FWIW I got my first booster last September...got COVID in January...and got my second booster in April. If they come out with a revised booster (Omicron, etc.) and the recommendation to get a third booster I will get it. "Believe the Science" is a cliche propagated by folks for sometimes questionable and sometimes absolutely proven reasons. Science is not always right...it evolves. Our knowledge evolves. They started out with approving the vaccines following tests of safety and effectiveness in cutting down on infections. It was never 100% effective nor touted as such. It was believed to help protect those around you (still probably does though not as much as was originally hoped) but that type data only comes out after extensive use. The virus evolved...Omicron is more transmissible than the originally (tested) variants and maybe even evolved because of so many folks getting the vaccine. Maybe that's not a bad thing since it certainly appears to be less toxic and lethal. Also FWIW I was always opposed to the complete shutting down of society that George eloquently talks about in his post. I felt from the first that it would damage society and so many people even if it only lasted a few months...and it went on much longer than that...and still is in some ways not to mention all of it's ongoing effects. Masks?...I get it and if a business (seems like primarily medical clinics around here) require it I dig one out and put it on...but I think the data has shown that places with restrictive masking policies haven't done any better than looser states/cities. I don't wear one. As for Birx...kudos to her for going on Fox News for that discussion. (I don't blame her for talking with Cavuto rather than Carlson ). I think y'all are being a little hard on her calling her a liar...she honestly says maybe they oversold the vaccine...and I think some of her comments were taken out of context. The Washington Examiner is a Right Biased news source. The following FULL quote is from Politifact (Yeah, a center-left biased news source.) PolitiFact - No, Dr. Deborah Birx didn't change her 'tune' on COVID vaccines Birx: "If you're across the South and you're in the middle of this wave, what is going to save you is Paxlovid. But once we get through this wave, during that lull, you should get vaccinated and boosted, because we do believe it will protect you, particularly if you're over 70. I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will." What Birx previously said about vaccines The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, and Biden have received high-profile criticism for overstating the extent of the vaccines' ability to thwart infection. However, Birx has remained largely consistent in saying that COVID-19 vaccines do not provide long-term immunity, and she has repeatedly touted a multi-pronged approach to combat the virus.
So I'll weigh in since I have a little more anecdotal evidence to go along with it. I'm not anti-vax, however I am vehemently against FORCING it on people. I got the first round, mostly because it made working easier. I remember how my eyebrows crept up when they first announced the efficacy of the vaccine. It was geometrically better than any cold or flu virus vaccine before. Hmmm? Turns out, not so much. Which doubles down my "no way you get to force this on people" attitude. Now to the anecdotal - I am just coming off my 2nd bout with Covid, someone brought it to work even though we have to wear masks. (don't get me started) This version is a WEAK sister. I barely noticed I had it. Other than fatigue and a minor occasional cough with minor nasal congestion I was fine. Lasted 4 days. My point is - Covid is dying the death all colds do: most of the herd immune systems recognize it and that is making it weaker and weaker. I'm now waiting to see what they come up with to take it's place... since you can't keep up your heavy handed rules without some reason...
Scott, I know several people who are fully vaxed and boosted, who have had Covid a second time, and whose experience is similar to yours.
It may have been "oversold" but I don't EVER recall any claims that the vaccine would be 100% effective in stopping infections nor wipe out the virus. I believe in the data that show the benefits of flu shots and get mine every year not thinking that it will prevent me from getting the flu. I believe it makes me less likely to get it and more likely that it will be milder. As I said before...I am fully vaxed and boosted and yet got COVID (in between the two boosters) but that does not change my mind that the data shows the value and safety of the vaccines. PS my COVID was very mild and I'm an old guy with medical risk factors. Did the vaccine help? We'll never know but... And please don't think I'm throwing shade on any of you guys...my one son and his family aren't gonna get vaxed. He's a smart kid. We don't argue about it. He's shown me some anti-vax literature and I've shown him some pro-vax stuff. I do believe in folks right to not be vaccinated. However I do believe in most employer's right to require vaccination if they feel it is in the best interest of their organization. (Particularly think hospitals, nursing homes, and places where everyone is living on top of each other). I wish it weren't such a politicized controversial thing. I do believe that the more folks get vaccinated the safer we'd all be.
Here I go again. Sorry New study; My argument with what is presented below is again, semantics...the findings do not suggest that a fourth vaccine was effective in "preventing" breakthroughs as they state...but rather in decreasing them. Association of the Fourth BNT162b Vaccine With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Key Points Question Was there a benefit of vaccinating health care workers with a fourth dose of BNT162b2 vaccine during the Omicron variant outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings In this multicenter cohort study of 29 611 health care workers in Israel, the breakthrough infection rate among those who received 4 doses was 6.9% compared with 19.8% in those who received 3 doses. Meaning These findings suggest that a fourth vaccine dose was effective in preventing breakthrough COVID-19 infections in health care workers, helping to maintain the function of the health care system during the pandemic.
I agree as well and as I mentioned earlier, I believe the politicization of the virus may well set public health in our country back a generation. That said, I'm curious as to the different points of view/thoughts on this issue.....mandatory vaccines have been a central component of the public health systems in our country for the better part of 100 years. I don't recall a debate when that noted lefty Pres. Eisenhower lined me and everybody else up like cattle for our polio vaccines as well as all the others required to attend school, military, etc. Now here we are and along comes the most highly transmissible, deadly and costly pandemic the world has seen in over a century and suddenly the notion of a vaccine that demonstrably mitigates the spread of the virus and risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death is a political bludgeon/hot button. What am I missing?
BuckeyeT: - experts, news, and government officials have earned an all-time low trust rating; all of the groups in which we are supposed to trust the most have been shown to be more interested in furthering their narrative than providing facts - COVID base variant, much less Omicron, is NOT polio and is nowhere nearly as consequential or fatal - polio vaccine very clearly prevents disease whereas an infinite number of COVID shots does little to prevent disease, except potentially as a consequence of less severe symptoms Most of the people I have talked with that are not in support of forcing COVID shots into people aren't philosophically opposed to vaccines. These are not "anti-vax" individuals, no matter how political hacks want to label them. There is a cost associated with trampling on an individual's rights, but there are, at times, sufficient societal benefit that makes that cost / sacrifice necessary. The benefit of this shot does not, in my opinion, clearly support the cost of trampling on individual's rights.
Thanks Kes, I do appreciate you sharing your views. We are in complete agreement re: trust/credibility... as to this one I am struggling a bit.... By what measure? The highest reported number deaths from Polio in the last 100 years is 3,145 in 1952. Reported deaths from Covid - validated in terms of magnitude if not precise number by a variety of other credible datasets, e.g., excess deaths, etc - were 415,000 in 2021 alone, similar magnitude in 2020 and in excess of 1 million total to date - over 130X greater than Polio in any year, not onesies or twosies, but 130X. What metric or result can be more consequential or fatal than death? And we're not talking marginal differences here, we're talking massive scale differences, not just different address or zip code, but different solar systems. I just don't get the logic here....
Polio was bad. In 1952 there were 57,628 cases, 3,145 deaths, and 21,269 patients left with mild to disabling paralysis. Part of the problem is that folks don't believe the COVID numbers (politics, again and mistrust of government and science). I do believe the numbers. Certification of cause of death or contributing cause of death can be hard...even controversial when there are multiple contributing factors. But trust me...nobody is certifying a motor cycle victim with a broken neck as a COVID death just because he tests positive. (I keep hearing stories like that). Much of that mistrust is well deserved, but find me an ICU nurse who doesn't believe the numbers or the devastation of the virus.
I appreciate the question, and of course where you end up in your viewpoint could be different, even with the same data, but this is how I look at it. In the US, according to WorldOMeter, there have been over 93M cases resulting in 1M deaths. I think it very likely that the number of cases is severely undercounted, by multiple times. Were there 2x as many cases? 3x? There've been estimates that cases were undercounted by up to 10x. But given these reported numbers represent the WORST CASE, we are looking at between 10%-11% fatality for the entirety of the pandemic. Looking at the Delta spike before vaccines were widely available, 200k-300k cases per day vs. 3k-4k deaths per day, about 1.5% fatality rate. Looking at the Omicron spike, 900k cases per day vs. 3400 deaths per day, a 0.3% fatality rate. As far as severe long-term consequences of illness other than death? Less than 1%, but unknown how much below because I haven't found a source that found it worth tracking. For polio, using Stu's numbers, we have 5%-6% fatality rate and almost 37% long-term consequential realities. (Iron lung, anybody? Oy ve!) I think it very unlikely polio cases went uncounted. I am of the opinion that risking a polio epidemic absolutely rose to the level of forcing vaccines over personal objections, considering 1/3 of our population would have ended up at least partially paralyzed for life. COVID is not even in the same discussion for me.
I've stopped tracking it closely, but here is a local CBS affiliate story that is fairly current, that reference s cases perhaps 7x under-counted. The story makes the argument that this is disastrous, but each multiple reduces the consequential rate even more, since severe cases are the most likely cases to be tested for and treated. Undercounted Covid-19 Cases Leave The US With A Blind Spot As BA.5 Variant Becomes Dominant
No doubt mild cases are very unreported due to home testing. I never reported mine. No doubt the mortality is decreasing. Hopefully new variants will be even milder (fingers crossed.) Hopefully all this will be as "important" as debate about whether or not to get a flu shot (I do). However, Kes, from your article; "During this winter’s Omicron surge, hospitalizations and deaths didn’t follow the same steep trend line as cases — an important shift from earlier waves of the pandemic. But the fact that severe outcomes are still happening at all is enough reason to keep paying attention to cases, experts say. “If we ever got to a state where people were getting infected but it wasn’t causing any severe illness anymore — maybe it’s a new variant that is much less severe, or it wasn’t causing long Covid — if there were no really significant adverse health outcomes, then we would no longer care as much about cases,” said Jason Salemi, an epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of South Florida. “But let me be clear, we’re not there yet.'" [Skip some data posted in the article] "If 1 in 5 Covid-19 infections results in long Covid and true infections are seven times higher than reported, the number of people with long Covid could be growing by 100,000 each day."
Thanks Kes, I appreciate your thoughts and I've heard that alot, but it seems to me we're missing something there......... If we only focus on the death rate once infected, don't we miss another very critical variable of the whole infection/disease/severe illness/death equation? That is the probability of getting infected in the first place. Right? Population x Prob infection x prob death once infected = # dead. Simply looking at the case rates it's clear that Covid was vastly more transmissible than polio by several orders of magnitude. Stu's numbers show 58,000 polio cases annually at it's peak in 1952 - Covid's peak was 300,000 per DAY - suggesting Covid was approx 2,000X more transmissible. So if Covid was "only" 25% as deadly once infected but 2,000X more likely to infect people with disease due to it's airborne transmission mechanism, it seems clear that Covid represents a vastly greater threat to our society - and the comparable numbers of deaths and disease are clear and compelling evidence of same. That is enough, in and of itself, for me but Covid's burden on so many of the shared utilities of our society was so much greater yet - many, many orders of magnitude greater. It's impact on our economy due to lost workers, productivity and retail activity, severe and costly disruptions to our transportation and supply chains, overwhelming burden on our healthcare systems and personnel were on a scale that puts the cost to our society on a war time kinda comparison....as in WWII. I recall vividly, even prior to the first lockdowns, consumer mobility and overall retail activity had cratered as I follow that stuff pretty closely in my day job ...... retail sales - which represents about 70% of GDP - declined 20% in 2 months beginning in the month prior to the first lockdown. If indeed we are to assess drastic actions like mandatory vaccinations based upon net benefit to society and we have concluded polio, whooping cough, et al are worthy and we know that the mitigation of the societal burden (obviously including deaths) from Covid provides benefits on an order of magnitude vastly greater, and yet the resistance to the Covid vaccine is so great, that provides us a damn good indication as to how costly the politicization of this virus, and by inference our leadership, has been......and we all will suffer as a result.
The tragedy is the politicization and mistrust (well earned by our politicians and their shenanigans). Then add the lack of complete scientific certainty early on (inevitable), and the misinformation propagated by social media, and...voila. What bothers me the most is that almost every issue you can name gets politicized. We all dig in so fiercely and choose sides and vilify the other. Social media has certainly amplified this. What will the "next big thing" be that splits us all apart?
I'm right there with you T, huge appreciation! The one piece in your chain of logic that, for me, changes the entire equation afterward is that this vaccine does not prevent transmission. The difference between COVID vaccination vs. not has little, if any, impact on the burdens you stated, which is why I felt it important to post Birx's quotes. If the COVID vaccination were like polio (or other vaccinations that are compelled), i.e. - it stopped transmission, this would likely be a completely different discussion. That is the whole reason the conversation is "death rate once infected", because we don't have a way of preventing transmission of COVID, but we did for polio. Stu, I saw that, and the conclusions don't follow from the data. There is no data that supports the potential of 20% developing long COVID that I have seen.
It seems clear that the future value of Covid-related healthcare costs is likely to be astronomical. Amazingly, I've not had it yet in spite of the fact that my wife came down with it while we were travelling in Europe this spring - a whole story itself! My biggest personal concern was the effects that Covid has on cardiac muscles. I've got a sub-optimal ticker already and it doesn't need any bad virus f'ing with me. We have direct evidence that the Covid spike protein is toxic to heart muscle cells and the incidence of cardiac events from recovered Covid patients is several multiples greater than norm. The longer this thing hangs around and continues it's dirty deeds, the greater will be the future costs - Medicare don't need no more massive future liabilities. My daughter is currently in med school and trying to decide her area of specialty. I suggested to her that with the millions of Covid infections and it's effects on cardiac muscles, the Covid pandemic may well be the full employment act for future cardiologists. Pretty sure we're not gonna be making enough of them to address the future demand.....
Agreed Stu. If a discussion can't be disagreed upon civilly, then I just disengage now. It used to be I enjoyed spirited discussion, but it's too "dangerous" now. I respect all you guys too much to risk misunderstanding and being interpreted as not having that respect. Social media really has been a bane to our society.
This may be where we part company....here is our semantics again but it's been fun! For me, I've seen enough data to conclude that while the vaccine does not "prevent" transmission in that sense of the word, it will "mitigate" the spread of the disease and therefore lessen the social burden. We know that there is a lower rate of transmission amongst those vaxxed, we know that those vaxxed are infectious for a shorter period of time and therefore less likely to transmit disease and while we don't have hard evidence to this effect as yet, it is hypothesized that viral loads shed by those vaxxed is less than unvaxxed further lowering the probability of transmission. We also know that once infected those vaxxed are less likely to place a costly burden on our healthcare systems and more likely to be more productive sooner and as such a net benefit to our economic output. I'll leave it here....I think you have a good idea of my views and why and I have a good idea where you stand and I respect that