|
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. |
On January 23 2023 18:03 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. It is a cost/benefit issue. Flu shots to certain groups is done every year, but from there, you get diminishing returns. If you need to give 100.000 healthy 20 year olds a shot to possibly prevent a single serious case, is it worth it? At that point, even the side effects of the shots start creeping upwards towards the medical benefit. 100.000 shots is not cheap either, and the money needs to come from elsewhere within healtcare, more frequent cancer scannings, for example. Some like to get their flu shot every year for relatively a small price. Unfortunately, they can pick the wrong strain to become dominant, so there is still no guarantee to avoid illness.
On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life.  I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine.
Those are fair points I wonder if Norway or other countries that don't regularly recommend flu shots to everyone will have the same level of concern for endemic covid. If covid ends up permanently reducing to the severity of standard influenza, then it sounds like it'll be manageable and won't need a huge focus on marketing annual boosters in those countries.
|
On January 23 2023 13:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 12:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. The 3rd shot was not just “loosely recommended.” Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job. A state passed a law mandating "If you don't get the covid vaccination booster, you're not allowed to have a job anymore"? Perhaps you're referring to a private employer mandating the vaccine for their own business, or a state-run public facility mandating the vaccine for itself? The rules created for a business or organization are not the same thing as passing actual laws. Do you have a specific state with a source? I did find examples of the opposite, though: Some states passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccinations. The irony, of course, is that this "big government overreach" move was primarily done by Republican states. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-30/these-states-are-banning-covid-19-vaccine-requirements 2. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/11-states-banning-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-how-it-affects-healthcare-workers.html Shrug. There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers. Here’s a link from the first thing I googled that talks about them delaying the deadlines in some of those states https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2022/02/22/booster-mandatesConsidering some of the states are large like New York, it’s not hyperbole to say this affects potentially millions of people. Millions falling under a “booster of terminate” mandate is not what I would call “loosely recommended” ...So please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true. The rules put in place for certain public health care groups are equivalent to private employers making the rules for their own businesses. Getting fired from a hospital for not following their medical protocols doesn't mean you necessarily did anything illegal. And, for what it's worth, working with at-risk groups (sick, old, etc.) is a pretty good reason to be overly safe, rather than sorry, which is why the booster was taken more seriously for those specific employees, as opposed to the average response that most employers had for the enforcement of the third booster (which was, as I said before, loosely recommended). Most people are not healthcare workers, but you're right that they took covid more seriously, on average, than laypeople. I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot. That’s not a “hospital policy.” That’s a law passed by a state legislature. Yes, the hospital also requires it because the hospitals want to obey the law…
So I'll ask again then: Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example. A simple "State X passed Law Y, mandating that Employees of Z needed to receive their covid booster shot - not just the first two vaccine rounds - or else they'd be fired." What are the names of X, Y, and Z?
On January 23 2023 17:44 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ is right that healthcare workers were fired for not getting vaccinated. Edit: and yes, some or all of those cases were from mandates by law.
To this day I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone why that wasn't exactly the right thing to do.
I think it definitely would have been the morally right thing to do, given how they're working with so many sick and at-risk people. BlackJack was also specifically talking about the third shot - the booster - rather than just the first two shots. Are you able to find a state/law that mandated a booster shot, under the threat of otherwise being fired? I figured I'd ask you because neither BlackJack nor I were able to find specific states passing specific laws. BlackJack's assertion might be true, but when I asked him for a source to back up his claim, he posted an article saying that New York wasn't mandating boosters as of February 2022. I did my own search on New York - I figured that maybe they mandated boosters later - but I found this:
New York nixes booster mandate for healthcare workers
New York will no longer require healthcare workers to receive COVID-19 booster shots.
The New York Public Health and Health Planning Council made the decision March 17, while also extending the original vaccination requirement for healthcare workers that has been in effect since last year, according to a statement shared with Becker's.
On Feb. 18, the New York State Department of Health announced it would not enforce the booster mandate for healthcare workers, citing concerns about potential staffing issues.
New York enforcement of the booster requirement was scheduled to take effect Feb. 21, but the state said Feb. 18 that it would reassess the mandate.
On March 17, the state reported that hospital workers and long-term staff have a completed vaccine series of 98 and 99 percent, respectively.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/new-york-nixes-booster-mandate-for-healthcare-workers.html
It seems that New York didn't bother mandating boosters, due to such a high percentage of healthcare workers already having the first two doses and the state not wanting to create any staffing issues. I may have missed something, but it's weird to me that BlackJack didn't cite any state laws.
|
Norway28786 Posts
Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently.
|
On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life. I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine.
That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases.
Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970.
The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help.
Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place?
So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases.
tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks.
|
So a state mandating a booster and nixing it before the final deadline is the same as “not bothering to mandate boosters”? That’s an interesting interpretation of reality.
|
On January 23 2023 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 13:35 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 12:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. The 3rd shot was not just “loosely recommended.” Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job. A state passed a law mandating "If you don't get the covid vaccination booster, you're not allowed to have a job anymore"? Perhaps you're referring to a private employer mandating the vaccine for their own business, or a state-run public facility mandating the vaccine for itself? The rules created for a business or organization are not the same thing as passing actual laws. Do you have a specific state with a source? I did find examples of the opposite, though: Some states passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccinations. The irony, of course, is that this "big government overreach" move was primarily done by Republican states. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-30/these-states-are-banning-covid-19-vaccine-requirements 2. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/11-states-banning-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-how-it-affects-healthcare-workers.html Shrug. There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers. Here’s a link from the first thing I googled that talks about them delaying the deadlines in some of those states https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2022/02/22/booster-mandatesConsidering some of the states are large like New York, it’s not hyperbole to say this affects potentially millions of people. Millions falling under a “booster of terminate” mandate is not what I would call “loosely recommended” ...So please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true. The rules put in place for certain public health care groups are equivalent to private employers making the rules for their own businesses. Getting fired from a hospital for not following their medical protocols doesn't mean you necessarily did anything illegal. And, for what it's worth, working with at-risk groups (sick, old, etc.) is a pretty good reason to be overly safe, rather than sorry, which is why the booster was taken more seriously for those specific employees, as opposed to the average response that most employers had for the enforcement of the third booster (which was, as I said before, loosely recommended). Most people are not healthcare workers, but you're right that they took covid more seriously, on average, than laypeople. I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot. That’s not a “hospital policy.” That’s a law passed by a state legislature. Yes, the hospital also requires it because the hospitals want to obey the law… So I'll ask again then: Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example. A simple "State X passed Law Y, mandating that Employees of Z needed to receive their covid booster shot - not just the first two vaccine rounds - or else they'd be fired." What are the names of X, Y, and Z? Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 17:44 Magic Powers wrote:
BJ is right that healthcare workers were fired for not getting vaccinated. Edit: and yes, some or all of those cases were from mandates by law.
To this day I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone why that wasn't exactly the right thing to do. I think it definitely would have been the morally right thing to do, given how they're working with so many sick and at-risk people. BlackJack was also specifically talking about the third shot - the booster - rather than just the first two shots. Are you able to find a state/law that mandated a booster shot, under the threat of otherwise being fired? I figured I'd ask you because neither BlackJack nor I were able to find specific states passing specific laws. BlackJack's assertion might be true, but when I asked him for a source to back up his claim, he posted an article saying that New York wasn't mandating boosters as of February 2022. I did my own search on New York - I figured that maybe they mandated boosters later - but I found this: Show nested quote +New York nixes booster mandate for healthcare workers
New York will no longer require healthcare workers to receive COVID-19 booster shots.
The New York Public Health and Health Planning Council made the decision March 17, while also extending the original vaccination requirement for healthcare workers that has been in effect since last year, according to a statement shared with Becker's.
On Feb. 18, the New York State Department of Health announced it would not enforce the booster mandate for healthcare workers, citing concerns about potential staffing issues.
New York enforcement of the booster requirement was scheduled to take effect Feb. 21, but the state said Feb. 18 that it would reassess the mandate.
On March 17, the state reported that hospital workers and long-term staff have a completed vaccine series of 98 and 99 percent, respectively. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/new-york-nixes-booster-mandate-for-healthcare-workers.html It seems that New York didn't bother mandating boosters, due to such a high percentage of healthcare workers already having the first two doses and the state not wanting to create any staffing issues. I may have missed something, but it's weird to me that BlackJack didn't cite any state laws.
Regarding boosters I'm not able to find anything, at least not for the US or other democratic countries. So if it's about boosters specifically, then the claim of forced vaccination would be wrong. Such a thing hasn't happened, at least not in the vast majority of countries on this planet.
But I think the arguments against booster mandates for healthcare workers fall flat, too. The pandemic was still in full swing, and the research does show that boosters offer enhanced immunity, certainly long enough that a meaningful effect on patient health can be expected.
|
On January 23 2023 20:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently.
Thanks for the article! I think it's fair to say that if approximately one state out of fifty was still enforcing new rules and mandates about incoming boosters, the general feeling about the importance of the booster was more relaxed than the general feeling about the importance of the original two shots.
|
On January 23 2023 20:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently.
Some states also required either the booster or say twice a week testing. Having to get a COVID test in between working 12 hour shifts can be considered prohibitively burdensome to the point that it’s functionally the same as requiring a booster, in my opinion.
|
Norway28786 Posts
On January 23 2023 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life. I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine. That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases. Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970. The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help. Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place? So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases. tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks.
Those people are all free to take a flu shot. But Norwegian medical professionals do not recommend it for the general population, they recommend it for people above a certain age or with certain preexisting conditions. I haven't even given 'an opinion' so I dunno where I'm 'wrong'. Collectively, we've all, for decades, not implemented covid-like policies for dealing with the flu. I mean, certain variants of the flu (swine flu from 2009, for example) got more attention, and inspired a more general vaccination program.
So in 2009, about 2.2 million Norwegians chose to take the vaccine. This has been considered (by Preben Aavidsland, who is as much of an authority as they get in Norway. He is: senior physician in the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's management and staff for infection control and a professor in infectious disease who works for the Norwegian center for pandemic research) 'This is the most serious vaccine disaster in modern times. If you're at risk - take a flu shot. If you particularly feel like taking a flu shot because you just can't deal with the flu, take a flu shot. But our actual medical experts don't recommend it for the healthy population. If you wanna think that you know better, that's your prerogative, but I'm gonna go with 'no you don't'.
|
On January 23 2023 20:29 BlackJack wrote:
So a state mandating a booster and nixing it before the final deadline is the same as “not bothering to mandate boosters”? That’s an interesting interpretation of reality.
I don't understand you. You know that you have a contentious relationship with a lot of other people in this thread, so at the very least someone is going to ask you to provide an example or evidence of your claim (which is just good practice regardless of the person making an assertion, but a lot of people are particularly skeptical of things you say, because of situations like this one). Why did you jump into another covid discussion without at least doing a cursory Google search ahead of time?
On January 23 2023 21:09 BlackJack wrote:Some states also required either the booster or say twice a week testing.
Ah, let the goalpost-moving begin.
|
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended”
|
On January 23 2023 22:02 BlackJack wrote:
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended”
Asking you for evidence isn't taking the opposing position. Also, he gave one example, and it's a totally valid one. Not another example. Your example (New York) was wrong. You provided zero states. All I did was ask for you to back up your claim, so saying I was "wrong" is a very misguided attack.
Here's our recap about covid booster mandates, with direct quotes:
You: "Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job."
Me: "Do you have a specific state with a source?"
You: "There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers" and then you posted an article about New York not requiring covid boosters.
Me: "please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true"
You: "Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot."
Me: "Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example."
Drone: "Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently."
You: And then you conceded that unvaccinated healthcare workers could also be regularly tested, rather than be automatically fired for staying unvaccinated... and said I was "still wrong" lol.
Many states shut down, businesses closed their doors, and hospitals were overwhelmed during the beginning and height of the pandemic. With the emergence and availability of the first two doses - the original covid vaccine - many areas slowly were able to regain control (while others, sadly, were not). There were significant pushes for people to get vaccinated as soon as possible, including some states and businesses going so far as to require people to get the original two doses of the vaccine. By the time the booster had rolled around, those pushes had eased; perhaps it was because more areas were successfully reopening, perhaps it was because many hospitals had regained their footing, perhaps it was because there were now less-severe covid strains, perhaps it was because the booster wasn't as effective as the original vaccine, perhaps it was because states and employers knew it would be much harder to enforce a mandate for a third shot (the booster), perhaps it was due to other things... But there was absolutely a much more relaxed approach when it came to boosters, hence why I said that - relative to the first two doses - the third dose was loosely recommended. I had written this: "They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential."
The fact that approximately one state (according to the research collectively done by you and Drone and me) had actually followed through on this "get the booster or you're fired" level of severity that you asserted - and that it's New Mexico, with a population of just 2 million and only a fraction of that being healthcare workers who were actually subject to such a state law - I don't see sufficient evidence to believe your claim. Maybe you're secretly keeping a list of states hidden from the rest of us, ready to drop it now that I'm asking you for the 3rd (4th? 5th? I forget) time, but I'm pretty skeptical.
|
On January 23 2023 21:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life. I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine. That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases. Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970. The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help. Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place? So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases. tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks. Those people are all free to take a flu shot. But Norwegian medical professionals do not recommend it for the general population, they recommend it for people above a certain age or with certain preexisting conditions. I haven't even given 'an opinion' so I dunno where I'm 'wrong'.
You did voice an opinion right there: "[...] had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies [...]"
This is what I responded to. Many people would disagree with you. The covid policies would've had a point regardless. So this is your opinion, not a fact.
|
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more.
|
|
|
Norway28786 Posts
On January 23 2023 22:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 21:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life. I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine. That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases. Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970. The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help. Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place? So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases. tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks. Those people are all free to take a flu shot. But Norwegian medical professionals do not recommend it for the general population, they recommend it for people above a certain age or with certain preexisting conditions. I haven't even given 'an opinion' so I dunno where I'm 'wrong'. You did voice an opinion right there: "[...] had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies [...]" This is what I responded to. Many people would disagree with you. The covid policies would've had a point regardless. So this is your opinion, not a fact.
What anti-covid policies do you want to see in place for a general flu season? If it's anything beyond mask wearing I don't see many people agreeing.
|
On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more.
This is totally unrelated to covid:
Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better?
What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you?
|
On January 23 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 22:02 BlackJack wrote:
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended” Asking you for evidence isn't taking the opposing position. Also, he gave one example, and it's a totally valid one. Not another example. Your example (New York) was wrong. You provided zero states. All I did was ask for you to back up your claim, so saying I was "wrong" is a very misguided attack. Here's our recap about covid booster mandates, with direct quotes: You: "Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job." Me: "Do you have a specific state with a source?" You: "There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers" and then you posted an article about New York not requiring covid boosters. Me: "please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true" You: "Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot." Me: "Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example." Drone: "Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently." You: And then you conceded that unvaccinated healthcare workers could also be regularly tested, rather than be automatically fired for staying unvaccinated... and said I was "still wrong" lol. Many states shut down, businesses closed their doors, and hospitals were overwhelmed during the beginning and height of the pandemic. With the emergence and availability of the first two doses - the original covid vaccine - many areas slowly were able to regain control (while others, sadly, were not). There were significant pushes for people to get vaccinated as soon as possible, including some states and businesses going so far as to require people to get the original two doses of the vaccine. By the time the booster had rolled around, those pushes had eased; perhaps it was because more areas were successfully reopening, perhaps it was because many hospitals had regained their footing, perhaps it was because there were now less-severe covid strains, perhaps it was because the booster wasn't as effective as the original vaccine, perhaps it was because states and employers knew it would be much harder to enforce a mandate for a third shot (the booster), perhaps it was due to other things... But there was absolutely a much more relaxed approach when it came to boosters, hence why I said that - relative to the first two doses - the third dose was loosely recommended. I had written this: "They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential." The fact that approximately one state (according to the research collectively done by you and Drone and me) had actually followed through on this "get the booster or you're fired" level of severity that you asserted - and that it's New Mexico, with a population of just 2 million and only a fraction of that being healthcare workers who were actually subject to such a state law - I don't see sufficient evidence to believe your claim. Maybe you're secretly keeping a list of states hidden from the rest of us, ready to drop it now that I'm asking you for the 3rd (4th? 5th? I forget) time, but I'm pretty skeptical.
Just repeatedly insisting that rescinding a mandate before the final deadline means the mandate never existed doesn’t actually make it true. Plenty of people weren’t going to wait until the strike of midnight on the day of the deadline to find out if they still had a job. If I were king and I made a law that said if u don’t do X by Jan 1 2024 you go to prison and then I said on Dec 31st 2023 “ok nevermind you don’t have to do X” then you come here defending me saying I never mandated anyone to do X? Seems like a ridiculous opinion but you are entitled to it.
|
|
|
On January 24 2023 00:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 00:04 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 22:02 BlackJack wrote:
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended” Asking you for evidence isn't taking the opposing position. Also, he gave one example, and it's a totally valid one. Not another example. Your example (New York) was wrong. You provided zero states. All I did was ask for you to back up your claim, so saying I was "wrong" is a very misguided attack. Here's our recap about covid booster mandates, with direct quotes: You: "Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job." Me: "Do you have a specific state with a source?" You: "There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers" and then you posted an article about New York not requiring covid boosters. Me: "please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true" You: "Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot." Me: "Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example." Drone: "Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently." You: And then you conceded that unvaccinated healthcare workers could also be regularly tested, rather than be automatically fired for staying unvaccinated... and said I was "still wrong" lol. Many states shut down, businesses closed their doors, and hospitals were overwhelmed during the beginning and height of the pandemic. With the emergence and availability of the first two doses - the original covid vaccine - many areas slowly were able to regain control (while others, sadly, were not). There were significant pushes for people to get vaccinated as soon as possible, including some states and businesses going so far as to require people to get the original two doses of the vaccine. By the time the booster had rolled around, those pushes had eased; perhaps it was because more areas were successfully reopening, perhaps it was because many hospitals had regained their footing, perhaps it was because there were now less-severe covid strains, perhaps it was because the booster wasn't as effective as the original vaccine, perhaps it was because states and employers knew it would be much harder to enforce a mandate for a third shot (the booster), perhaps it was due to other things... But there was absolutely a much more relaxed approach when it came to boosters, hence why I said that - relative to the first two doses - the third dose was loosely recommended. I had written this: "They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential." The fact that approximately one state (according to the research collectively done by you and Drone and me) had actually followed through on this "get the booster or you're fired" level of severity that you asserted - and that it's New Mexico, with a population of just 2 million and only a fraction of that being healthcare workers who were actually subject to such a state law - I don't see sufficient evidence to believe your claim. Maybe you're secretly keeping a list of states hidden from the rest of us, ready to drop it now that I'm asking you for the 3rd (4th? 5th? I forget) time, but I'm pretty skeptical. Just repeatedly insisting that rescinding a mandate before the final deadline means the mandate never existed doesn’t actually make it true. Plenty of people weren’t going to wait until the strike of midnight on the day of the deadline to find out if they still had a job. If I were king and I made a law that said if u don’t do X by Jan 1 2024 you go to prison and then I said on Dec 31st 2023 “ok nevermind you don’t have to do X” then you come here defending me saying I never mandated anyone to do X? Seems like a ridiculous opinion but you are entitled to it. Was it rescinded on midnight? Because according to the source you posted it ranged from weeks before to 3 days. Also, any actual numbers of the people effected? Because it is not the numbers you are throwing around. it was in the high 90%'s of people who agreed with the mandates within the health field. Putting pressure on people was the goal. It was objectively better for them to have it and objectively better for the patients. This is just fact. And like real fact not the "facts" that get pushed some times. Some accuracy rather than hyperbole would be a nice change.
You were right when you told BlackJack "Asking for a source that says what you are saying is fair. Asking again when your source says something different than you have claimed is also fair." As far as my conversation with him is concerned, I'm happy to leave things where they are now, with him having that last word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
