|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
Norway28675 Posts
As a Norwegian I am entirely seconding BJ's second to latest post here. We've gotten to 91% vaccination rates for people above 18 without any mandates and without any real pressure (other than being mildly scolded in social situations if you say you're not getting vaccinated). The reason why we're up there, is because of public trust in institutions, trust in medical professionals, trust in authorities telling us 'this is the smart thing to do'.
This trust is invaluable currency for a country, it's very easy to lose, and incredibly hard to build. But some of the cornerstones are - 'be transparent and honest, and err on the side of caution'. (I understand that in the US, there's an entirely different media landscape, an entirely different political situation, and you can't really compare the point of departures for our respective countries. That's fair - I'm not making a direct comparison here.)
What I see from vaccine-skeptic Americans who are - essentially coerced from inconvenience - is that some of them, perhaps quite a lot of them, will eventually budge, and eventually get the vaccine. Maybe you get to higher numbers, and unvaccinated patients stop clogging up hospitals. But I also see the buildup of real, lasting resentment. And while Covid is bad, it's not the last crisis you will face over the coming decades, fair chance it won't be the worst one, either.
|
On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it.
Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects.
You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic.
|
Norway28675 Posts
So could it not also be that BJ (and I) are interested in knowing to what degree natural immunity protects from Covid without thinking that people developing natural immunity from infection rather than immunity from vaccine is a better option for dealing with the pandemic?
It's like, I feel like we need to add a 'disclaimer: I am pro-vaccine, double vaccinated and I recommend that everyone gets vaccinated' to our posts (I've effectively done this multiple times by now) to avoid that the discussion becomes sidetracked towards something we never said or even implied. And I don't think that should be necessary, at least not after the first time I or someone else mentions it. We're not in favor of letting people catch covid and hope they don't land in the hospital. We think people should get vaccinated. But, it's possible to think that, while also trying to figure out, or establish, to what degree having been infected shields you from future infection.
And based on the sources posted (also Norwegian policy - we only vaccinate with mRNA, meaning people need 2 doses in general. However, if you have been infected with covid, the stated recommendation is 'one additional dose'.), I'm left with the impression that 'it gives significant protection, and if you have been infected and also received one booster shot, there's little point in you getting booster shot #2 at the moment.' That, to me, is relevant information.
Thank you, thread.
|
On October 13 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Actually, if you re-read my last 2 posts carefully you will see the main point I was making is about not about immunities or passports but about mistrust.
People think this bizarre obsession with controlling the messaging to vaccine-hesitant people will lead to more vaccination but most vaccine hesitant people I know see right through this shit and it makes them even more vaccine hesitant.
Half of my colleagues have decided not to get vaccinated. I've spent hours talking to them about it, and it's very clear that their aversion does not stem in any way from the messaging being controlled. It has nothing to do with what information is out there, by whom, or for whom, or how valid or invalid it appears to be. They've long made up their minds, they firmly believe they're right, and absolutely nothing can change that. They're smart people, and yet that's how they go about it.
Their psychology, in my understanding, is roughly this: any information that contradicts their views, no matter how valid it might be, further solidifes them in their anti-vaxx position. Because it rubs them the wrong way, therefore they reject it automatically. They say A, I say B, therefore I'm wrong. It doesn't matter who's right. Nothing can change their minds. It's not possible to get through to them using any form of reason or rationale, because that's not the level they operate on.
The way they perceive vaccination is from a highly subjective lense, because they don't have enough expertise, and so they choose to acquire information only as it supports their subjective views. When they say A, they want to hear A be repeated back to them. Hearing B causes them immediate discomfort and only strengthens their existing beliefs. They'll argue tooth and nails for A no matter how absurd it gets. You can only confirm A if you want them to side with you.
So information to the contrary gets rejected, while any information that seems to confirm their beliefs (even on the most surface level) gets used to justify their position. And I've noticed that they're even willing to burn bridges over it, in the sense that they let their anti-vaxx views get in the way of good relations with their colleagues. Since I'm not willing to go that far, I've stopped talking to them about vaccination entirely. That unfortunately has led to them dominating the discourse about vaccination. I'm powerless to do anything about it, as I'm not willing to burn my bridges. This is a serious problem.
While I agree with you that being truthful and honest is the right way, that doesn't mean that correct information is necessarily the same thing as good information. What do I mean by that? Correct information is simply correct, that's it. Meanwhile good information is correct information presented to everyone in a fashion that the relevant essence of the information spreads in a relatively easy to understand message, while avoiding the spreading of bad information. This is a difficult task that requires more than just "speaking the truth".
For example, when people hear that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, while technically maybe correct, that completely misses the point, because what some people hear is "vaccines aren't effective". And that leads to all kinds of other really bad conclusions.
I'll give an example from a conversation with one of my colleagues. He asked me if the vaccines are effective against the Delta variant. I said "yes, although less so than they were against previous variants". His response: "ok, then I see no point in getting vaccinated." In his mind what he heard was this: "the Delta variant has rendered the vaccines useless".
People think in black and white when they lack expertise. Thinking in a nuanced way is too difficult because they'd first have to learn things that they've never heard of before. They'd have to go through lots of data, all the while having to ignore or dismantle their own existing beliefs. It's an impossible task.
And then my colleagues can go on and spread really bad information to other people, saying (with complete confidence) that even I - someone who supports vaccination - have said vaccines are useless. Do you see what happened? The exact opposite of what I actually said came out of my being as truthful as I could possibly have been. Because correct information presented poorly is hardly better than incorrect information presented well.
If we present good information in a poor way, we are doing the truth a disservice.
|
On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic.
Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine.
In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting.
|
On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world.
You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"?
Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway.
|
On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting.
Obviously, and I will ignore Gorsameth's facetious non-answer, knowing how much protection having been infected and come out the other end is critical for policy decisions. But the question isn't: what is better? vaccine or infection. it's "is it worth giving people who got sick a vaccine?" and if talking about a scarce resource then "is it worth giving people who got infected a first dose before giving people who didn't get infected a second dose".
Those are all interesting questions from a policy point of view. What is a purely academic question is how much better/worse natural immunity is in comparison to a single dose of vaccine. You'll notice there is very little research into this question, compared to those above, because it is a question with very little practical use. And yet that appears to be the main talking point you are pursuing.
|
On October 13 2021 21:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. Obviously, and I will ignore Gorsameth's facetious non-answer, knowing how much protection having been infected and come out the other end is critical for policy decisions. But the question isn't: what is better? vaccine or infection. it's "is it worth giving people who got sick a vaccine?" and if talking about a scarce resource then "is it worth giving people who got infected a first dose before giving people who didn't get infected a second dose". Those are all interesting questions from a policy point of view. What is a purely academic question is how much better/worse natural immunity is in comparison to a single dose of vaccine. You'll notice there is very little research into this question, compared to those above, because it is a question with very little practical use. And yet that appears to be the main talking point you are pursuing. I don't think knowing the protection from being infected is crucial for policy because if you act on it by allowing for example people who have been previously infected get that as a valid indication on a vaccine passport to go clubbing you encourage morons to purposefully catch covid.
That's where this dumb discussion started, with the question if having recovered should count for as much as having gotten a vaccine for vaccine passports. And the answer is a solid No. Because it encourages horrible behaviour, regardless of how effective natural immunity might actually be.
|
On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway.
My bad, I didn't realize the stakes were so high.
If there are any horse paste eaters reading this: get vaccinated!
|
On October 13 2021 20:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a Norwegian I am entirely seconding BJ's second to latest post here. We've gotten to 91% vaccination rates for people above 18 without any mandates and without any real pressure (other than being mildly scolded in social situations if you say you're not getting vaccinated). The reason why we're up there, is because of public trust in institutions, trust in medical professionals, trust in authorities telling us 'this is the smart thing to do'.
This trust is invaluable currency for a country, it's very easy to lose, and incredibly hard to build. But some of the cornerstones are - 'be transparent and honest, and err on the side of caution'. (I understand that in the US, there's an entirely different media landscape, an entirely different political situation, and you can't really compare the point of departures for our respective countries. That's fair - I'm not making a direct comparison here.)
What I see from vaccine-skeptic Americans who are - essentially coerced from inconvenience - is that some of them, perhaps quite a lot of them, will eventually budge, and eventually get the vaccine. Maybe you get to higher numbers, and unvaccinated patients stop clogging up hospitals. But I also see the buildup of real, lasting resentment. And while Covid is bad, it's not the last crisis you will face over the coming decades, fair chance it won't be the worst one, either.
I know you've already acknowledged that the United States is in a very different political/media situation than Norway, but I feel like it makes sense to focus on things from the American perspective, because if 91% of Americans were scientifically literate and medically trusting, these sorts of conversations wouldn't need to exist in the first place.
I think it'd be great if we could figure out ways to build up trust with anti-vaxxers, but being transparent, honest, and cautious are not getting through to a significant percentage of Americans. When a scientist makes a prediction and then publicly admits to being wrong, half the country doesn't appreciate that transparency or honesty; they see it as proof that scientists can't be trusted, because the scientist was wrong about one thing and therefore why should we trust them about the next thing? Even if the scientist is right about something, they could have gotten lucky and that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be trustworthy the next time around. It's all about cherry-picking whatever interpretation fits their narrative, and it's not like most Americans are choosing to a deep dive into the peer-reviewed literature on a topic, instead of listening to whatever media outlet they prefer anyway.
I think attempting open communication should always be tried first (i.e., at an individual level, asking someone why they don't want the covid vaccine, because their reason might be different from someone else's), because being able to empathize with a person you disagree with can build a strong rapport which makes both sides receptive to alternative opinions... but when good-faith conversations are drowned out by Fox News or the countless other anti-vax / conspiratorial sites that act as a perfect echo chamber for people who feel some kind of way, it's depressingly difficult. And given the seriously infectious nature of coronavirus, we can't wait for millions of people to maybe, someday, be convinced to get vaccinated in a few years when they have a come-to-Jesus moment.
If attempts at communication and persuasion and education aren't immediately working, we're unfortunately left with the alternatives that can pragmatically, efficiently, and quickly work, which includes negative, inconvenient consequences for people who are unwilling to get vaccinated, like coercing them to get vaccinated. And can this erode trust even further? Sure, but by then, it was clear that trust wasn't going to happen anyway, and at least now they're less likely to get themselves and other people sick. I want people to trust me, but I'd rather have them not trust me than them accidentally hurt someone I care about. It's not an ideal route, but at some point, you might need to drag some of the dissenters kicking and screaming into doing what's right, even if they don't like it, and that's historically been necessary (e.g., putting civil rights into law, whether or not 91% of people were on board with respecting those disenfranchised demographics).
|
Furthermore on the topic of second doses: I can give an easy example of why it's important that we don't push the idea that a second dose makes no difference for previously infected individuals (I'll say PI's for short).
First of all, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, the second dose in the study was noted as being given 21 days after the first dose. This is a very short timeframe and I think it makes perfect sense that additional efficacy wouldn't show in the numbers.
To understand this you can perhaps imagine if a third dose was given to non-infected individuals 21 days after the second dose, while the second dose was given 21 days after the first dose. Am I making sense? It seems perfectly plausible to me that the timeframe between second and third dose would then not be meaningful, and I think the same reasoning can be used for a second dose for PI's.
So to be really truthful, we'd have to push quite a different idea: that the second dose for PI's was not found to recharge/add immunity when given after 21 days, but it can perhaps be expected to add to the immunity after a longer timeframe, e.g. after a few more weeks or months.
In my understanding, this is actually the correct version of the truth. It's more convoluted though, so I strongly doubt that it'll become gospel among people. Many people like to hear something simpler that they can easily memorize, ideally a one-sentence phrase like "a second dose for PI's can be effective". People have lives to life and we have to be picky with the things we choose to remember. But that one-sentence phrase would not be perfectly truthful and therefore raise suspicions, as the people who actually do read the relevant research will quickly point out that no such thing was discovered, yet. And that can be used to argue that the "vaccine lobby" or whatever is pushing propaganda to make more money, I'm sure some of you have heard this kind of rhetoric before.
Am I making sense with the way I see this problem?
|
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster
|
Also with just 1 dose they already have better protection than anyone else. Nothing further should be required of them. They don't need better better better protection.
|
On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster
Are you actually being serious right now or is that a joke?
|
On October 13 2021 21:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster Are you actually being serious right now or is that a joke?
I'm actually being serious, why do you ask? A person with a previous infection should be considered fully vaccinated after 1 dose, as the science suggests, and as is already the case in several countries. There is no 2nd dose and there shouldn't be. The only question should be when they need a booster which is the same question for everyone that is vaccinated.
|
On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster
On October 13 2021 21:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:48 Magic Powers wrote:On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster Are you actually being serious right now or is that a joke? I'm actually being serious, why do you ask? A person with a previous infection should be considered fully vaccinated after 1 dose, as the science suggests, and as is already the case in several countries. There is no 2nd dose and there shouldn't be. The only question should be when they need a booster which is the same question for everyone that is vaccinated.
Whether or not something is defined as a booster is not based on how much later the follow-up dose is received, because the second dose (and in some cases, especially with some immunocompromised individuals who can receive the vaccine, an additional third dose) is part of the initial regiment / full course of the initial vaccine, to make sure the vaccine is completely effective.
It's the difference between "the vaccine has been effective for a while, but its efficacy is starting to wane" (so a booster is needed get it back up to the effectiveness it used to be at) and "the shot(s) we gave are not providing the expected efficacy, so we're going to give another one to get it up to where it should be" (this is a second/third/non-booster dose). In the latter scenario, the individuals are not considered "fully vaccinated" until they've had their second/third dose.
Here's more information on the difference:
"Is a third dose the same thing as a booster dose?
No. A booster is given to people who got a full course of a vaccine and developed a good response. For some vaccines, antibodies and other aspects of a person’s initially strong immune response start to decrease (or wane) over time. When that happens, people are offered booster doses to pump their immune response back to previous levels.
Unlike boosters, third/additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are for people who received the complete starter series of vaccines but then their immune systems didn’t have a good enough response. Evidence shows these are generally people whose immune systems are weaker. That’s why the FDA and CDC are recommending an additional dose for immunocompromised individuals."
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/third-doses-and-covid-booster-shots
I hope that helps clarify the difference 
|
On October 13 2021 21:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:48 Magic Powers wrote:On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster Are you actually being serious right now or is that a joke? I'm actually being serious, why do you ask? A person with a previous infection should be considered fully vaccinated after 1 dose, as the science suggests, and as is already the case in several countries. There is no 2nd dose and there shouldn't be. The only question should be when they need a booster which is the same question for everyone that is vaccinated.
The reason why I asked is simply because at no point did anyone here ever mention a difference between additional doses and boosters. Not you, not anyone else.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On October 13 2021 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 20:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As a Norwegian I am entirely seconding BJ's second to latest post here. We've gotten to 91% vaccination rates for people above 18 without any mandates and without any real pressure (other than being mildly scolded in social situations if you say you're not getting vaccinated). The reason why we're up there, is because of public trust in institutions, trust in medical professionals, trust in authorities telling us 'this is the smart thing to do'.
This trust is invaluable currency for a country, it's very easy to lose, and incredibly hard to build. But some of the cornerstones are - 'be transparent and honest, and err on the side of caution'. (I understand that in the US, there's an entirely different media landscape, an entirely different political situation, and you can't really compare the point of departures for our respective countries. That's fair - I'm not making a direct comparison here.)
What I see from vaccine-skeptic Americans who are - essentially coerced from inconvenience - is that some of them, perhaps quite a lot of them, will eventually budge, and eventually get the vaccine. Maybe you get to higher numbers, and unvaccinated patients stop clogging up hospitals. But I also see the buildup of real, lasting resentment. And while Covid is bad, it's not the last crisis you will face over the coming decades, fair chance it won't be the worst one, either. I know you've already acknowledged that the United States is in a very different political/media situation than Norway, but I feel like it makes sense to focus on things from the American perspective, because if 91% of Americans were scientifically literate and medically trusting, these sorts of conversations wouldn't need to exist in the first place. I think it'd be great if we could figure out ways to build up trust with anti-vaxxers, but being transparent, honest, and cautious are not getting through to a significant percentage of Americans. When a scientist makes a prediction and then publicly admits to being wrong, half the country doesn't appreciate that transparency or honesty; they see it as proof that scientists can't be trusted, because the scientist was wrong about one thing and therefore why should we trust them about the next thing? Even if the scientist is right about something, they could have gotten lucky and that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be trustworthy the next time around. It's all about cherry-picking whatever interpretation fits their narrative, and it's not like most Americans are choosing to a deep dive into the peer-reviewed literature on a topic, instead of listening to whatever media outlet they prefer anyway. I think attempting open communication should always be tried first (i.e., at an individual level, asking someone why they don't want the covid vaccine, because their reason might be different from someone else's), because being able to empathize with a person you disagree with can build a strong rapport which makes both sides receptive to alternative opinions... but when good-faith conversations are drowned out by Fox News or the countless other anti-vax / conspiratorial sites that act as a perfect echo chamber for people who feel some kind of way, it's depressingly difficult. And given the seriously infectious nature of coronavirus, we can't wait for millions of people to maybe, someday, be convinced to get vaccinated in a few years when they have a come-to-Jesus moment. If attempts at communication and persuasion and education aren't immediately working, we're unfortunately left with the alternatives that can pragmatically, efficiently, and quickly work, which includes negative, inconvenient consequences for people who are unwilling to get vaccinated, like coercing them to get vaccinated. And can this erode trust even further? Sure, but by then, it was clear that trust wasn't going to happen anyway, and at least now they're less likely to get themselves and other people sick. I want people to trust me, but I'd rather have them not trust me than them accidentally hurt someone I care about. It's not an ideal route, but at some point, you might need to drag some of the dissenters kicking and screaming into doing what's right, even if they don't like it, and that's historically been necessary (e.g., putting civil rights into law, whether or not 91% of people were on board with respecting those disenfranchised demographics).
I can absolutely understand this point of view and think it's entirely rational. I don't know to what degree living in the US would disillusion me to the point where it would obliterate my optimism and belief in greater society, but I'm fairly confident it'd shape my view of 'most people' in a rather negative manner compared to having lived my life in Norway. It's very possible that I'd be on board with more coercion than I currently am.
(more us politics than covid)
+ Show Spoiler +
Solving the fragmentation of American society seems tougher than finding a solution to Israel-Palestine, I really can't propose a way forward here. But I will insist that it's like a 40 year job, not a 4 year one, as dissatisfying as that might sound. AND, I think that the one half of the population 'in power' forcing the other one ensures that you never get there, rather, it will keep escalating. At the same time, I understand that 'lying down and taking it' isn't really viable either.
But I also think the 'Okay, fuck them, I'm vaccinated, let idiots be idiots - it's not very dangerous to me, or other vaccinated people, nor to children who can't get vaccinated, either people are gonna get infected (and then they're either fine, possibly learn a valuable lesson, or die)' is a rational response to the situation you guys have. They both come with advantages and disadvantages. You might argue that an anti-vaxxer is not just a threat to him or herself, but also to others by perpetuating the virus - and that's fair, but even so, they are still a much greater threat to themselves than they are to others.
|
On October 13 2021 22:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster Show nested quote +On October 13 2021 21:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:48 Magic Powers wrote:On October 13 2021 21:44 BlackJack wrote:
If you have to wait a long time to give the 2nd dose for it to actually be useful then you should just stop calling it a 2nd dose and call it a booster Are you actually being serious right now or is that a joke? I'm actually being serious, why do you ask? A person with a previous infection should be considered fully vaccinated after 1 dose, as the science suggests, and as is already the case in several countries. There is no 2nd dose and there shouldn't be. The only question should be when they need a booster which is the same question for everyone that is vaccinated. Whether or not something is defined as a booster is not based on how much later the follow-up dose is received, because the second dose (and in some cases, especially with some immunocompromised individuals who can receive the vaccine, an additional third dose) is part of the initial regiment / full course of the initial vaccine, to make sure the vaccine is completely effective. It's the difference between "the vaccine has been effective for a while, but its efficacy is starting to wane" (so a booster is needed get it back up to the effectiveness it used to be at) and "the shot(s) we gave are not providing the expected efficacy, so we're going to give another one to get it up to where it should be" (this is a second/third/non-booster dose). In the latter scenario, the individuals are not considered "fully vaccinated" until they've had their second/third dose. Here's more information on the difference: "Is a third dose the same thing as a booster dose? No. A booster is given to people who got a full course of a vaccine and developed a good response. For some vaccines, antibodies and other aspects of a person’s initially strong immune response start to decrease (or wane) over time. When that happens, people are offered booster doses to pump their immune response back to previous levels. Unlike boosters, third/additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are for people who received the complete starter series of vaccines but then their immune systems didn’t have a good enough response. Evidence shows these are generally people whose immune systems are weaker. That’s why the FDA and CDC are recommending an additional dose for immunocompromised individuals." https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/third-doses-and-covid-booster-shots I hope that helps clarify the difference
As I said in the post you quoted, the "full-regiment" for previously infected individuals should be a single shot. So there is no 2nd dose. Then as the immune response wanes over time additional shots should be given, which also perfectly lines up with the definition of booster that you offered.
|
Norway28675 Posts
Btw, here's a source for Norway's policy:
https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/befolkningen/vaksinert-eller-gjennomgatt-covid-19/ (the english translation is good).
Key segment: 'Those who are considered "fully vaccinated" are:
Those who have received a second dose of vaccine. Status as fully vaccinated applies from 1 week after the second vaccine dose.
Those who have undergone illness and at least 3 weeks later have received a dose of vaccine. Status as fully vaccinated applies from 1 week after the vaccine dose.'
Previously infected + 1 dose is considered fully vaccinated, equal to having gotten two doses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
