Jump to content

Science vs. Bureacracy


Recommended Posts

A cut and paste from the NYT daily feed.

Science vs. bureaucracy

For the 15 million Americans who have received the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, the confusing messages from the federal government just keep coming.

An F.D.A. advisory panel is scheduled to vote today on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a booster shot. But the panel is not likely to vote on what seems to be the most relevant question: Should the booster shot come from one of the other vaccines — Pfizer’s or Moderna’s, which are known as mRNA vaccines — rather than a follow-up J. & J. shot?

The scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the answer is yes (as I explain below). Still, the F.D.A. panel seems likely to duck the question and rule only on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a J. & J. booster.

It is the latest example of a recurring Covid problem. Again and again, government officials have chosen to follow pre-existing bureaucratic procedures even when doing so has led to widespread public confusion and counterproductive behavior.

Officials often defend this approach by saying they merely “follow the science,” but that’s not quite accurate. When there is a conflict between scientific evidence and bureaucratic protocols, science often takes a back seat. Consider:

  • At the start of the pandemic, health officials around the country were desperate to conduct Covid-19 tests, but the C.D.C. sometimes kept those officials from developing their own tests — even as the C.D.C.’s own initial test was a failure.
  • Around the same time, federal officials discouraged the public from wearing masks, saying there was not enough evidence to support them — despite masks’ longtime effectiveness in Asia and inside hospitals.
  • For much of this year, the F.D.A. refused to grant full authorization to any Covid vaccine — even as its top leaders were saying the shots were safe and effective and urging Americans to get vaccinated.
  • The F.D.A. has been slow to approve rapid Covid tests, which helps explain why Britain, France and Germany are awash in the tests — but your local drugstore may not have any.

The repeated slowness of U.S. officials stems from a worthy goal. They want to consider the scientific evidence carefully before making decisions. They want to avoid confusing the public or, even worse, promoting less than optimal medical treatments.

Yet in their insistence on following procedures that were not written with a global pandemic in mind, officials have often ended up doing precisely what they sought to avoid. They have perplexed the public and encouraged medically dubious behavior.

During a public-health crisis, officials are most effective when they are “first, right and credible,” as the sociologist and Times Opinion columnist Zeynep Tufekci has written. They are least effective when they offer “mixed messaging, delays and confusion.”

The J. & J. question

Last month, this newsletter published a guide to whether J. & J. recipients should follow the mix-and-match approach of getting a booster shot with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. We concluded that the available scientific evidence argued for the mix-and-match approach, but that there was still uncertainty. We wrote that we understood why many people would not want to do so until the government encouraged it.

This week, the data in favor of the mix-and-match approach became even stronger.

The National Institutes of Health, which is part of the federal government, released a study comparing the antibody levels in J. & J. recipients who had received a J. & J. booster with those who had received an mRNA booster. With both of the mRNA shots — Moderna’s and Pfizer’s — the antibody levels were higher. The study did not involve enough people or a long enough time frame to be definitive, but many experts believe it’s significant.

It also follows other evidence in favor of a mix-and-match approach. In other countries, a similar approach appears to be successful. Partly as a result, an unknown number of U.S. doctors and scientists who received the J. & J. vaccine have already taken it upon themselves to get a follow-up shot from Pfizer or Moderna. And the city of San Francisco already offers mix-and-match booster shots. “At the end of the day, folks having the Johnson & Johnson should probably get an mRNA booster,” Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Times.

Absent a late addition to its agenda, however, the F.D.A. panel will only discuss the mix-and-match issue today but take no action on it. If you’re a J. & J. recipient looking for clarity from your government, you’re on your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not defending, here.  Just pointing out the process is deliberately and painfully slow. 

If they rush a recommendation, and problems arise - bad news.  

Trying to strike a balance between urgency and caution is not as clear and simple as we would like.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the vastly bigger picture.

Reality based people: "I could get a J&J booster that will help or a Moderna/Pfizer booster that might help more, but I am picking one or the other"

Republican Anti-Vax death cult morons: "I never got any vaccine and am not ever going to. Look, they can't even decide with booster is the best, therefore I do not believe that any vaccine does any good at all and the entire science of vaccines is made up bullshit"

Imagine this: Your house is on fire. Some scientists think CO2 fire extinguishers work the best and some think Halon extinguishers work the best. You, being a good Fox News watcher, have decided that obviously fire extinguishers are all fake and decide to just sit back and watch the fire :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Not defending, here.  Just pointing out the process is deliberately and painfully slow. 

If they rush a recommendation, and problems arise - bad news.  

Trying to strike a balance between urgency and caution is not as clear and simple as we would like.

I will take some points off for the mask thing, if memory serves they were trying to prevent hoarders from buying every single mask in the USA and leaving health care professionals with none. Maybe not the best plan.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I will take some points off for the mask thing, if memory serves they were trying to prevent hoarders from buying every single mask in the USA and leaving health care professionals with none. Maybe not the best plan.

Good point.  But, our experience with toilet paper makes clear whaat will happen when the public decides they NEED it.  I can't imagine what it would've been like in medical centers if they had no masks available.

But, the approval of drugs is slow.  We know that.  Look to Thalidomide for a decent reason why.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Good point.  But, our experience with toilet paper makes clear whaat will happen when the public decides they NEED it.  I can't imagine what it would've been like in medical centers if they had no masks available.

But, the approval of drugs is slow.  We know that.  Look to Thalidomide for a decent reason why.

I have worked on projects in the medical field and the FDA can sure be a huge PITA to deal with, some days I wanted to run screaming to the airport and find a nice friendly FAA inspector to fight with :rolleyes:

I'll be the last person to deny that getting anything medical approved in a hurry without going insane with the 58th revision of form 97 not being correct so start over. That isn't the issue here, that has been true of every big government agency since Roman times. What we have now is the usual suspects pouncing on every single little thing to "prove" that Covid itself and the vaccines are all a made up hoax to inject people with magnetic chips or some such bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

What we have now is the usual suspects pouncing on every single little thing to "prove" that Covid itself and the vaccines are all a made up hoax to inject people with magnetic chips or some such bullshit.

Darwin works slowly, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You are missing the vastly bigger picture.

Reality based people: "I could get a J&J booster that will help or a Moderna/Pfizer booster that might help more, but I am picking one or the other"

Republican Anti-Vax death cult morons: "I never got any vaccine and am not ever going to. Look, they can't even decide with booster is the best, therefore I do not believe that any vaccine does any good at all and the entire science of vaccines is made up bullshit"

Imagine this: Your house is on fire. Some scientists think CO2 fire extinguishers work the best and some think Halon extinguishers work the best. You, being a good Fox News watcher, have decided that obviously fire extinguishers are all fake and decide to just sit back and watch the fire :rolleyes:

Because after all, everybody's house is going to burn down sooner or later.

If it's not perfect then it should be absolutely rejected! <- RWNJ "logic"

- DSK

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

The repeated slowness of U.S. officials stems from a worthy goal. They want to consider the scientific evidence carefully before making decisions. They want to avoid confusing the public or, even worse, promoting less than optimal medical treatments.

 

Personally, I don't believe that's true.

I think US Officials are trying to manage resources and I control outcomes by 'weighting variables' for the greater good without being transparent about WHY they're weighting the variables, because that opens questions for which the answers aren't great.

For example - The US has/will give away half of it's J&J vaccine.  Why?  Its it the 'medically optimal treatment'?  Not 'medically', but it is practically.  We give away J&J because much of the world can't use the mRNA because they can't store/ship it fast enough.  A booster shot of mRNA may or may not be 'better' - but that's really not the issue.  The issue is that it's better to have an mRNA in the arm of an American so the J&J can be sent abroad than a J&J in an American with the mRNA rotting on the shelf.

Is that 'scientific evidence'?   Maybe - depends on how broad of net you want to include in 'scientific'.  This isn't terribly different than the Harvard Admission Rubric where Asians are rated as having 'low personality scores' compared to Black Americans - a metric that is enough to offset the 63 point difference in SAT scores.  It's a thumb on the scale to create an outcome that's 'for the greater good'.

If you value 'maximum number of people vaccinated' - then NO ONE in the US should be getting J&J.  ALL J&J vaccine should all be sent abroad.  So that's not the metric.

But, not all Americans TRUST mRNA vaccines.  In fact, those vaccines are more distrusted in the minority communities within the US and, those communities don't have great distribution networks either.  So, if the true goal was minimizing human suffering, you'd force all communities within the US to take the mRNA.  That's what the 'science' says in terms of 'optimal medical treatment'.  But we only want to force some Americans, not all Americans.

The CDC knew masks were effective - they lied because they didn't want a run on masks.

The COVID origin story has gotten butchered not because science can't trace DNA, it's because the political fallout will cause political pain.  There is an argument that "ignorance is bliss" politically - but that's not science.

The 'emergency authorization' gives companies LEGAL protections - that's not science.  Those legal protections are what the FDA and CDC are concerned about, because pharmaceutical companies aren't producing shit without those protections.   None of these vaccines would be available under the normal terms because 'normal terms' require long term tests.  As much as science has advanced, we haven't figured out the '9 women can't have a baby in 1 month' paradox.  And they have reason to be afraid.  I'm still waiting for the 'Heprin caused unnecessary deaths early in the pandemic' story to drop.

I believe the testing issue exists because they don't want people showing up at the airport with their own gnarly dollar-store test claiming "see, I don't have Covid, I don't want to wear a mask!" bullshit. Chain of custody means a lot more than efficacy.  That's not science.

All this does is reinforce the idea that agencies like the CDC and FDA are politically captured.  Don't worry - we'll get back to the 'big pharma' bitching sometime next year, as the winter surge winds down.  They'll stop providing 'life saving cures' and switch back to 'profit gouging whores' as soon as its politically convenient.

--------------

Maybe this is all science.  It is just math after all - electoral math - but math nonetheless.  The same math Facebook uses, ironically.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-vaxer at the pearly gates: "I don't understand. I had faith in God. I put my life in his hands, and believed that he would save me..."

St. Peter: "Well, he did provide you with 3, or 4 highly effective vaccines to choose from, and a cure in pill form.... What more were you expectng?"

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

I am not in a good mood about all this right now. A family member was a firm believer in all thing Fox and now I have to go to his funeral. You may not believe in Covid, but it believes in you.

I thought you liked the science.

For the record, I've had both doses of Moderna and earlier this month got a third Moderna shot.  I also had my high dose flu vaccine this week.

The reason is that I am at risk due to age and some contributory causes that come with age.  On the other hand, of the 700,000 deaths from COVID far less than 1000 (the last number I looked at was less than 500) have been of people under the age of 18.  When they actually catch COVID it is asymptomatic or mild.

If you look at a personal risk vs. benefit you can make a reasonable personal decision.  If you are at risk and decide not to get vaccinated, that's your problem.  If you are vaccinated your risk is minimized but it will NEVER be zero any more than it is with any other viral disease.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

I thought you liked the science.

For the record, I've had both doses of Moderna and earlier this month got a third Moderna shot.  I also had my high dose flu vaccine this week.

The reason is that I am at risk due to age and some contributory causes that come with age.  On the other hand, of the 700,000 deaths from COVID far less than 1000 (the last number I looked at was less than 500) have been of people under the age of 18.  When they actually catch COVID it is asymptomatic or mild.

If you look at a personal risk vs. benefit you can make a reasonable personal decision.  If you are at risk and decide not to get vaccinated, that's your problem.  If you are vaccinated your risk is minimized but it will NEVER be zero any more than it is with any other viral disease.

 

 

Go back to sleep gramps - younger people are getting sicker, in September Covid was the leading cause of death for the 35 to 54 year old groups. AND - if you aren't vaxxed you are many more times likely to transmit it - to you know, someone like you who can still become ill with a breakthrough. So because you decide your risk of dying is low and refuse to get vaccinated it's a great big fuck you to everyone you come in contact with.

Now, if you are going to stay awake get busy moving those goalposts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

A cut and paste from the NYT daily feed.

Science vs. bureaucracy

For the 15 million Americans who have received the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, the confusing messages from the federal government just keep coming.

An F.D.A. advisory panel is scheduled to vote today on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a booster shot. But the panel is not likely to vote on what seems to be the most relevant question: Should the booster shot come from one of the other vaccines — Pfizer’s or Moderna’s, which are known as mRNA vaccines — rather than a follow-up J. & J. shot?

The scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the answer is yes (as I explain below). Still, the F.D.A. panel seems likely to duck the question and rule only on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a J. & J. booster.

It is the latest example of a recurring Covid problem. Again and again, government officials have chosen to follow pre-existing bureaucratic procedures even when doing so has led to widespread public confusion and counterproductive behavior.

Officials often defend this approach by saying they merely “follow the science,” but that’s not quite accurate. When there is a conflict between scientific evidence and bureaucratic protocols, science often takes a back seat. Consider:

  • At the start of the pandemic, health officials around the country were desperate to conduct Covid-19 tests, but the C.D.C. sometimes kept those officials from developing their own tests — even as the C.D.C.’s own initial test was a failure.
  • Around the same time, federal officials discouraged the public from wearing masks, saying there was not enough evidence to support them — despite masks’ longtime effectiveness in Asia and inside hospitals.
  • For much of this year, the F.D.A. refused to grant full authorization to any Covid vaccine — even as its top leaders were saying the shots were safe and effective and urging Americans to get vaccinated.
  • The F.D.A. has been slow to approve rapid Covid tests, which helps explain why Britain, France and Germany are awash in the tests — but your local drugstore may not have any.

The repeated slowness of U.S. officials stems from a worthy goal. They want to consider the scientific evidence carefully before making decisions. They want to avoid confusing the public or, even worse, promoting less than optimal medical treatments.

Yet in their insistence on following procedures that were not written with a global pandemic in mind, officials have often ended up doing precisely what they sought to avoid. They have perplexed the public and encouraged medically dubious behavior.

During a public-health crisis, officials are most effective when they are “first, right and credible,” as the sociologist and Times Opinion columnist Zeynep Tufekci has written. They are least effective when they offer “mixed messaging, delays and confusion.”

The J. & J. question

Last month, this newsletter published a guide to whether J. & J. recipients should follow the mix-and-match approach of getting a booster shot with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. We concluded that the available scientific evidence argued for the mix-and-match approach, but that there was still uncertainty. We wrote that we understood why many people would not want to do so until the government encouraged it.

This week, the data in favor of the mix-and-match approach became even stronger.

The National Institutes of Health, which is part of the federal government, released a study comparing the antibody levels in J. & J. recipients who had received a J. & J. booster with those who had received an mRNA booster. With both of the mRNA shots — Moderna’s and Pfizer’s — the antibody levels were higher. The study did not involve enough people or a long enough time frame to be definitive, but many experts believe it’s significant.

It also follows other evidence in favor of a mix-and-match approach. In other countries, a similar approach appears to be successful. Partly as a result, an unknown number of U.S. doctors and scientists who received the J. & J. vaccine have already taken it upon themselves to get a follow-up shot from Pfizer or Moderna. And the city of San Francisco already offers mix-and-match booster shots. “At the end of the day, folks having the Johnson & Johnson should probably get an mRNA booster,” Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Times.

Absent a late addition to its agenda, however, the F.D.A. panel will only discuss the mix-and-match issue today but take no action on it. If you’re a J. & J. recipient looking for clarity from your government, you’re on your own.

Mix and match adds complexity to the approval process 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I thought you liked the science.

 

I do, but this is like arguing about round chutes vs. square chutes while a bunch of people are jumping out of the airplane with NO chutes.

Plus you are leaving out the global politics angle, people all over the world are dying from lack of ANY vaccine they are desperate to get while we have state government officials actively trying to get people NOT vaccinated. It makes little moral sense to not ship the J&J vaccine to people that need it and use the very hard to ship to third world countries vaccines at home.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am not in a good mood about all this right now. A family member was a firm believer in all thing Fox and now I have to go to his funeral. You may not believe in Covid, but it believes in you.

Sorry for your loss. I lost a cousin in a similar manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, d&#x27;ranger said:

Go back to sleep gramps - younger people are getting sicker, in September Covid was the leading cause of death for the 35 to 54 year old groups. AND - if you aren't vaxxed you are many more times likely to transmit it - to you know, someone like you who can still become ill with a breakthrough. So because you decide your risk of dying is low and refuse to get vaccinated it's a great big fuck you to everyone you come in contact with.

Now, if you are going to stay awake get busy moving those goalposts. 

Now come on.  Saorsa was only following his preconceived biases here.  He ignores any other issues caused by covid.  He ignores the efficicacy of the vaccine at stopping those issues.  It just goes back to his usual drum beat.

And as for his crap article, it's full of half truths, innuendo, and faulty reasoning.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Are health professionals indemnified when it comes to handing out vaccines etc in the US?

In Australia, the feds indemnify our vaccines etc.

I'm guessing if they are going to offer the protection they need to make sure of the possible costs...

No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death

Aircraft manufacturers too.

People sometimes say that there's only one industry with special liability protection, but it's not true.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death

Aircraft manufacturers too.

People sometimes say that there's only one industry with special liability protection, but it's not true.

There is a lot you are leaving out of the aircraft issue. This only applies to aircraft that hold 20 people or less and are more than 18 years old. It had a very large unintended side effect, the liability can got kicked down the road to the last shop to work on the plane.

One beneficial side effect was, for one example, Cessna could put better seatbelts in their airplanes without getting the shit sued out of them every time someone got hurt in a 1949 version of the same airplane because it didn't have 2021 spec restraints. Creative lawyers would use any safety improvement to "prove" that 1950s era engineers knew better, which absent a time machine and a seance is hard to fight against. Lockheed also could probably avoid being sued the next time some reality-star chick with a shitty navigator leaves an important radio antenna behind and gets lost in the Pacific while flying one of their Elecrtras too * :rolleyes:

* pro tip, when arriving by air or boat at a small flat island in the middle of nowhere, do NOT time the trip to arrive looking into the rising sun!

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

* pro tip, when arriving by air or boat at a small flat island in the middle of nowhere, do NOT time the trip to arrive looking into the rising sun!

Is looking into a setting sun OK then ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 11:41 AM, d&#x27;ranger said:

Go back to sleep gramps - younger people are getting sicker, in September Covid was the leading cause of death for the 35 to 54 year old groups. AND - if you aren't vaxxed you are many more times likely to transmit it - to you know, someone like you who can still become ill with a breakthrough. So because you decide your risk of dying is low and refuse to get vaccinated it's a great big fuck you to everyone you come in contact with.

Now, if you are going to stay awake get busy moving those goalposts. 

OOOOHHH, Breakthrough.  What the fuck is that.  A nice talking point bullet word?  There is NO BREAKTHROUGH.  There are people whose bodies do not accept the vaccine.  That's why the vaccines are only 95% effective.

I sure wish you would quantify things like "many times more"

You somehow think that I am opposed to vaccines.  I'm not as evidenced by my first statement.  I think everyone who can should be vaccinated.

I do not however support the government forcing everyone to be vaccinated and should allow personal choice.

We have been trying to plan a trip to the UK for the last two months.  Both US and UK governments seem to make demands and change them at will for no apparent or explained reason.  Trying to micromanage this creates a political tool, not an actual plan for control.  They should be very clear on guidelines and recommendations but avoid trying to force people to act.  That's just a way to piss people off to the point where they do not act in their own self interest.

No vaccine is 100% effective.  There is always a chance of catching the disease.  It's not something new, that's always been the case.

Viruses by their nature are continually mutating.  That's why your Flu Vaccine has up to ten different vaccines for various strains of Flu.  The cocktail is the best guess for which strains will be most prevalent in a particular season and location.

Yes, if you are not vaccinated you are helping create new mutations and acting as a breeding ground for the current strains.  But, the effect on those who are vaccinated in minimal.
 

There will be deaths in spite of vaccines.  For example, from https://usafacts.org/articles/preliminary-us-death-statistics-more-deaths-in-2020-than-2019-coronavirus-age-flu/

Weekly flu and pneumonia deaths were higher at the beginning of the year during the end of the 2019-20 flu season, though flu deaths were not nearly as high as the 2017-18 season, when an estimated 61,000 died of the flu alone. For comparison, the CDC estimates that 34,000 died in the 2018-19 flu season, and 22,000 died in the 2019-20 season.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Now come on.  Saorsa was only following his preconceived biases here.  He ignores any other issues caused by covid.  He ignores the efficicacy of the vaccine at stopping those issues.  It just goes back to his usual drum beat.

And as for his crap article, it's full of half truths, innuendo, and faulty reasoning.

And neither of you have an actual response beyond a fear biting attack.  Keep growling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

OOOOHHH, Breakthrough.  What the fuck is that.  A nice talking point bullet word?  There is NO BREAKTHROUGH.  There are people whose bodies do not accept the vaccine.  That's why the vaccines are only 95% effective.

I sure wish you would quantify things like "many times more"

You somehow think that I am opposed to vaccines.  I'm not as evidenced by my first statement.  I think everyone who can should be vaccinated.

I do not however support the government forcing everyone to be vaccinated and should allow personal choice.

We have been trying to plan a trip to the UK for the last two months.  Both US and UK governments seem to make demands and change them at will for no apparent or explained reason.  Trying to micromanage this creates a political tool, not an actual plan for control.  They should be very clear on guidelines and recommendations but avoid trying to force people to act.  That's just a way to piss people off to the point where they do not act in their own self interest.

No vaccine is 100% effective.  There is always a chance of catching the disease.  It's not something new, that's always been the case.

Viruses by their nature are continually mutating.  That's why your Flu Vaccine has up to ten different vaccines for various strains of Flu.  The cocktail is the best guess for which strains will be most prevalent in a particular season and location.

Yes, if you are not vaccinated you are helping create new mutations and acting as a breeding ground for the current strains.  But, the effect on those who are vaccinated in minimal.
 

There will be deaths in spite of vaccines.  For example, from https://usafacts.org/articles/preliminary-us-death-statistics-more-deaths-in-2020-than-2019-coronavirus-age-flu/

Weekly flu and pneumonia deaths were higher at the beginning of the year during the end of the 2019-20 flu season, though flu deaths were not nearly as high as the 2017-18 season, when an estimated 61,000 died of the flu alone. For comparison, the CDC estimates that 34,000 died in the 2018-19 flu season, and 22,000 died in the 2019-20 season.

 

The government isn't forcing anyone. It's all personal choice. Sorry for your confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz&#x27;r said:
23 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

OOOOHHH, Breakthrough.  What the fuck is that.  A nice talking point bullet word?  There is NO BREAKTHROUGH.  There are people whose bodies do not accept the vaccine.  That's why the vaccines are only 95% effective....

The government isn't forcing anyone. It's all personal choice. Sorry for your confusion.

He's also wrong about what a breakthrough infection is. I suspect, that like 95% of RWNJs, Sore-Ass does not really know what a virus is, what it does, or the basics of how vaccines work.

But we all know RWNJs refuse to accept consequences.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something perversely amusing about Soreass using the words "Science" & "Bureaucracy" in a thread title. At least he didn't try to fit "Diplomacy" & "Honesty" into the same title.

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

There's something perversely amusing about Soreass using the words "Science" & "Bureaucracy" in a thread title. At least he didn't try to fit "Diplomacy" & "Honesty" into the same title.

:rolleyes:

Even better that Soreass was a life-long federal bureaucrat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

There's something perversely amusing about Soreass using the words "Science" & "Bureaucracy" in a thread title. At least he didn't try to fit "Diplomacy" & "Honesty" into the same title.

:rolleyes:

Or "Colostomy".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 5:52 AM, Saorsa said:

A cut and paste from the NYT daily feed.

 

  • Around the same time, federal officials discouraged the public from wearing masks, saying there was not enough evidence to support them — despite masks’ longtime effectiveness in Asia and inside hospitals.
  •  

That one was kind of funny. Did they seriously think that all those folks on the Tokyo subway just thought masks were cute? 

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

OOOOHHH, Breakthrough.  What the fuck is that.  A nice talking point bullet word?  There is NO BREAKTHROUGH.  There are people whose bodies do not accept the vaccine.  That's why the vaccines are only 95% effective.

I sure wish you would quantify things like "many times more"

You somehow think that I am opposed to vaccines.  I'm not as evidenced by my first statement.  I think everyone who can should be vaccinated.

I do not however support the government forcing everyone to be vaccinated and should allow personal choice.

We have been trying to plan a trip to the UK for the last two months.  Both US and UK governments seem to make demands and change them at will for no apparent or explained reason.  Trying to micromanage this creates a political tool, not an actual plan for control.  They should be very clear on guidelines and recommendations but avoid trying to force people to act.  That's just a way to piss people off to the point where they do not act in their own self interest.

No vaccine is 100% effective.  There is always a chance of catching the disease.  It's not something new, that's always been the case.

Viruses by their nature are continually mutating.  That's why your Flu Vaccine has up to ten different vaccines for various strains of Flu.  The cocktail is the best guess for which strains will be most prevalent in a particular season and location.

Yes, if you are not vaccinated you are helping create new mutations and acting as a breeding ground for the current strains.  But, the effect on those who are vaccinated in minimal.
 

There will be deaths in spite of vaccines.  For example, from https://usafacts.org/articles/preliminary-us-death-statistics-more-deaths-in-2020-than-2019-coronavirus-age-flu/

Weekly flu and pneumonia deaths were higher at the beginning of the year during the end of the 2019-20 flu season, though flu deaths were not nearly as high as the 2017-18 season, when an estimated 61,000 died of the flu alone. For comparison, the CDC estimates that 34,000 died in the 2018-19 flu season, and 22,000 died in the 2019-20 season.

 

A 'breakthrough' case is a medical term used to described cases in which vaccinated individuals get ill.

https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-a-Vaccine-Breakthrough.aspx

For every person who gets covid, young or old, the number of people that they EXPOSE to the virus goes up exponentially.  One kid with the virus takes it home to his siblings and parents.  He exposes others on his bus.  His teachers.  His church.

For every unvaccinated kid, exactly how many people will catch covid, pass it on, and continue passing it on until others die?  How exactly do you think COVID has been passed around the world and killed all the people that it's killed?  Largely by ASYMPTOMATIC NON-VACCINATED CARRIERS (of which children are a prime example).  Which the vaccine largely prevents.

Those unvaccinated folks exercising their 'rights' are putting OTHERS at risk of dying.  And at that point?  it's not a right - any more than drunk driving is a right.

Here's the real problem.  This has been explained over and over and over to you.  But you are the epitome of the old white guy who thinks he knows it all.  You seem to think you know science.  You don't.  You seem to think you have a rational thinking process.  You don't.  And you clearly don't have enough introspection to realize those facts.

 

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

A 'breakthrough' case is a medical term used to described cases in which vaccinated individuals get ill.

https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-a-Vaccine-Breakthrough.aspx

For every person who gets covid, young or old, the number of people that they EXPOSE to the virus goes up exponentially.  One kid with the virus takes it home to his siblings and parents.  He exposes others on his bus.  His teachers.  His church.

For every unvaccinated kid, exactly how many people will catch covid, pass it on, and continue passing it on until others die?  How exactly do you think COVID has been passed around the world and killed all the people that it's killed?  Largely by ASYMPTOMATIC NON-VACCINATED CARRIERS (of which children are a prime example).  Which the vaccine largely prevents.

Those unvaccinated folks exercising their 'rights' are putting OTHERS at risk of dying.  And at that point?  it's not a right - any more than drunk driving is a right.

Here's the real problem.  This has been explained over and over and over to you.  But you are the epitome of the old white guy who thinks he knows it all.  You seem to think you know science.  You don't.  You seem to think you have a rational thinking process.  You don't.  And you clearly don't have enough introspection to realize those facts.

 

The trouble is that if you believe the politicians the science changes from day to day.

The others at risk are the un-vaccinated.  "Breakthrough" is deceptive.  If a vaccine is 95% effective then you can expect 5 percent of the receivers to get the disease if exposed.  By this time, I expect that everybody in the US has been exposed to the virus.  Nothing is breaking through anything.  There are people for whom the vaccine does not work for any number of yet to be determined reasons.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the US has recorded 45 million cases of COVID 19 in a population of 330 million.  That is 13% have actually been diagnosed.  It is likely that at least that many asymptomatic individuals were never tested or recorded.  There was no effective vaccine for over half of that time and rollout took some time to accomplish.

There have been 725K deaths recorded since the beginning of the pandemic.  This includes those who died with COVID, not because of COVID.  That is 1.6% of the recorded cases.  Looked at in terms of the total population that is 0.2 percent; one fifth of one percent.

Now if you would like to you can try to develop something on any number of variables within the population and come up with a conclusion that you might be able to defend. 

Personally, by getting vaccinated, I increase my odds of survival.

Seeing the  figures above I understand that despite all I can do that I am still at risk but that risk is minuscule.

I refuse to live in fear.  You may carry on as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

science changes from day to day.

Science doesn't change. It's what we deduce from the science that changes from day to day as we learn more.

The rest of your post I did not read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 8:16 AM, Bus Driver said:

Good point.  But, our experience with toilet paper makes clear whaat will happen when the public decides they NEED it.  I can't imagine what it would've been like in medical centers if they had no masks available.

But, the approval of drugs is slow.  We know that.  Look to Thalidomide for a decent reason why.

And also look to the even greater number of good drugs like beta blockers which were delayed and caused far more harm than Thalidomide ever would have.

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

Science doesn't change. It's what we deduce from the science that changes from day to day as we learn more.

The rest of your post I did not read.

Well, there was some math in it showing probabilities.  It was probably over your head.

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

Well, there was some math in it showing probabilities.  It was probably over your head.

It's clearly over your head though.  I love posts like these where you just continue to embarrass yourself. 

There were 10000 deaths due to drunk driving last year.  Clearly a very low probability of a person dieing from it, because we know most drunk drivers don't get caught. Therefore, please begin arguing that drunk driving should be legal and we should "stop living in fear" of it.

Or admit the whole living in fear thing is a cheap trope, and just kindly shut the fuck up. 

Not getting vaccinated is a personal "choice" every bit as stupid as driving drunk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grrr... said:

It's clearly over your head though.  I love posts like these where you just continue to embarrass yourself. 

There were 10000 deaths due to drunk driving last year.  Clearly a very low probability of a person dieing from it, because we know most drunk drivers don't get caught. Therefore, please begin arguing that drunk driving should be legal and we should "stop living in fear" of it.

Or admit the whole living in fear thing is a cheap trope, and just kindly shut the fuck up. 

Why would I argue that DUI should be legal?  It's pretty stupid of you to even think that I would do so.

No, I won't admit that.  You have no right to demand it and it is clear that you are being driven by fear of an unlikely event that you could minimize for yourself by getting vaccinated.

BTW, I am equally against the opposite view where DeSantis is is mandating against mandates.  I figure if a restaurant, cruise line or whatever wants to require masks or vaccinations before providing service that they are entitled to do so.

Ever read Thoreau??

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why would I argue that DUI should be legal?  It's pretty stupid of you to even think that I would do so.

No, I won't admit that.  You have no right to demand it and it is clear that you are being driven by fear of an unlikely event that you could minimize for yourself by getting vaccinated.

BTW, I am equally against the opposite view where DeSantis is is mandating against mandates.  I figure if a restaurant, cruise line or whatever wants to require masks or vaccinations before providing service that they are entitled to do so.

Ever read Thoreau??

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

You can't even see your hypocrisy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Why would I argue that DUI should be legal?  It's pretty stupid of you to even think that I would do so.

No, I won't admit that.  You have no right to demand it and it is clear that you are being driven by fear of an unlikely event that you could minimize for yourself by getting vaccinated.

BTW, I am equally against the opposite view where DeSantis is is mandating against mandates.  I figure if a restaurant, cruise line or whatever wants to require masks or vaccinations before providing service that they are entitled to do so.

Ever read Thoreau??

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

I’ve still not heard of anyone being held down and forced to be vaccinated. You must be mistaking personal choice for gov’t force, again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Thanks for telling me.  It is of some concern that you don't understand the ignore function.

Do you have a cite for these forced vaccinations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I just got the Moderna from Governor DeSantis’ Dept. of Health here in my little county. No charge, no appointment, no wait. Bureaucracy/Socialism rocks. 
 

They took my paper vaccination record and gave me a nice card with all three doses listed, ready for laminating. But don’t call it a Vaccine Passport, because that would upset the Gov. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at my county dept. of health website just now. It says that "there are no Covid vaccines, and no cures".... I looked at the last update. May 2020... :rolleyes:

 No info on where to get a booster shot, of course, because there are no shots....

 No wonder the citizens here are dropping like flies.

 Fucking assholes in Govt. won't even provide them with the basic information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I looked at my county dept. of health website just now. It says that "there are no Covid vaccines, and no cures".... I looked at the last update. May 2020... :rolleyes:

 No info on where to get a booster shot, of course, because there are no shots....

 No wonder the citizens here are dropping like flies.

 Fucking assholes in Govt. won't even provide them with the basic information.

All you need to know is: trust God and your Governor, not necessarily in that order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I looked at my county dept. of health website just now. It says that "there are no Covid vaccines, and no cures".... I looked at the last update. May 2020... :rolleyes:

 No info on where to get a booster shot, of course, because there are no shots....

 No wonder the citizens here are dropping like flies.

 Fucking assholes in Govt. won't even provide them with the basic information.

That's crazy.

We have advertisements on the local radio channels on how to schedule either first doses and/or boosters. County health websites are of a kinda shitty design, but lots of info. Massive "Covid 19 Resources" button impossible to miss:

image.thumb.png.3b95cbd8f39ac5f56db514794730f828.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz&#x27;r said:

That's crazy.

We have advertisements on the local radio channels on how to schedule either first doses and/or boosters. County health websites are of a kinda shitty design, but lots of info. Massive "Covid 19 Resources" button impossible to miss:

image.thumb.png.3b95cbd8f39ac5f56db514794730f828.png

You are comparing conditions in California to those in Turkey, or close enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:

You can try to minimize it as outrage, its a common theme here. No outrage, just surprised, that's all. I take it you already knew the information?

It didn't register a blip on my radar screen, still doesn't. Does a vaccine help your immune system fight off a pathogen? yep, that's what it does. That's what they've always done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 9:16 AM, Bus Driver said:

Good point.  But, our experience with toilet paper makes clear whaat will happen when the public decides they NEED it.  I can't imagine what it would've been like in medical centers if they had no masks available.

But, the approval of drugs is slow.  We know that.  Look to Thalidomide for a decent reason why.

And look to all the people that died but would have lived had the approval not been so slow.  Way more than would have been affected by Thalidomide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jzk said:

And look to all the people that died but would have lived had the approval not been so slow.  Way more than would have been affected by Thalidomide. 

Can we put you down in the "they need to get these drugs/treatments to the public much sooner" category?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chum said:

Wait, I thought I was taking the emergency use authorized vaccine to reach herd immunity and protect everyone else. Now you're saying it's about protecting myself? 

E-xM0KOWEAEnkDE.jpeg

you really need to up your pedant game. Tom gives lessons. 

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

RIF. You are not protecting others, you are protecting yourself. Fully vaccinated people are spreading the disease. Read again.

So you're advocating for masks to stop the spread of the disease, regardless of vaccination status. Thanks for your clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chum said:

RIF. You are not protecting others, you are protecting yourself. Fully vaccinated people are spreading the disease. Read again.

You wanted to know if the vaccine was for yourself or others.

34 minutes ago, chum said:

Wait, I thought I was taking the emergency use authorized vaccine to reach herd immunity and protect everyone else. Now you're saying it's about protecting myself? 

I was just pointing out you are clearly not able to protect others if you do not protect yourself.

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

Actually, it looks now like the only sure way to protect others is to die from it, no way to spread it when you're dead. 

Good plan. Let us know how that works out. I hear there's an award for that and everything.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chum said:

RIF. there was no plan there, just a very true observation. The chances of me dieing from the disease as a healthy white male with no pre-existing conditions were extremely low when I was told to get the vaccine to protect everyone else. Do you see the difference?

 

Do you have loved ones?  Anyone around you have pre-existing conditions?

And, you keep whining about your individual status and the shot?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chum said:

Everyone at risk should get the shot for protection. My getting the shot did not protect those who need protection, see? It's a changed narrative now.

Like Fakenews, you sure are fixated on you, and you alone.

In his words - "twubbling".

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chum said:

How am I focused on me if I got vaxxed to protect "you" through herd immunity, when I was at very little risk to start with?? The point of getting vaxxed now, is by definition, self protection.

I doubt you give a shit about others.  Your repeated posts about what you have been asked to do for others, and how you are unhappy about that, say so.

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

I didn't say anything against masking, I never have. RIF.

We were aiming for herd immunity through 70-80% vaccination rate among our population, remember? That's changed to "protection" from the disease, see the difference?

Wow, a "novel" virus is behaving in "novel" ways. Pretty amazing that we even HAVE a vaccine, let alone it being very effective in making sure the recipient doesn't end up dead. I know you all want a simple answer, but this is no simple virus. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Can we put you down in the "they need to get these drugs/treatments to the public much sooner" category?

Haven't we already?

Nice non-answer.  Any reason you are reluctant to state your position on this issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chum said:

Whatever Bus, just keep up the personal attacks instead of addressing the subject of the changed narrative. Ignore that the new CDC message is "introducing the vaccine into the body to produce protection". Its no longer about protecting others.

you are reading WAY too much into this. 

All the studies show that even if you get a breakthrough infection, and to start that's 1/10th the risk of getting infected vs someone who's been vaxxed, but even IF you get a breakthrough, your viral load is lower, and you have it for less time.

Those 3 facts mean you're MUCH less likely to pass on a virus than if you're unvaxxed.

The numbers being bantied about are 10% as likely to get infected, 1/3 the viral load, for 1/3 the time. 

If those numbers are close - you're looking at 10%x33%x33%.  That's a pretty fucking small number. 

But you'll get to bitch again as we'll have better numbers with time. "oh no, they changed again! They don't know anything"

Don't be a pussy. Get the jab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Nice non-answer.  Any reason you are reluctant to state your position on this issue?

He can't answer the abortion question either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chum said:

Whatever Bus, just keep up the personal attacks instead of addressing the subject of the changed narrative. Ignore that the new CDC message is "introducing the vaccine into the body to produce protection". Its no longer about protecting others.

It is not binary.  Thinking of things, especially in the case of an evolving scenario like a novel virus, as either/or is rarely a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:

That’s great! I wasn’t worried about me ending up dead, my odds were extremely low, as I pointed out. I was worried about you, but it looks like that concern was misplaced, as the only sure way for you to be protected is for you to get the vaccine, not me.

Your 8th grade math teacher is rolling over in her grave. So sad. I suppose you need a calculator to make change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Nice non-answer.  Any reason you are reluctant to state your position on this issue?

How is it a non answer?  I don't think the FDA should be in the business of preventing any adults from taking anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

How is it a non answer?  I don't think the FDA should be in the business of preventing any adults from taking anything.

I didn't ask if you thought "the FDA should be in the business of preventing any adults from taking anything."

I asked if you felt the FDA "need to get these drugs/treatments to the public much sooner".

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz&#x27;r said:

He can't answer the abortion question either. 

Did you ask me a question?  I missed it.  

The Constitution, as currently written, contains no right to an abortion.

Does that clear things up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I didn't ask if you thought "the FDA should be in the business of preventing any adults from taking anything."

I asked if you felt the FDA "need to get these drugs/treatments to the public much sooner".

Well, if the FDA would just get out of the way, which is what I want, those treatments would get to the public much sooner.

So my position is that "we need" to get the FDA out of the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danceswithoctopus said:

Where in the Constitution does it forbid abortion?

You want to discuss a different topic?  No problem.  The Constitution does not outlaw abortion in the US.

Does that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Well, if the FDA would just get out of the way, which is what I want, those treatments would get to the public much sooner.

So my position is that "we need" to get the FDA out of the way.

Gotcha.  I hope you are never in need of a safe and reliable medical treatment, should you get your way.

Of course, you could always just inject bleach or take a dewormer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Did you ask me a question?  I missed it.  

The Constitution, as currently written, contains no right to an abortion.

Does that clear things up?

So, you’re happy to trade your other rights so that women cannot get an abortion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Gotcha.  I hope you are never in need of a safe and reliable medical treatment, should you get your way.

Of course, you could always just inject bleach or take a dewormer.

Do reputable medical organizations recommend injecting bleach or taking dewormer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz&#x27;r said:

So, you’re happy to trade your other rights so that women cannot get an abortion?

Where did you get that idea?  What does such a statement have to do with the fact that there is no right to an abortion currently written into the Constitution?

Link to post
Share on other sites