Jump to content

The Third Booster Shot Debate - Are U going to get the booster?


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, d'ranger said:

A group in the Texas Medical Center in Houston headed by Dr Peter Hotez has a vaccine in trials in India - if approved is simple to produce, store and transmit and will be $1/shot - which is what is needed for 3rd countries.   We are all in this together, well except for Idaho.

Can taters wild in the country, or is that a city thing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 680
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I got my booster shot this morning and now totally understand the anti-vaxxers!  For starters, it took almost ten minutes from start to finish. I don’t have time for that. On top of that, it was free.

An excerpt from an excellent interview covering almost everything Covid https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/covid-expert-ben-neuman-vaccines-can-beat-variant-16412468.ph

Got home to Florida from Maine Sunday night. Walked into the Publix supermarket pharmacy five minutes from our house this morning with our vax cards in hand, got our Pfizer boosters, and did our groce

Posted Images

5 hours ago, 130lights said:

Getting my Pfizer booster tomorrow; 2nd shot was February 1.

Let us know how it goes. Neither of us had much reaction to the first two Pfizers other than a bit of local arm soreness. We had a lot more reaction to the shingles vaccine.

Third jab for us when we get back to FL in about three weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CDC director taking a middle path between FDA recommendations and Biden desires, opening boosters up to many more people, especially those with greater exposure. Given that no questions will be asked, much like the current opening for boosters for those with co-morbidities, this will effectively mean anyone in the US who really wants a booster can get it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So how is that CDC decision a science based decision when it overrides the recommendations of its own safety committee? 

I thought you cared about personal choice? Oh, only when it comes to NOT getting the jab. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So how is that CDC decision a science based decision when it overrides the recommendations of its own safety committee? 

Because scientists can and do disagree. It was a split decision within the committee about expanding boosters to people with increased exposure risks via employment.

Note that these are permissions or recommendations, not mandates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, accnick said:

Note that these are permissions or recommendations, not mandates.

You don't think they will lead to mandates?  They have in the past be it from Central or State Government or Employers.

The point is the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) voted overwhelmingly against based on their review of the science and data.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You don't think they will lead to mandates?  They have in the past be it from Central or State Government or Employers.

The point is the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) voted overwhelmingly against based on their review of the science and data.

 

The CDC director very carefully differentiated between who “may” get a booster and who “should” get a booster. 

That’s a critical distinction from a public health policy perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So do you think Schools and Grocery Stores won't now mandate booster shots for their employees now that they are "eligible"?

Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this...as kindly as I can.  Look at the giant surge of vaccinations up tom4 million a day. Who were getting those? The early eligible. The old....the ones with conditions...the health care workers...The early adopters. The "covid cautious." After dialing day and night and registering at several places and pounding appointment sites...do you seriously think most of those are NOT going to keep their vaccines up-to-date? Especially now the appointment drama is done and you can walk in? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheDragon said:

CDC director taking a middle path between FDA recommendations and Biden desires,

I thought CDC pretty much followed the FDA advisory panel recommendations. Are there any significant differences between CDC and FDA? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I thought CDC pretty much followed the FDA advisory panel recommendations. Are there any significant differences between CDC and FDA? 

No they didn't.  The advisory committee recommended booster shots for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions.

The CDC Senior Management overruled that and extended the recommendation to a broader population, including healthcare workers, grocery store workers, teachers and others whose jobs put them at “high risk” of infections, plus residents of prisons and homeless shelters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No they didn't.  The advisory committee recommended booster shots for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions.

The CDC Senior Management overruled that and extended the recommendation to a broader population, including healthcare workers, grocery store workers, teachers and others whose jobs put them at “high risk” of infections, plus residents of prisons and homeless shelters.

The FDA advisory panel voted 18:0 in favor of recommending extending the EUA for the booster for healthcare workers and other high risk occupational exposure.  
 

The FDA followed the advice of the advisory panel granting EUA for over 65 AND those at high risk due to occupational exposure. 
 

So, again, is there any significant difference between CDC decision and FDA decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The FDA advisory panel voted 18:0 in favor of recommending extending the EUA for the booster for healthcare workers and other high risk occupational exposure.  
 

The FDA followed the advice of the advisory panel granting EUA for over 65 AND those at high risk due to occupational exposure. 
 

So, again, is there any significant difference between CDC decision and FDA decision?

As I understand it, the final CDC decision on boosters was consistent with the FDA recommendations, but broader than the CDC panel recommendations.

Dr. Walensky did not pull her decision out if thin air.

For better or worse, there is often a political element to public health decisions. This does not necessarily render those decisions invalid.

The intersection between policy and science is not always a bright line, except for those seeking to trash the policy, the science, or both.

As Dr. Walensky said today, from a science perspective, this was a close call.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are our vigilant risk watchdogs seriously saying that someone who faces unmasked talking  people of unknown infectious status indoors in close quarters dozens to hundreds of times a day is worse off by getting a booster?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

Are our vigilant risk watchdogs seriously saying that someone who faces unmasked talking  people of unknown infectious status indoors in close quarters dozens to hundreds of times a day is worse off by getting a booster?  

No, he's just asking "interesting" questions... and of course, lying about what the FDA and CDC actually did/said. Because the truth makes him look like a dishonest pinhead.

FWIW Mrs Steam and I got our 3rd jabs this morning. Will report back if I start growing tentacles or something.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, accnick said:

As I understand it, the final CDC decision on boosters was consistent with the FDA recommendations, but broader than the CDC panel recommendations.

 

 

 

A week ago this was only a recommendation from the FDA Advisory panel.  But now we are further along than that.

On September 22nd the FDA followed the Advisory panel recommendation and authorized the booster shot for those populations including healthcare workers and other at risk populations.

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:

individuals 65 years of age and older;

individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and 

individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.

Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. 

Im not sure it really matters what the CDC thinks. Other than I suppose they could refine the definition of occupational at risk.

The FDA defined it as

"certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and day care staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, he's just asking "interesting" questions... and of course, lying about what the FDA and CDC actually did/said. Because the truth makes him look like a dishonest pinhead.

FWIW Mrs Steam and I got our 3rd jabs this morning. Will report back if I start growing tentacles or something.

- DSK

Which vaccine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Pfizer, same as original vaccine shots we received back in January

- DSK

How did your reaction to the booster compare to any reaction you might have had to the first two?

Asking because neither my wife nor I, both well over 70, had any significant reaction to the first two.

We will get the third when we get back home a few weeks from now. Fully vaccinated in February.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, accnick said:

How did your reaction to the booster compare to any reaction you might have had to the first two?

Asking because neither my wife nor I, both well over 70, had any significant reaction to the first two.

We will get the third when we get back home a few weeks from now. Fully vaccinated in February.

Dunno yet, it's only been about 2 1/2 hours. Nothing so far.

For the first two shots, I had a sore arm and felt out of sorts for the first, had sore arm and then felt tired & achy-jointed the 2nd day after, then fine.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets say that someone is almost 65, lives alone and really doesn't meet the stated recommended criteria for getting a booster.  Can anyone just walk in and get one?  Ypu know, because they live alone and just want to minimize the chances of getting sick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bridhb said:

So lets say that someone is almost 65, lives alone and really doesn't meet the stated recommended criteria for getting a booster.  Can anyone just walk in and get one?  Ypu know, because they live alone and just want to minimize the chances of getting sick.

If  you had the Moderna I don't believe there is evidence yet  to support the notion of a booster to prevent serious illness.

If you had the Pfizer it is of course a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, 12 metre said:

If  you had the Moderna I don't believe there is evidence yet to support the notion of a booster to prevent serious illness.

If you had the Pfizer it is of course a different story.

Both doses of the Pfizer nanobots seemingly a long time ago.  I was just wondering if I walk into the local Publix with my card, if they will give me the booster or will they say something like "you don't meet the requirements".

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bridhb said:

So lets say that someone is almost 65, lives alone and really doesn't meet the stated recommended criteria for getting a booster.  Can anyone just walk in and get one?  Ypu know, because they live alone and just want to minimize the chances of getting sick.

Chances are good that person qualifies. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0924-booster-recommendations-.html

"people aged 50–64 years with underlying medical conditions should receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series"

Underlying conditions include a BMI > 25 (~75% of the population), high blood pressure or having ever smoked. That's most folks. Drug stores and the like are not checking medical records.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, weightless said:

Chances are good that person qualifies. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0924-booster-recommendations-.html

"people aged 50–64 years with underlying medical conditions should receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series"

Underlying conditions include a BMI > 25 (~75% of the population), high blood pressure or having ever smoked. That's most folks. Drug stores and the like are not checking medical records.

 

Well, I am thin and have never smoked.  My mom did so grew up "smoking" her air I guess.  I will try it out Monday and see what happens.  Thanks for the information.  I actually looked on line to try and get an answer but it doesn't seem clear, possibly on purpose.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bridhb said:

 

Both doses of the Pfizer nanobots seemingly a long time ago.  I was just wondering if I walk into the local Publix with my card, if they will give me the booster or will they say something like "you don't meet the requirements".

You won’t know until you try. The worst they can do is say “no”.

Your CDC card does have your DOB on it, but the pharmacy may just be happy seeing people wanting to get the booster.

Let us know how it goes.

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

A week ago this was only a recommendation from the FDA Advisory panel.

It isn't the FDA Advisory Panel.  The ACIP is a committee within the CDC.

The recommendation from the committee was over ruled by Senior Management.   The recommendation was that booster shots be made available for the over 65 and those with certain relatively serious underlying conditions.

They did NOT recommend extending it to what are perceived to be at risk groups e.g. teachers.  That decision was made by Senior Management.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

The FDA advisory panel voted 18:0 in favor of recommending extending the EUA for the booster for healthcare workers and other high risk occupational exposure.  

I'm referring to the ACIP recommendation 22 September.  They voted not to extend it.

Is there another advisory panel?  If so the FDA panel is at odds with the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/role-vaccine-recommendations.html

What Is the ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a group of medical and public health experts that develops recommendations on how to use vaccines to control diseases in the United States.

ACIP consists of 15 experts who are voting members and are responsible for making vaccine recommendations. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) selects these members after an application and nomination process. Fourteen of these members have expertise in vaccinology, immunology, pediatrics, internal medicine, nursing, family medicine, virology, public health, infectious diseases, or preventive medicine. One member is a consumer representative who provides perspectives on the social and community aspects of vaccination.

In addition to the voting members, there are 30 non-voting representatives from professional organizations that are highly regarded in the health field. These members comment on ACIP’s recommendations and offer the perspectives of groups that will implement the recommendations. Examples of these professional organizations include:

  • American Academy of Pediatrics
  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American College of Nurse Midwives
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Physicians

Certain people are not considered for ACIP membership. For example, people who are directly employed or have an immediate family member directly employed by a vaccine manufacturer, hold a patent on a vaccine or related product, or serve on a Board of Directors of a vaccine manufacturer are excluded from ACIP membership.

Being involved in a vaccine study does not disqualify someone from consideration for ACIP membership. Therefore, people who lead vaccine studies at their respective institutions may become ACIP members, but they must abstain from voting on recommendations related to the vaccine they are studying. In addition, they cannot vote on any other vaccines manufactured by the company funding the research or on any vaccines that are similar to the one(s) they are studying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@EYESAILOR is possibly referring to the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

On Friday 24 September they did vote unanimously to recommend that boosters be made available for over 65's and those at risk.  However they overwhelmingly rejected a plan to vaccinate ALL over the age of 16.

I assume that in the last 48 hours FDA senior management have agreed with the recommendation from the VRBPAC.  

Why the CDC and FDA senior management haven't accepted the full recommendations of their respective science committees can only be speculated.

Another interesting aspect is that the normal protocol is for the ACIP to report AFTER the FDA has.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I thought CDC pretty much followed the FDA advisory panel recommendations. Are there any significant differences between CDC and FDA? 

That is an interesting question.  Who followed who.  It appears the CDC ACIP announced first followed by the FDA VRBPAC.  Both made similar decisions however it appears that the FDA management went beyond that first and the CDC management followed overriding their committee.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

KSB, you are from NZ so I gather from your posts that you were not fully aware of the respective roles of the FDA Advisory panel , the FDA and the CDC.

Anyway , in answer to your question, the FDA advisory panel were first in order to consider the question of extending the booster shot beyond the immuno compromised.   Those panel discussions and votes were discussed in detail on this thread after their recommendation on September 17th

Subsequently the FDA followed the recommendations  of the FDA advisory panel and so did the CDC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Why the CDC and FDA senior management haven't accepted the full recommendations of their respective science committees can only be speculated.

Another interesting aspect is that the normal protocol is for the ACIP to report AFTER the FDA has.

1. ACIP did report after the FDA .

Sept 17 FDA Advisory Panel  met and made recommendations

Sept 22nd FDA authorized EUA for booster in line with advisory panel rec.

Sept 22/23 ACIP met

Sept 24 CDC recommendations which were almost identical to FDA decision (which the CDC cannot overturn anyway)

2. FDA senior management accepted the full recommendation of their advisory panel.

I cannot see any difference of significance.

The CDC followed the FDA rather than ACIP. Wanna discuss the ACIP, how they are appointed etc...should probably go to PA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bridhb said:

  I will try it out Monday and see what happens.  Thanks for the information. 

You're welcome.

FWIW, I got my two Pfizer shots at a pharmacy in a supermarket and the form they used didn't have any questions on it about qualifying. They seemed quite happy to give jabs to anyone who came in and didn't have one of the half dozen or so serious contraindications. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Wanna discuss the ACIP, how they are appointed etc...should probably go to PA.

That's being a tad mischievous @EYESAILOR you full well know that both committees the CDC and the FDA one are appointed by similar processes.

3 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Sept 17 FDA Advisory Panel  met and made recommendations

Sept 22nd FDA authorized EUA for booster in line with advisory panel rec.

Sept 22/23 ACIP met

So effectively the FDA and the CDC released their "decisions" on or within 24 hours of each other.  Although the CDC decision was not what their ACIP committee recommended.  Presumably both committees reviewed the same information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Subsequently the FDA followed the recommendations  of the FDA advisory panel and so did the CDC.

Do you have a link to where the VRBPAC published their recommendations?  I can only find the press release by the FDA Acting Commissioner where she refers to the "totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee...."

The CDC Senior Management followed (or agreed at the same time) what the FDA decided certainly but not what the ACIP decided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2021 at 1:53 PM, EYESAILOR said:

 the EUA (for the booster shot) to healthcare workers.  If the text of the screen shot below is hard to read it says "Should healthcare workers or others at high risk for occupational exposure be included in this EUA?"   The vote was a unanimous 18 :0 in favor.

 

1941265557_AdvisoryPanelVote.thumb.JPG.7719cd6d4c6f4f260870c4bef474d060.JPG

Does this help KSB? Not quite sure what you are looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, bridhb said:

Well, I am thin and have never smoked.  My mom did so grew up "smoking" her air I guess.  I will try it out Monday and see what happens.  Thanks for the information.  I actually looked on line to try and get an answer but it doesn't seem clear, possibly on purpose.

Approaching 48 hours now and other than losing the ability to speak without grunting, and turning green, and having an overwhelming desire to eat bugs, I feel fine.

Injection arm was kinda sore last night, better this morning.

Good luck!

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Approaching 48 hours now and other than losing the ability to speak without grunting, and turning green, and having an overwhelming desire to eat bugs, I feel fine.

Injection arm was kinda sore last night, better this morning.

Good luck!

- DSK

When you feel the urge to gorge on human flesh, and can only walk with your arms and legs rigid straight, then you will know you have reached 100% immunity from covid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Approaching 48 hours now and other than losing the ability to speak without grunting, and turning green, and having an overwhelming desire to eat bugs, I feel fine.

Injection arm was kinda sore last night, better this morning.

Good luck!

- DSK

That’s just the nanobots kicking in. You’ll be fine once they settle down and start doing their job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 10:34 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

That's being a tad mischievous @EYESAILOR you full well know that both committees the CDC and the FDA one are appointed by similar processes.

So effectively the FDA and the CDC released their "decisions" on or within 24 hours of each other.  Although the CDC decision was not what their ACIP committee recommended.  Presumably both committees reviewed the same information.

The FDA advisory panel and the ACIP have different mix of membership qualifications, different roles and came to different conclusions. 

I believe the CDC recommendations/(decisions) issued by the CDC director came at least 48 hours after the FDA authorized the booster shot.  However they had been consulting with the FDA for a lot longer than that. In particular, Dr. Oliver , the lead medical investigator on the Covid vaccine for the CDC is a non voting member of the FDA advisory panel and actively participated in the meeting on September 17th that passed the recommendations that the FDA subsequently adopted. 

It was no surprise really that the CDC followed the lead of the FDA. Anyway, in the USA, it is the FDA who either authorizes, approves or rejects a drug or vaccine, not the CDC.

The interesting question that you should focus on KSB is why ACIP disagreed with the FDA Advisory Panel, the FDA and the CDC.  

I havent looked at the ACIP deliberations. Im not sure if they are public after the event...and it was a 2 day meeting. However I note that the ACIP had four votes. In the first three votes they voted in favor of extending booster shots to populations in line with the FDA panels recommendations.  The only vote where they differed was whether to recommend health care workers etc. should get a booster shot.  

It was a narrow vote. The ACIP voted 9:6 against ,  so it was 2 votes that decided the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I am not sure that the CDC did overturn the recommendations of ACIP.  

A closer read of the CDC statement reveals that while the CDC recommended that Over 65's "should" take a booster shot.  With regard to healthcare workers etc., the CDC states that Healthcare workers etc, "may" receive a booster shot.  The CDC is correctly stating the facts. The FDA has authorized the booster shot for healthcare workers and so we may receive the vaccine.

The CDC was never going to make a statement like "The booster shot has been authorized by the FDA for healthcare workers but we, the CDC, recommend that healthcare workers do not take that opportunity"  That would be absurd and ignored.

Personally I think the USA has got this about right. The most at risk have been authorized and recommended to get a booster shot.  Healthcare workers are allowed to make their own decision but the vaccine booster is legally available to them if they choose to get a booster due to the higher risk occupational exposure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the politics seem to be as virulent as the variants. 

Simply put;

  • if vaccination reduces your risk of serious consequences it's an easy personal decision, be it one or annual jabs. 
  • if your family/bubble has vulnerable members that adds to the weight of reducing their risks
  • if vaccination exposes you to serious side effects, it's a harder decision, especially when the data is incomplete and corrupted 
  • When governments are blatantly & hypocritically manipulating the numbers and behaving privately opposite to their mandates, it's reason to call much of the "science" into question. 
  • When selective enforcement is directed at targeted cohorts, it's not about the science 
  • if spewing paranoids driving alone with a mask on are uncomfortable with your choices that's their problem

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

A closer read of the CDC statement reveals that while the CDC recommended that Over 65's "should" take a booster shot.  With regard to healthcare workers etc., the CDC states that Healthcare workers etc, "may" receive a booster shot.  The CDC is correctly stating the facts. The FDA has authorized the booster shot for healthcare workers and so we may receive the vaccine.

 

You are manipulating what was said.  The ACIP did not recommend giving booster shots to the wider population such as Grocery Store workers and Teachers.  That's not to say that some Grocery Store workers and Teachers aren't over 65 and have underlying health issues.

But if you are happy with giving booster shots to the entire population including children based on the currently available data then go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bullshit just never stops - there is nothing political about fighting a global pandemic except for those who choose to make it so. Glad you aholes weren't here when I was a kid or we would still be seeing polio cripple and kill. If you ever served in the military nobody asked your permission to vaccinate.  Of all the nutjob things I could have predicted the resistance to ending this was not even in my comprehension.

Nobody can force anyone to get vaccinated - they can and should decide if you can work or where you can go - if it's your right to be a risk it's our right to see you are not allowed to be a spreader.  Don't like it? suck it buttercup.  Your rights end the moment they affect mine.  And don't wear a seatbelt - those mandates are so unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God knows what is wrong with Lioness. Vague generalities like the shit dished out on FOX "news", or maybe she even watches one of those bizarre channels that regularly interviews the chump to find out what his most recent beef is. Best ignored, like her BFF Kate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Also, I am not sure that the CDC did overturn the recommendations of ACIP.  

A closer read of the CDC statement reveals that while the CDC recommended that Over 65's "should" take a booster shot.  With regard to healthcare workers etc., the CDC states that Healthcare workers etc, "may" receive a booster shot.  The CDC is correctly stating the facts. The FDA has authorized the booster shot for healthcare workers and so we may receive the vaccine.

 

43 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are manipulating what was said.  The ACIP did not recommend giving booster shots to the wider population such as Grocery Store workers and Teachers.  That's not to say that some Grocery Store workers and Teachers aren't over 65 and have underlying health issues.

But if you are happy with giving booster shots to the entire population including children based on the currently available data then go for it.

Cummon Kate,

Lets keep the discussion intelligent. I have not manipulated the CDC statement.

Here is the exact wording lifted from the CDC website. I have highlighted and capitalized the words "should" and "may"  to highlight the distinction.

CDC recommends:

  • people 65 years and older and residents in long-term care settings SHOULD receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series,
  • people aged 50–64 years with underlying medical conditions should receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series,
  • people aged 18–49 years with underlying medical conditions may receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series, based on their individual benefits and risks, and
  • people aged 18-64 years who are at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting MAY receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series, based on their individual benefits and risks.

You are correct that the ACIP did not recommend the booster for healthcare workers and others at increased risk due to occupation.  Thus I observed that the CDC did not recommend occupational risk workers "should" get the booster. However it is an undeniable fact that the booster is authorized for healthcare workers and others with occupational risk. So no matter the ACIP 9:6 vote, healthcare workers may legally choose to get a booster shot. The CDC statement is accurate, precise and factual. 

Futhermore the CDC adds that any decision for occupational risk candidates to get the booster should be based on individual benefits and risks.  That seems like sound advice to me.

Where on earth have I ever advocated that children 11 and under should be vaccinated based on the currently available data?  

I sense you have difficulty crediting US institutions with being good at their job. The very fact that we have plenty of vaccine for everyone who wants to get vaccinated or boosted speaks well to our organizational, industrial and innovative skills. We are our worst critics, and god knows we have made many mistakes during the pandemic but I truly think the FDA consists of smart people doing good work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheDragon said:

God knows what is wrong with Lioness. Vague generalities like the shit dished out on FOX "news", or maybe she even watches one of those bizarre channels that regularly interviews the chump to find out what his most recent beef is. Best ignored, like her BFF Kate.

I have to respect Lioness because , if nothing else, his choice of vessel commands respect. I agree with much of what he says and detect a modicum of political paranoia in a couple of  points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionessRacing said:

Well, the politics seem to be as virulent as the variants. Agreed, from both ends of the spectrum.

Simply put;

  • if vaccination reduces your risk of serious consequences it's an easy personal decision, be it one or annual jabs. Agreed
  • if your family/bubble has vulnerable members that adds to the weight of reducing their risks Agreed.
  • if vaccination exposes you to serious side effects, it's a harder decision, especially when the data is incomplete and corrupted   Agreed.  Except, give credit to your FDA, the data is not corrupted.  Take the time to look at it.
  • When governments are blatantly & hypocritically manipulating the numbers and behaving privately opposite to their mandates, it's reason to call much of the "science" into question. Meaningless comment. Go easy on the rum in the dark and stormys or take it to PA
  • When selective enforcement is directed at targeted cohorts, it's not about the science Hmmm, not sure I agree with this. Science has frequently identified targeted cohorts. As a physician I can categorically tell you that certain races, genders and ethnic minorities are at significantly greater risk to certain diseases .  If you mean covid, we also know for certain that different age groups face different risks and that different occupations face different risks.
  • if spewing paranoids driving alone with a mask on are uncomfortable with your choices that's their problem  Agreed. Anyone driving alone with a mask on is probably unduly cautious.  But do I detect a little political paranoia and distrust on your part as well?

 

 

My comments in red

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

My comments in red

You left out: vaccination reduces your chances of infecting others - the big unknown with Covid-19 beyond how easy it's transmitted is that many people never show symptoms and those who do are spreading it for days before they are known.  This has never occurred before and was responsible for the wildfire spread early on, at which point the horse has left the barn, it's on fire and a good number of people enjoy watching it burn.

I am at the point if someone dies from Covid while advocating to not get the vaccine I no longer care.  Too many people I care about are gone or are still suffering consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and i got the boosters last Thursday. I had a very sore arm, and was pretty tired for a couple of days. My wife had a more significant reaction- mild fever, headaches, etc for three days. Neither of us had a significant reaction to the first two doses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grizz said:

My wife and i got the boosters last Thursday. I had a very sore arm, and was pretty tired for a couple of days. My wife had a more significant reaction- mild fever, headaches, etc for three days. Neither of us had a significant reaction to the first two doses.

Thanks for that update. It seems to reinforce the idea that the booster really kicks the immune system up a notch.

At least I hope it does.

Although we are eligible now, we are a long way from home, and won’t get boosted until we get there in just over two weeks. We could get it here, but don’t want side effects while we are putting the boat away next week, or during the long drive from Maine to Florida after that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

My comments in red

Science, real SCIENCE is somewhat messy, and subject to review and revision as knowledge increases. The classical manner of hypothesis testing and open challenges is how we sharpen the blade. When the discussion, debate and publication of challenges is stifled, (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine, etc) then you end up with Lysenkoism. 

Anytime that POLITICS engages with SCIENCE you get POLITICAL SCIENCE, and as our compatriots AJ demonstrates so aptly, that's a whole different critter. Since the Editor placed this forum here, the political content's  apropos.

When the guidance from tax funded agencies is mutable with political agenda (i.e. BLM riots are acceptable, but Sturgis rally is not, teachers unions drive CDC guidelines) then the aforementioned agencies have lost their "agency" and are deprecated in their credibility. While they do good things, when they are either captured by the entities they are supposed to regulate, or by the politics of the appointed hierarchy, reasonable people should be skeptical of reversals and policies of convenience to favored donors. 

As an engineer, science is but one of the tools, I am trained to use, with the realization that politics always are a factor when people are involved; the ability thereof to make sub-optimal choices never seems to fail. E.G. to quote our 44th president, "Never underestimate Joe's ability to screw things up". A perfect design of experiment that won't be correctly executed due to complexity or costs is useless. A product that can't be maintained in the usage case is short lived. A vaccine that is initially ridiculed by the opposing party, who's leaders continually display arrogant disregard for the very mandates they espouse is less likely to be accepted by the specific cohorts most at risk. That those cohorts have historic reasons to distrust the government regarding vaccination is tragic, and understandable. 

I'm one of the higher risk cohorts, and got my third Moderna weeks ago, as it's worth the side effects I had from the first two (minor fatigue, soreness etc) and I want to have the best protection that's readily available. 

When the usual keyboard Karen's and Karl's spew their cretinous commentary, the vision of them frothing under their often soiled masks is all to clear, thanks for being a voice of reason amidst the "sturm und drang" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, d'ranger said:

You left out: vaccination reduces your chances of infecting others - the big unknown with Covid-19 beyond how easy it's transmitted is that many people never show symptoms and those who do are spreading it for days before they are known.  This has never occurred before and was responsible for the wildfire spread early on, at which point the horse has left the barn, it's on fire and a good number of people enjoy watching it burn.

 

If it's a "big unknown" how can you assert that it's "never occurred before"? 

Given that many of  the vaccinated are getting infected (presumably due to the lack of/reduction of efficacy,) then how much does it reduce the chances of infecting others? If you are concerned with your risk of infection, then you as a presumed adult can make choices about your behaviors but not about that of others, unless you support tyranny. 

You then "without evidence" attribute socially malignant motives regarding "a good number of people enjoy watching it burn", seems that's more likely projection of a sad sociopath. 

Dude, you might benefit from therapy, but i'm only an engineer, so that's up to you and your physicians, meanwhile, i'll keep enjoying the spectacle of you demonstrating why lefty parasites always eventually kill their host body politic. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Science, real SCIENCE is somewhat messy, and subject to review and revision as knowledge increases. The classical manner of hypothesis testing and open challenges is how we sharpen the blade. When the discussion, debate and publication of challenges is stifled, (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine, etc) then you end up with Lysenkoism. 

Anytime that POLITICS engages with SCIENCE you get POLITICAL SCIENCE.....    ...

 

If you genuinely think that publication of data on hydroxychloroquine was stifled, then you're a victim of your own Lysenkoism.

Or maybe even Lamarckism, or phlogiston theory.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Science, real SCIENCE is somewhat messy, and subject to review and revision as knowledge increases. The classical manner of hypothesis testing and open challenges is how we sharpen the blade. When the discussion, debate and publication of challenges is stifled, (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine, etc) then you end up with Lysenkoism. 

Anytime that POLITICS engages with SCIENCE you get POLITICAL SCIENCE, and as our compatriots AJ demonstrates so aptly, that's a whole different critter. Since the Editor placed this forum here, the political content's  apropos.

When the guidance from tax funded agencies is mutable with political agenda (i.e. BLM riots are acceptable, but Sturgis rally is not, teachers unions drive CDC guidelines) then the aforementioned agencies have lost their "agency" and are deprecated in their credibility. While they do good things, when they are either captured by the entities they are supposed to regulate, or by the politics of the appointed hierarchy, reasonable people should be skeptical of reversals and policies of convenience to favored donors. 

As an engineer, science is but one of the tools, I am trained to use, with the realization that politics always are a factor when people are involved; the ability thereof to make sub-optimal choices never seems to fail. E.G. to quote our 44th president, "Never underestimate Joe's ability to screw things up". A perfect design of experiment that won't be correctly executed due to complexity or costs is useless. A product that can't be maintained in the usage case is short lived. A vaccine that is initially ridiculed by the opposing party, who's leaders continually display arrogant disregard for the very mandates they espouse is less likely to be accepted by the specific cohorts most at risk. That those cohorts have historic reasons to distrust the government regarding vaccination is tragic, and understandable. 

I'm one of the higher risk cohorts, and got my third Moderna weeks ago, as it's worth the side effects I had from the first two (minor fatigue, soreness etc) and I want to have the best protection that's readily available. 

When the usual keyboard Karen's and Karl's spew their cretinous commentary, the vision of them frothing under their often soiled masks is all to clear, thanks for being a voice of reason amidst the "sturm und drang" 

Ultimately, the USA is a free country and scientists are free to publish their work. As in any other branch of endeavor, there are good faith disagreements between scientists  Science also has its fair share of crazies, perhaps more than other professions. There are also those who profess to be doing science but their work does not come close to meeting scientific standards and the pandemic has brought them to the surface on social media and news outlets clamoring for content.  These pseudo scientists might perhaps be motivated by financial gain, or a yearning for recognition after a lifetime of obscurity, or (yes) politics....and one has to be careful to distinguish their nonsense from real science. They are present on both ends of the political spectrum.

However It is my belief that the FDA is staffed by qualified, conscientious genuine medical scientists.  I think that they discuss social medical goals as well as pure data, but that is very different from politics.  A prime example of that is Alzheimer disease where the FDA has had to make some controversial decisions, but these were not "political" decisions. The FDA views Alzheimer as a terrible disease where we do not have a cure but research is on the cusp of some major breakthroughs, and biotech needs to be encouraged.

In the case of CV19 vaccines, I believe the FDA has shown objective independence of short term politics  The litmus test is that the FDA was criticized by the left wing social media during the end of the last administration, and by the right wing social media at the start of this administration.   

I hope the scientists at the FDA are encouraged to be free to reverse themselves where necessary and not feel constrained by criticism and ridicule......because real scientists change their conclusions when new data emerges. There are still massive gaps in our understanding of CV 19 and it has shown itself to be a disease that evolves.

Despite the flaws that exist in any organization,  the FDA is one of the better regulatory organizations in the world.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EYESAILOR said:

Despite the flaws that exist in any organization,  the FDA is one of the better regulatory organizations in the world.    

Not disputing this. Many of the US regulatory agencies are the standard. Having said that, while it's theoretically a free country, and Scientists are welcome to submit what they want, the process of publication is to persuade those with the means to publish to present your work. The filters of editorial, peer and publisher review are worthy when they are not biased towards the "consensus", or "settled science". When platforms are arbitrarily filtering content, the freedom of speech theory meets the practice of suppression of dissident options. Such formerly well regarded journals as Lancet, Nature and NEJM have all been practicing unfortunate publication of poorly sourced/research in service of other than their charter. Somewhat inevitable as there are humans in the loop, and the have their biases, and are susceptible to pressure. 

As regards litmus tests, it's not the criticism, it's the response to it that matters. If the FDA/CDC/WHO modulate their guidance because of elections they are not practicing science, but are selling themselves to those who fund them. There's a word for that, something about the older professions etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

If it's a "big unknown" how can you assert that it's "never occurred before"? 

Given that many of  the vaccinated are getting infected (presumably due to the lack of/reduction of efficacy,) then how much does it reduce the chances of infecting others? If you are concerned with your risk of infection, then you as a presumed adult can make choices about your behaviors but not about that of others, unless you support tyranny. 

You then "without evidence" attribute socially malignant motives regarding "a good number of people enjoy watching it burn", seems that's more likely projection of a sad sociopath. 

Dude, you might benefit from therapy, but i'm only an engineer, so that's up to you and your physicians, meanwhile, i'll keep enjoying the spectacle of you demonstrating why lefty parasites always eventually kill their host body politic. 

 

Based on your definition of tyranny, I suppose you are an anarchist who opposes all laws impacting on social behavior.

We use the term tyranny pretty loosely in the US . If you want to see real tyranny, try North Korea, Iran, or any number of other places around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

If it's a "big unknown" how can you assert that it's "never occurred before"? 

Given that many of  the vaccinated are getting infected (presumably due to the lack of/reduction of efficacy,) then how much does it reduce the chances of infecting others? If you are concerned with your risk of infection, then you as a presumed adult can make choices about your behaviors but not about that of others, unless you support tyranny. 

You then "without evidence" attribute socially malignant motives regarding "a good number of people enjoy watching it burn", seems that's more likely projection of a sad sociopath. 

Dude, you might benefit from therapy, but i'm only an engineer, so that's up to you and your physicians, meanwhile, i'll keep enjoying the spectacle of you demonstrating why lefty parasites always eventually kill their host body politic. 

 

Dude, look at the numbers. You say "Many" of the vaxxed are getting infected. That's not true, it's quite a small %.

Then you say they can spread it, yet the evidence suggests a much smaller viral load, for a shorter period of time.

You claim to be an engineer, do the simple math. It's very convincing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

.....  If the FDA/CDC/WHO modulate their guidance because of elections they are not practicing science, but are selling themselves to those who fund them. There's a word for that, something about the older professions etc. 

Sure but that's not what happened. We had an administration which replaced agency leaders with tame parrots, who spread the message desired by the upper level management of the administration. Meanwhile, actual scientists were saying "They're full of shit, don't listen to them!"

At which point, boosters & shills & the hypnotized began spreading their counter-message, "Fauci's a LIAR! It's a hoax! Vaccines are more dangerous than the disease!" etc etc.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never has there been so much controversy over something so clearly positive for humanity. 

I blame Rupert Murdoch for the divided state of our nation, including this insane antivaxxer contingent. A non-American who figured out how to maximize profit by playing on an American audience's fears by feeding them a daily supply of "outrage" humbug.   Murdoch's love of money was greater than his personal dislike of Drumpf, so he successfully propelled us to where we are today. We would not have arrived here without the Fox Outrage Network.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing hits home like a real example.  Here's a description of an antivaxxer nurse in Florida who died this month. Along with some of the social media posts she put up prior to her death from Covid:

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/theresa-jordan-60-tampa-fl-nurse-handling-covid-cases-anti-vaxxer-died-of-covid

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

The filters of editorial, peer and publisher review are worthy when they are not biased towards the "consensus", or "settled science".  Some of the journals you mention, notably Nature, has a bias towards publishing novel science and ground breaking research.  Yes many authors focus on making progress along established lines (consensus) of science. But some are quite controversial.

Such formerly well regarded journals as Lancet, Nature and NEJM have all been practicing unfortunate publication of poorly sourced/research in service of other than their charter. These are three journals with high standards. It is very hard to be published in these journals and they set a reasonably high hurdle in terms of basic quality of data and research.  They will allow some early stage publication, if they think the topic is important enough . I have never heard anyone describe NEJM as "formerly well regarded", it is still highly regarded.  Do they publish papers that are subsequently repudiated.....yes, of course....that is how scientific debate takes place.  Do they exercise editorial bias in selecting pertinent research out of the dozens of papers submitted? Yes.  Are they subject to any political bias ? Certainly not.

 

See my comments in red.  There are a wide range of medical journals. If there is a well researched paper with new information on a relevant topic, it will get published. Poor research or well trodden topic may struggle to find a publisher. The three you mention are creme de la creme and generally it has to be an important paper to grace those journals. If any, the Lancet has slipped over the years into a bit of journalism and sensationalism....but nothing like our media outlets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Dude, look at the numbers. You say "Many" of the vaxxed are getting infected. That's not true, it's quite a small %.

Then you say they can spread it, yet the evidence suggests a much smaller viral load, for a shorter period of time.

You claim to be an engineer, do the simple math. It's very convincing. 

Hello Raz'r,

Regrettably, a substantial number of those testing positive for CV19 are fully vaccinated individuals.  This is not surprising because a substantial portion of the population is vaccinated and the Delta variant is highly infectious.

However, the vaccine is working because:

1. Relative to the population unvaccinated, the proportion testing positive is high.  As an unscientific example, in my town, only 10%  (just under 10%)of the eligible population is not fully vaccinated.  Unvaccinated individuals represented 42% of of the infections last week.  90% of the population only accounted for 58% of the cases.  4.2/ 0.64 = 6.6.    If this was a larger sample with scientific standards of observation we would conclude that an unvaccinated individual is 6.6x more likely to get infected than a vaccinated individual.

2. The vaccine is extremely efficient at preventing hospitalization. 90% of hospitalizations last week were unvaccinated. If this was scientific data we would conclude that an unvaccinated individual is > 200x more likely to be hospitalized from covid than a vaccinated individual.

This is not scientific data, because this is a small town with a small sample and the numbers jump around and are subject to confounding biases. So please dont confuse this with the sort of data that I think the FDA and CDC should be accumulating.

I have four observations:

(i) The Delta variant can break through the vaccine.  The number of breakthroughs appears to have increased. That is just gut based on knowing several people who have come down with covid who are fully vaccinated.

(ii) The vaccine reduces the risk of symptomatic infection

(iii) The vaccine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization

(iv) The vaccine effectiveness appears to wane in older adults.  The jury is still out on whether it wanes for middle aged or younger adults.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

? If you are concerned with your risk of infection, then you as a presumed adult can make choices about your behaviors but not about that of others, unless you support tyranny. 

Democracy is a tyranny.  It enables a majority to sequester the assets of a minority and the majority to mandate laws that must be obeyed by a minority.   BUT of all the forms of tyranny that exist, democracy is the least worst form of government, and the US democracy with its separation of power is the least worst form of democracy.   I know.....I should take it to PA!   But we live in a democracy and there are consequences. Personally I think the blessings outweigh the disadvantages.  I probably would not be a doctor except for the educational opportunities this nation provided me with. I had to choose to take advantage of them and work very hard......but I am forever grateful and I am glad I am in a line of work where I am giving back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 4:23 PM, accnick said:

You won’t know until you try. The worst they can do is say “no”.

Your CDC card does have your DOB on it, but the pharmacy may just be happy seeing people wanting to get the booster.

Let us know how it goes.

Good luck.

They told me to wait the couple of months.  Didn't go away without a jab though, got the flu shot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Hello Raz'r,

Regrettably, a substantial number of those testing positive for CV19 are fully vaccinated individuals.  This is not surprising because a substantial portion of the population is vaccinated and the Delta variant is highly infectious.

However, the vaccine is working because:

1. Relative to the population unvaccinated, the proportion testing positive is high.  As an unscientific example, in my town, only 10%  (just under 10%)of the eligible population is not fully vaccinated.  Unvaccinated individuals represented 42% of of the infections last week.  90% of the population only accounted for 58% of the cases.  4.2/ 0.64 = 6.6.    If this was a larger sample with scientific standards of observation we would conclude that an unvaccinated individual is 6.6x more likely to get infected than a vaccinated individual.

2. The vaccine is extremely efficient at preventing hospitalization. 90% of hospitalizations last week were unvaccinated. If this was scientific data we would conclude that an unvaccinated individual is > 200x more likely to be hospitalized from covid than a vaccinated individual.

This is not scientific data, because this is a small town with a small sample and the numbers jump around and are subject to confounding biases. So please dont confuse this with the sort of data that I think the FDA and CDC should be accumulating.

I have four observations:

(i) The Delta variant can break through the vaccine.  The number of breakthroughs appears to have increased. That is just gut based on knowing several people who have come down with covid who are fully vaccinated.

(ii) The vaccine reduces the risk of symptomatic infection

(iii) The vaccine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization

(iv) The vaccine effectiveness appears to wane in older adults.  The jury is still out on whether it wanes for middle aged or younger adults.

agree completely, and if we were 100% vaccinated, 100% of infections would be breakthroughs. What I'm more interested in, is for the Lionesses of the world  to understand your point that even though the vaxxed can get Covid, the RATE at which they get is is dramatically less than those who are unvaxxed. Therefore, Lioness' statement that the vaxxed can spread it, while technically correct, is off by the magnitude of how much they spread it. (and, they have lower viral loads as well)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Quantify "dramatically less".

already done elsewhere on this board. You'll ignore it anyway. That's what you do. Ignore real data, post bullshit. ad infinitum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

already done elsewhere on this board. You'll ignore it anyway. That's what you do. Ignore real data, post bullshit. ad infinitum. 

For the rest of you, in this study, case rates for vaccinated is 3.94/100,000, case rates for unvaxxed are 21/100,000:  like stated above, 1/5th risk of getting infected, 1/12th the risk of hospitalization. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Quantify "dramatically less".

If you get t-boned by an 18 wheeler  going 60 and by a VW going 60, one is dramatically less of an impact. It might be the VW that kills you, life is funny that way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Quantify "dramatically less".

If you get t-boned by an 18 wheeler  going 60 and by a VW going 60, one is dramatically less of an impact. It might be the VW that kills you, life death is funny that way. 

FIFY

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites