially the bottom boundary of pro-vaccination.

The problem is that you are desperately trying to rationalize what are irrational choices. People make irrational choices. You don't have to try to rationalize them to understand them. In fact, attempting to rationalize the irrational often results in less accurate assessments that recognizing their irrationality in the first place. It might make you feel better to think that these folks are coming to decisions for rational reasons, but you feeling better/worse is not an important component of accurately identifying what is going on.

 

Respectfully, you just rationalized one of the choice parameters in the example I gave with the included paragraph. I think you have to be careful not to blanket too much into the realm of "irrational choices."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. I addressed your points as they came. You are attempting to turn irrational choices into rational ones. I can address your arguments in attempting to rationalize with rationality while still recognizing that this is not how people make decisions in general.

I have yet to see a group for whom get vaccinated rationally is harmful beyond a few specific prior health conditions. As such, most anti-vaccine decisions are, by definition, based in some degree on irrationality.

 

Cannot speak specifically for @BLING but it also depends on how you define "short life span". While the vaccine does loses effectiveness after six months, a person who has received two doses of an mRNA vaccine still has a significantly less chance of developing a severe case of Covid-19 than an unvaccinated individual even after six months and taking into account the declining antibodies.
From the study indicating the declining effectiveness of the vaccine.

Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness drops after 6 months, study shows

 

I might add that the cost of vaccination is around $35 a shot. The cost of Regeneron is $2,100 a treatment. The cost of the oral Merck treatment is $712 per pill. The cost of the Pfizer oral treatment is estimated at $530 per treatment. Although there are other reasons for promoting prevention through vaccination rather treatment through a therapeutic if cost alone is a factor vaccination wins hands down even though many more people would have to be vaccinated.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, poor big pharma, $1,000 per second nothing but chump change...and on the taxpayers dime no less.
Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna making $1,000 profit every second while world’s poorest countries remain largely unvaccinated - World

 

I don't see that you are disagreeing with me. My point is about not generalizing because there are valid reasons and rational decision-making processes taking place (regardless of whether or not they are a minority of situations or not).

[EDIT: Looking back at #31081, you asked about "somebody," my response was singular in nature. If even a singular response can be reasonable in the "non-pro-booster" world, then we shouldn't presume all non-pro-booster responses to be unreasonable]

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

And again, NOPE. So the hybrid immunity looks similar versus NI. It's a rise from 11.6 cases to 14 cases per 100k Risk days, so that is 2.4 cases prevented per 274 risk years, or 1 case per 110 years or so. And the other issue is this is just a PCR detectable case, not severe symptoms, symptomatic or being hospitalized. So at best it's a wash statistically.

 

Yeah, poor big pharma, $1,000 per second nothing but chump change...and on the taxpayers dime no less.
Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna making $1,000 profit every second while world’s poorest countries remain largely unvaccinated - World[/QUOTE]
Not that I would disagree but it does surprise me that you're suggesting that big Pharma donate their vaccinations to third world countries. By the way even when the vaccines are available citizens of third world countries are declining to be vaccinated. The anti-vaxxers in the US would be proud.
The Next Challenge to Vaccinating Africa: Overcoming Skepticism

 

You can try to explain around it all you like, but it is factual that the study that you provided shows that a person with a previous infection benefits with a lower probability of getting Covid by having the vaccine. That is just factual. It is statistically significant. Sorry, but that is what that analysis that you linked shows.

 

Yeah, poor big pharma, $1,000 per second nothing but chump change...and on the taxpayers dime no less.
Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna making $1,000 profit every second while world’s poorest countries remain largely unvaccinated - World[/QUOTE]and lord god fauci says more,more,more vaccinations needed