Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 8/16/2021 at 12:25 AM, UNTLifer said:

Point being, we don't have a vaccine by definition, we have injectable therapeutics. 

I can't believe you are at the point of trying to re-define what a vaccine is. No, scratch that, I can. I do believe it. I should have predicted this. But this is rich, even for you Lifer, MD.

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 1
  • Ray 1
  • Oh Boy! 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I can't believe you are at the point of trying to re-define what a vaccine is. No, scratch that, I can. I do believe it. I should have predicted this. But this is rich, even for you Lifer, MD.

I can’t believe it took you this long to be a smart ass. 
I didn’t redefine anything. I posted the definition. 
Thanks for showing up once every three or four months to provide yourself insight. 

Edited by UNTLifer
  • Upvote 1
  • Oh Boy! 1
  • Eye Roll 2
  • Downvote 4
Posted (edited)

I don't get why you deniers don't get it. I really don't. No hospital system is *ever* designed to be filled to capacity by one disease. Filling up the system and resources to combat one disease immediately makes everything else more deadly. The whole "your body is already efficient at not dying - it only kills the weak" logic only applies if those people are getting sick and not going to the hospital and clogging up the whole system. If that were the case though, we'd see a lot more deaths and not so many recoveries. So that 90% stat you are throwing out there would be lower.. by quite a bit. 

There are 73 kids in the ICU  right now - in Dallas. That is *all* of the ICU beds. That is real. if your kid has a nasty bike wreck, hits their head, passes out and has some bleeding on the brain ...  well... they are going to be sitting in the ER waiting around and not getting the ICU treatment at the top facility. Why? Partly because of the freedom covid caucus, but also RSV is terrible right now too. A mask would help with that too. However, this is not make believe. Life measurably gets more dangerous without a functioning health system. 

Also - I've been telling you that percentages of beds available does completely make sense either. You should only look at total bed available. For instance, at the hospital I know best, it was reported they had 5% of ICU beds available... but in reality it is only 1 bed. 1 bed. 

You have a heart attack while jogging in this heat? You need that ECMO machine that is normally available? good luck, it is definitely taken already. Your chances of survival just got lowered by someone that is unvaccinated. I can say in complete certain terms that the only people in hospitals are unvaccinated or break throughs on older vaccinated people that have major co-morbidities (cancer, COPD, etc). It is not number manipulation.

As for the definition of 'vaccine' - it is absurd to try to debate it. it is like Clinton arguing what "is" is... Vaccines do not provide complete immunity, that is not how it works. No one will claim it does or always can. It is provide enough immunity to stop community spread and kick start herd immunity that ultimately will squash the virus.  Flu vaccines are a perfect example. But some dolts will try to argue that 'boosters' mean that those vaccines aren't vaccines. Which is just pure idiocy.

Dictionary.com

vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/
 
noun
  1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
    "every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"
     
     
     
Edited by SteaminWillieBeamin
  • Upvote 3
  • Thanks 4
  • Eye Roll 4
Posted

As for studies that only take the post vaccination months into account (March-July) when looking at hospitalizations (and thus will sway the vaccine 'hesitant') - just released: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e2.htm

90% effective at keeping people out of the hospital.

In Alabama, just read that of their 800 covid icu patients, 12% are vaccinated. No data on the type of patient that is (co-morbidities).

Had more people vaccinated, the ICUs would not be filled. It's really that simple. Then we really could treat this like a bad flu and stop with this "come and take it" macho madness. 

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Eye Roll 3
Posted (edited)
On 8/17/2021 at 12:03 PM, UNTLifer said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
Data from COVID-19 tests in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are showing that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta SARS-CoV-2 can carry as much virus in their nose as do unvaccinated people. This means that despite the protection offered by vaccines, a proportion of vaccinated people can pass on Delta, possibly aiding its rise.

 

I made this point in the spring about still needing to wear a mask even with the vaccine and all you hoaxdenier evangelicals eye-rolled so hard that it hurt that last few working brain cells in your skulls.

But here you are linking this study as proof of... something? Something that is backing up what people were already told? That masking in public is still a good idea while the unvaccinated are providing breeding grounds for the Covid to mutate and spread? I agree. Let's so that. Also, how about everyone get the vaccine so we don't get more aggressively contagious variants? Let's do that too. 

Edited by SteaminWillieBeamin
  • Upvote 2
  • Eye Roll 1
  • Downvote 3
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Had more people vaccinated, the ICUs would not be filled. It's really that simple. Then we really could treat this like a bad flu and stop with this "come and take it" macho madness. 

 

They all know more than the people who have dedicated decades to this kind of research and then try to literally redefine what a vaccine is. Welcome to America where opinions carry the same weight as facts for whatever reason...

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/north-texas-gym-owner-urges-vaccines-after-he-nearly-died-from-covid-19/2718131/

Edited by Coffee and TV
  • Upvote 3
  • Ray 1
  • Eye Roll 3
Posted
On 8/14/2021 at 1:19 PM, TheColonyEagle said:

Who in the gov’t should determine what’s in my family’s best interests? What are their qualifications? Politicians aren’t our moral guides. To answer your question: You act on your community wants. Every time. I would never depend on Greg Abbott to tell me what’s in my best interest. 

I think when other's decisions are impacting my life in a dire way - not just an inconvenient way - then it has some public policy role. The county hospitals, funded by tax dollars, are getting impacted in a huge way. Surgeries are being delays and bumped because of lack of bed available to PACU space or staff availability. Emergency departments are being overrun with covid symptoms that are backing up other emergencies. This is a very public policy debate - not just a personal choice debate. If this were merely the flu, sure, seasonal, predicable, moderate acceptable of vaccines, vaccines available for all ages of people,  and only contagious with someone that has active symptoms.. I agree it is a personal choice.  

But this choice is like deciding to burn your  trash on your land while there is burn ban in effect. You likely can control it, but if you don't or it goes wild, you may burn down your neighborhood. Therefore, there is legal authority to stop public fires. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Posted
15 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

As for studies that only take the post vaccination months into account (March-July) when looking at hospitalizations (and thus will sway the vaccine 'hesitant') - just released: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e2.htm

90% effective at keeping people out of the hospital.

Thank you for sharing this, I had wondered how VE was calculated and now I know.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

This 'personal choice' theory would really be put the test if hospitals started to only admit vaccinated patients into the hospital to get COVID treatments. Shouldn't the hospital have the ability to protect their resources and (business plan?)  to give the greater public the treatments they need? ... but... that certainly would never happen. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Eye Roll 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

This 'personal choice' theory would really be put the test if hospitals started to only admit vaccinated patients into the hospital to get COVID treatments. Shouldn't the hospital have the ability to protect their resources and (business plan?)  to give the greater public the treatments they need? ... but... that certainly would never happen. 

It sets a really terrible precedent though. Who is to say that doesn't eventually lead to turning away heart attack patients because their cholesterol is too high, etc. etc.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

It sets a really terrible precedent though. Who is to say that doesn't eventually lead to turning away heart attack patients because their cholesterol is too high, etc. etc.

Exactly, I definitely would never suggest it. Medicine should be the adult in the room, just like public policy. It's my hypothetical question about "corporations are people too" and medicine not being treated as a public utility, but instead letting the "market decide." 

That's definitely not how I view the world..

Edited by SteaminWillieBeamin
  • Upvote 1
Posted
5 hours ago, GBarksdale said:

I have to say that, when you weigh everything, I don't understand all this opposition to getting vaccinated.  Sure it's a personal choice.  Although most people are fine with requirements that children be vaccinated for measles, etc. to attend school.  But what really is the issue with getting jabbed?  The way I see it, the more people who get vaccinated the sooner we can treat this as a bad flu as @SteaminWillieBeaminsaid and move on from masks, social distancing, and the rest of the "new normal" Covid crap.   

I imagine more people are receptive to the measles vaccine because there are 50 years of data on efficacy and safety.

  • Upvote 3
Posted
43 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I imagine more people are receptive to the measles vaccine because there are 50 years of data on efficacy and safety.

Perhaps now, yes. But it didn't face the antivax mania like we see now. MMR has had high adoption for as long back as I can find (30+ years)

I went ahead and looked up some recognized "vaccines" that people have no problem calling vaccines - to see their efficacy. 

HPV vaccines have been found to have high efficacy (close to 100%) for prevention 

MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.

DTaP (pertussis) vaccines are 80% to 90% effective. 

Tetanus complete vaccine series has a clinical efficacy of virtually 100% for tetanus and 97% for diphtheria.

Shingles - more than 90% effective at preventing shingles and long-term nerve pain.

Tuberculosis - reduces the chance of infection by 20 percent

And of course we know the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines 90-80%. I'm fairly certain we can all agree that efficacy is not why people don't want to call it a vaccine (now). There is something else at play here and it isn't science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Posted

It’s pretty simple, the vaccine was approved for public use much, much faster than most vaccines (or any other medications).  We simply don’t know the long term effects of this vaccine.  It didn’t go through the typical clinical trials, etc.  And before you explain how COVID is different, I am aware of that fact.  My wife worked in clinical trails for several pharmaceutical companies over the past 20 years, so she is probably a bit more informed than the average person.  
 

That being said, I’ve had the vaccination, but I’m concerned about possible long term effects and I completely understand why someone would choose not to get the vaccine.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, NT93 said:

It didn’t go through the typical clinical trials, etc

But this is not true. It did go though the same trials, except the animal trials since there are no animals that get this covid (at the time). Otherwise the process was the same. Post trials are being watched even more closely.. 

mRNA is not new technology. They nearly had it in use for the Swine flu over a decade ago, but the existing traditional vaccine worked well enough and the pandemic was under control, so the funding was stopped.. it moved into cancer research and other lessor common vaccine research. But research has been testing and using it for decades now. Ongoing.

This time there was a ton of money and focus on the singular disease, which is why it could go so fast. It was remarkable.

Anyhow, you know all of this. You are just saying you understand why there is a hesitancy.. but misinformation still needs to be corrected. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Eye Roll 2
Posted
9 hours ago, GBarksdale said:

I have to say that, when you weigh everything, I don't understand all this opposition to getting vaccinated.  Sure it's a personal choice.  Although most people are fine with requirements that children be vaccinated for measles, etc. to attend school.  But what really is the issue with getting jabbed?  The way I see it, the more people who get vaccinated the sooner we can treat this as a bad flu as @SteaminWillieBeaminsaid and move on from masks, social distancing, and the rest of the "new normal" Covid crap.   

Yep, now that would be freedom for the many, even for the deniers.

  • Upvote 6
  • Eye Roll 1
Posted

This mRNA COVID mad rush with money could be revolutionary for vaccines.

Last night I read in a journal about a phase 2 human cancer vaccine using the mRNA technology is starting. Later this year an HIV vaccine is starting trials. Just a slew of new potentially game changer vaccines are coming into focus. 

 

  • Upvote 5
Posted
9 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

This mRNA COVID mad rush with money could be revolutionary for vaccines.

Last night I read in a journal about a phase 2 human cancer vaccine using the mRNA technology is starting. Later this year an HIV vaccine is starting trials. Just a slew of new potentially game changer vaccines are coming into focus. 

 

Agreed I have read similar and that many other viruses may be dealt with from this technology which is great news.

  • Upvote 3
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.