Vaccine Rollout
-
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
All I am saying is that I understand why some people are concerned.
I get where you're coming from, but I just can't take it as a legitimate concern. It's the nature of radical social changes that the news is going to get the first drafts wrong, and everyone already knows this. More accurate information comes out daily and it's literally seconds to find. I can't sympathize with railing against the news while at the same time refusing to do a damn google search.
I also am 100% against mandatory vaccinations and even coerced vaccinations. That will ultimately lead to more people NOT getting vaccinated. I think @Jolly would agree.
If you don't get vaccinated, you're not living up to your social responsibility, full stop. You cannot convince me that some jackass's "freedom" to stay unvaccinated is more important than suppressing a global pandemic that's killing hundreds of thousands. I don't know what to say about mandatory vaccinations, but I will be judging the shit out of anyone who refuses, and no I don't care if they can't find work or a place to send their kids to school because of their own ignorance or selfishness. I feel exactly the same way about people who don't vaccinate their kids.
Social Responsibility? To the people that chose the vaccine and are protected? Or the unvaccinated that willingly accept that risk?
If all of the COVID vaccines were at 70% efficacy it would be a different argument as the unvaccinated would pose a danger to others that didn't accept that risk. But at 95% efficacy, the vaccinated are not at risk.
It slows herd immunity which means more deaths, more unemployment and a worse economy.
@loki said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
All I am saying is that I understand why some people are concerned.
I get where you're coming from, but I just can't take it as a legitimate concern. It's the nature of radical social changes that the news is going to get the first drafts wrong, and everyone already knows this. More accurate information comes out daily and it's literally seconds to find. I can't sympathize with railing against the news while at the same time refusing to do a damn google search.
I also am 100% against mandatory vaccinations and even coerced vaccinations. That will ultimately lead to more people NOT getting vaccinated. I think @Jolly would agree.
If you don't get vaccinated, you're not living up to your social responsibility, full stop. You cannot convince me that some jackass's "freedom" to stay unvaccinated is more important than suppressing a global pandemic that's killing hundreds of thousands. I don't know what to say about mandatory vaccinations, but I will be judging the shit out of anyone who refuses, and no I don't care if they can't find work or a place to send their kids to school because of their own ignorance or selfishness. I feel exactly the same way about people who don't vaccinate their kids.
Social Responsibility? To the people that chose the vaccine and are protected? Or the unvaccinated that willingly accept that risk?
If all of the COVID vaccines were at 70% efficacy it would be a different argument as the unvaccinated would pose a danger to others that didn't accept that risk. But at 95% efficacy, the vaccinated are not at risk.
It slows herd immunity which means more deaths, more unemployment and a worse economy.
This.
-
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
Let me be clear, I am speaking to the perception and marketing of science and not the actual scientific method itself.
Okay, fair enough.
Science and doctors told us the flu was a bigger threat.
Of course they did. Nobody knew anything back then. This is what happens when you couple instant news with the most radical effort in health sciences in at least a century. People report on what they can at the time, experts get it massively wrong, and the narrative changes as new information develops.
What's the alternative? Get it right all the time? Wait to do your reporting on the most important global event in our lifetimes? The news shouldn't jump the gun, but if we're going to play that game, I'd also like 100 million dollars and my own portal gun.
After hearing that it could take years to develop a vaccine, can you understand why some people might find it worrisome rather than miraculous that they had 2 out within 9 months? Especially after all of the contradictions in testing and results all year?
There have also been many, many extensive articles written about precisely how these vaccines have been developed, and why the traditional vaccines are literally just as safe as the other vaccines nearly everyone in America has already had.
I know that because (1) the pandemic is a big damn deal, (2) I was very concerned about the vaccines and had some serious fears about them, so (3) I proactively researched them instead of getting my virology degree at the University of Facebook Online. That's what my obligation was as a person who lives in this decade.
This isn't the 1980s. We have a massive surplus of information out there. In fact it's too much. Since online news, YouTube and Facebook have become a Thing, it's become our job to cultivate our own information literacy. Especially when it comes to a change as profound as a global pandemic.
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
Let me be clear, I am speaking to the perception and marketing of science and not the actual scientific method itself.
Okay, fair enough.
Science and doctors told us the flu was a bigger threat.
Of course they did. Nobody knew anything back then. This is what happens when you couple instant news with the most radical effort in health sciences in at least a century. People report on what they can at the time, experts get it massively wrong, and the narrative changes as new information develops.
What's the alternative? Get it right all the time? Wait to do your reporting on the most important global event in our lifetimes? The news shouldn't jump the gun, but if we're going to play that game, I'd also like 100 million dollars and my own portal gun.
After hearing that it could take years to develop a vaccine, can you understand why some people might find it worrisome rather than miraculous that they had 2 out within 9 months? Especially after all of the contradictions in testing and results all year?
There have also been many, many extensive articles written about precisely how these vaccines have been developed, and why the traditional vaccines are literally just as safe as the other vaccines nearly everyone in America has already had.
I know that because (1) the pandemic is a big damn deal, (2) I was very concerned about the vaccines and had some serious fears about them, so (3) I proactively researched them instead of getting my virology degree at the University of Facebook Online. That's what my obligation was as a person who lives in this decade.
This isn't the 1980s. We have a massive surplus of information out there. In fact it's too much. Since online news, YouTube and Facebook have become a Thing, it's become our job to cultivate our own information literacy. Especially when it comes to a change as profound as a global pandemic.
Wow.
Really well-written, Aqua. I've read your post twice, and am quoting it just because it is so good and I hope everyone got a chance to read it. Worth reading again. Common sense in the modern era, and how to approach individual responsibility. All in one post! -
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
Let me be clear, I am speaking to the perception and marketing of science and not the actual scientific method itself.
Okay, fair enough.
Science and doctors told us the flu was a bigger threat.
Of course they did. Nobody knew anything back then. This is what happens when you couple instant news with the most radical effort in health sciences in at least a century. People report on what they can at the time, experts get it massively wrong, and the narrative changes as new information develops.
What's the alternative? Get it right all the time? Wait to do your reporting on the most important global event in our lifetimes? The news shouldn't jump the gun, but if we're going to play that game, I'd also like 100 million dollars and my own portal gun.
After hearing that it could take years to develop a vaccine, can you understand why some people might find it worrisome rather than miraculous that they had 2 out within 9 months? Especially after all of the contradictions in testing and results all year?
There have also been many, many extensive articles written about precisely how these vaccines have been developed, and why the traditional vaccines are literally just as safe as the other vaccines nearly everyone in America has already had.
I know that because (1) the pandemic is a big damn deal, (2) I was very concerned about the vaccines and had some serious fears about them, so (3) I proactively researched them instead of getting my virology degree at the University of Facebook Online. That's what my obligation was as a person who lives in this decade.
This isn't the 1980s. We have a massive surplus of information out there. In fact it's too much. Since online news, YouTube and Facebook have become a Thing, it's become our job to cultivate our own information literacy. Especially when it comes to a change as profound as a global pandemic.
Wow.
Really well-written, Aqua. I've read your post twice, and am quoting it just because it is so good and I hope everyone got a chance to read it. Worth reading again. Common sense in the modern era, and how to approach individual responsibility. All in one post!@rainman said in Vaccine Rollout:
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@lufins-dad said in Vaccine Rollout:
Let me be clear, I am speaking to the perception and marketing of science and not the actual scientific method itself.
Okay, fair enough.
Science and doctors told us the flu was a bigger threat.
Of course they did. Nobody knew anything back then. This is what happens when you couple instant news with the most radical effort in health sciences in at least a century. People report on what they can at the time, experts get it massively wrong, and the narrative changes as new information develops.
What's the alternative? Get it right all the time? Wait to do your reporting on the most important global event in our lifetimes? The news shouldn't jump the gun, but if we're going to play that game, I'd also like 100 million dollars and my own portal gun.
After hearing that it could take years to develop a vaccine, can you understand why some people might find it worrisome rather than miraculous that they had 2 out within 9 months? Especially after all of the contradictions in testing and results all year?
There have also been many, many extensive articles written about precisely how these vaccines have been developed, and why the traditional vaccines are literally just as safe as the other vaccines nearly everyone in America has already had.
I know that because (1) the pandemic is a big damn deal, (2) I was very concerned about the vaccines and had some serious fears about them, so (3) I proactively researched them instead of getting my virology degree at the University of Facebook Online. That's what my obligation was as a person who lives in this decade.
This isn't the 1980s. We have a massive surplus of information out there. In fact it's too much. Since online news, YouTube and Facebook have become a Thing, it's become our job to cultivate our own information literacy. Especially when it comes to a change as profound as a global pandemic.
Wow.
Really well-written, Aqua. I've read your post twice, and am quoting it just because it is so good and I hope everyone got a chance to read it. Worth reading again. Common sense in the modern era, and how to approach individual responsibility. All in one post!Agree. @Aqua-Letifer good post and makes a lot of sense.
-
Aqua's points are well-taken, and well-explained.
But...
Here's what gets me: The "science" isn't "science" - yet. For now, and probably for the next year, it's all guesswork based on past experience which, as we've seen, is irrelevant. Making huge policy decisions driven by what is really no better than a hunch suggested by previous experience is dangerous. The scientific method is not being applied here, it's all retrospective and guesses.
We won't know shit about this for a long, long time.
Do masks work? I dunno - I see so much contradictory information. Do I wear one? Yeah (while avoiding people with cloth masks).
We Just. Don't. Know.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jolly said in Vaccine Rollout:
Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"?
Doesn’t trump jobs and a functioning economy. We don’t all just march off a cliff like lemmings.
@loki said in Vaccine Rollout:
@jolly said in Vaccine Rollout:
Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"?
Doesn’t trump jobs and a functioning economy. We don’t all just march off a cliff like lemmings.
Dude, if it's good enough for a premeditated killing, it's good enough for any individual choice.
-
-
Aqua's points are well-taken, and well-explained.
But...
Here's what gets me: The "science" isn't "science" - yet. For now, and probably for the next year, it's all guesswork based on past experience which, as we've seen, is irrelevant. Making huge policy decisions driven by what is really no better than a hunch suggested by previous experience is dangerous. The scientific method is not being applied here, it's all retrospective and guesses.
We won't know shit about this for a long, long time.
Do masks work? I dunno - I see so much contradictory information. Do I wear one? Yeah (while avoiding people with cloth masks).
We Just. Don't. Know.
@george-k said in Vaccine Rollout:
Making huge policy decisions driven by what is really no better than a hunch suggested by previous experience is dangerous.
I don't disagree. But are you suggesting we do nothing until we have ten-year cohort studies? I doubt you are.
At some point, we gotta make educated guesses. By all means let's debate how good they've been so far, because we've screwed up plenty. But making educated guesses is the best we can do for now.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-variants.html
Johnson & Johnson vaccine has significantly reduced effective rates in places with new SARS-CoV-2 variants, but still remain fairly effective at reducing the severity of symptoms for those who contracted COVID-19 after vaccination.
-
I've seen 5 former colleagues, nurses with whom I worked, etc post on FB that they've been vaccinated.
That's good.
-
My first take of J&J effectiveness at 68% was oh that’s not sogreat but preventing 100% of hospitalizations and deaths is awesome. So for me it’s an unmitigated success if this data holds up.
@loki said in Vaccine Rollout:
My first take of J&J effectiveness at 68% was oh that’s not sogreat but preventing 100% of hospitalizations and deaths is awesome. So for me it’s an unmitigated success if this data holds up.
I had the exact same response, in that order.
-
@loki said in Vaccine Rollout:
My first take of J&J effectiveness at 68% was oh that’s not sogreat but preventing 100% of hospitalizations and deaths is awesome. So for me it’s an unmitigated success if this data holds up.
I had the exact same response, in that order.
@aqua-letifer said in Vaccine Rollout:
@loki said in Vaccine Rollout:
My first take of J&J effectiveness at 68% was oh that’s not sogreat but preventing 100% of hospitalizations and deaths is awesome. So for me it’s an unmitigated success if this data holds up.
I had the exact same response, in that order.
I wonder what the timeframe was for the 68%? The small scale study a few weeks back showed a lower number over the first few weeks, but 100% efficacy after 51 days... I wonder if the slower antibody development time is affecting the numbers?
-
Report on COVID-19 vaccine waste. CDC statistics says there have been fewer than 200k doses wasted. Seeing that across the USA have already administered over 200 million doses, the waste rate is well under 0.1%. Most of that waste were attributed to CVS and Walgreen’s earlier efforts to inoculate seniors in care facilities.
-
Beer for Vaccination:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/jersey-offers-free-beer-residents-vaccinated/story?id=77467896“A vaccination card will be the ticket for a free brewski in the Garden State this month.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announced a "Shot and a Beer” program Monday that provides a free glass of beer at participating locations to anyone over 21 who gets their first vaccination dose this month. The plan is part of Murphy's multipronged approach to increasing the state's vaccination numbers and reach its goal of 4.7 million residents vaccinated by the end of June.”
