Sorry I missed where you referred to adults. My apologies.packgrad said:He specifically said of adults. That is what I was replying to.Daviewolf83 said:We are not 50% vaccinated in NC, but you keep posting this. We have vaccinated slightly more than 50% of adults, but not 50% of the population.packgrad said:We are already at 50+% vaccinated in NC. The children are protected by default now.PackPA2015 said:Mormad said:
I literally don't know a single person who thinks we only reach herd immunity by vaccination only. Do those people truly exist? Herd immunity has been discussed well before these particular vaccines existed. That type of unilateral thinking drives me nuts (if you're correct and those people truly believe such nonsense).
I say, given the choice, I'd much rather my own children become immune through vaccination than through natural infection, no matter how low the perceived risk. But that's just me based on my own biases, knowledge, experiences.
Now, I would love more for 50-67% of adults to have the vaccine and protect all of our children by default, but we shall see.
Coronavirus
2,631,478 Views |
20312 Replies |
Last: 21 hrs ago by Werewolf
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
DROP in US cases, ER visits, confirmed COVID-19 admissions continue: Last 7 days' cases: 270.8K or 82 cases/100k (-20% drop previous 7 days); Positivity rate 4.1%; Confirmed Last 7 days' admissions 28.9k (-15% drop last 7 days); Inpatients& ICU 5%&10%https://t.co/CQeclgjv6L
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 11, 2021
packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Today, in testimony to the US Senate, Dr. Fauci said the following:
"Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan institute"
""We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn't happen."
However, we have the following information regarding the NIH and what they were funding in Wuhan from from the article I posted last week ("her" in this case is Dr. Shi - the virologist whose records have been sealed):
"Because, by a strange twist in the story, her work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify exactly what she planned to do with the money.
The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Dr. Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to Dr. Shi. Here are extracts from the grants for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. "CoV" stands for coronavirus and "S protein" refers to the virus's spike protein.
" 'Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.' "
" 'We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.' "
"What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes ("reverse genetics" and "infectious clone technology"), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures ("in vitro") and humanized mice ("in vivo"). And this information would help predict the likelihood of "spillover," the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people."
"What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells."
"Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan institute"
""We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn't happen."
However, we have the following information regarding the NIH and what they were funding in Wuhan from from the article I posted last week ("her" in this case is Dr. Shi - the virologist whose records have been sealed):
"Because, by a strange twist in the story, her work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify exactly what she planned to do with the money.
The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Dr. Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to Dr. Shi. Here are extracts from the grants for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. "CoV" stands for coronavirus and "S protein" refers to the virus's spike protein.
" 'Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.' "
" 'We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.' "
"What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes ("reverse genetics" and "infectious clone technology"), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures ("in vitro") and humanized mice ("in vivo"). And this information would help predict the likelihood of "spillover," the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people."
"What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells."
Mormad said:packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Death/hospitalization/serious illness.
Glad I did not choose opening night to attend.
Fun news: I’ll be throwing out the first pitch @DurhamBulls season opener tonight!! Thanks to the Durham Bulls for honoring healthcare heroes at the game. #excited #bucketlist #grateful https://t.co/MNwlPrb6Sc
— Mandy Cohen (@SecMandyCohen) May 11, 2021
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
This is not how you build credibility. This is how you built distrust. This is how you build contempt for leadership. A few weeks ago, the goal was 66% of adults receiving their first dose to remove indoor restrictions and indoor mask mandates. It is now 66% "fully" vaccinated. Of course, she and Cooper will get away with it. Did the science change in the last couple of weeks? Nope. The media will not call her out and she knows it. This is definitely moving the goal posts.
Combine this with the elf's performance in front of the Senate subcommittee today and you can see why no one should trust anything they say.
Combine this with the elf's performance in front of the Senate subcommittee today and you can see why no one should trust anything they say.
We will never reach 2/3 fully vaccinated. Maybe get close if they start bringing it to people or going through primary care doctors, but otherwise, it's not going to happen
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I think they got their updated marching orders from the Biden Administration. Nothing has changed in the past couple of weeks with regards to the science, so it has to be political.wilmwolf80 said:
We will never reach 2/3 fully vaccinated. Maybe get close if they start bringing it to people or going through primary care doctors, but otherwise, it's not going to happen
I bet I know how they try to get there. And I bet the teachers unions had a say (not in NC. With Biden). This is quite predictable.
Hell you could track it for 10 years and you'll never get 66% fully vaccinated. These people are stupid. I'm done listening. I'll go out there and do my thing.
We all need to start ignoring the "parrot"... he ain't acknowledging anything that doesn't fit his "not a democrat" agenda... he was pretty bad for well over a year now, and only getting worse by the day.packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
Herd immunity is achieved by allowing those who have closer to zero risk of bad outcomes from the virus than they do 1/10 of 1 percent chance of a bad outcome to have natural immunity, and vaccinating those at risk. Herd immunity is not achieved through vaccination. The virus cult people unfortunately only believe government provides herd immunity through a vaccine.
Is "normal" for anyone not full open with no masking?
The 'virus cult' must be a pretty small cult.
Nobody is arguing that we only get to herd immunity through vaccination.
Davie has posted good international data regarding projected vaccination rates required to get to herd immunity. These rates presume specific levels of immunity conferred by the unvaccinated who had natural infection, in addition to vaccination-conferred immunity.
Is normal for you full open no masking?
Ignore him. Let him talk to himself...
More fear porn... at least you are consistent.Civilized said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Actually, we are only at 50% with one shot, not fully vaccinated. To your point about herd immunity and people getting only a mild case. I brought this up to my brother months ago and his response was simple. At the hospital he works at, they have actually had more deaths occur from people with mild cases not dieing from covid per say but dieing later on from the blood clots covid caused them. Basically, get the shot and avoid the risk of that. A "mild case" that only affects a "small portion" could potentially be eliminated by getting a shot.
Risks of COVID go far beyond dying too.
Lingering symptoms or true Long-haul COVID ain't no fun either. Better than dying, but not awesome and much more probable than dying too. Vaccination decreases those risks also.
Where did the text block you showed below come from? I ask because I was curious and haven't heard anything RE: moving the goal posts. If you listen to this interview from today, she references hitting the milestone of at least 50% of adults receiving 1 dose of vaccine and then references that number in comparison to the 2/3's number. I'm wondering if there could've been some misinterpretation of what she said in your text box, because I didn't hear that in the interview.Daviewolf83 said:
This is not how you build credibility. This is how you built distrust. This is how you build contempt for leadership. A few weeks ago, the goal was 66% of adults receiving their first dose to remove indoor restrictions and indoor mask mandates. It is now 66% "fully" vaccinated. Of course, she and Cooper will get away with it. Did the science change in the last couple of weeks? Nope. The media will not call her out and she knows it. This is definitely moving the goal posts.
Combine this with the elf's performance in front of the Senate subcommittee today and you can see why no one should trust anything they say.
Video is about halfway down the page: https://abc11.com/amp/nc-covid-19-mask-mandate-vaccine-in/10612484/
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
It came from the following URL. You will find it almost halfway down the page.statefan91 said:Where did the text block you showed below come from? I ask because I was curious and haven't heard anything RE: moving the goal posts. If you listen to this interview from today, she references hitting the milestone of at least 50% of adults receiving 1 dose of vaccine and then references that number in comparison to the 2/3's number. I'm wondering if there could've been some misinterpretation of what she said in your text box, because I didn't hear that in the interview.Daviewolf83 said:
This is not how you build credibility. This is how you built distrust. This is how you build contempt for leadership. A few weeks ago, the goal was 66% of adults receiving their first dose to remove indoor restrictions and indoor mask mandates. It is now 66% "fully" vaccinated. Of course, she and Cooper will get away with it. Did the science change in the last couple of weeks? Nope. The media will not call her out and she knows it. This is definitely moving the goal posts.
Combine this with the elf's performance in front of the Senate subcommittee today and you can see why no one should trust anything they say.
Video is about halfway down the page: https://abc11.com/amp/nc-covid-19-mask-mandate-vaccine-in/10612484/
NC coronavirus update May 11: NC Health Secretary announces benchmark for ending indoor mask requirement
The link you provided also says "the benchmark for eliminating that requirement is having at least 66 percent of adults in the state fully vaccinated."
I listened to the full interview and it appears Channel 11 took some liberties with what she said. She referred to the fact we are at 50% now for vaccinations and this number is for first doses of the vaccine. It appears Channel 11 decided to put their spin on what she said. As long as the stick to 66% partially vaccinated, it is fine.
She did say we are on track to ease more restrictions on June 1, but the mask mandate would remain in place until the metric is hit and it would likely be a few more months. She said and I quote, "... so we've gotta work a little bit harder over the next couple of weeks and months to get more folks vaccinated..."
TheStorm said:More fear porn... at least you are consistent.Civilized said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Actually, we are only at 50% with one shot, not fully vaccinated. To your point about herd immunity and people getting only a mild case. I brought this up to my brother months ago and his response was simple. At the hospital he works at, they have actually had more deaths occur from people with mild cases not dieing from covid per say but dieing later on from the blood clots covid caused them. Basically, get the shot and avoid the risk of that. A "mild case" that only affects a "small portion" could potentially be eliminated by getting a shot.
Risks of COVID go far beyond dying too.
Lingering symptoms or true Long-haul COVID ain't no fun either. Better than dying, but not awesome and much more probable than dying too. Vaccination decreases those risks also.
What exactly did he say that wasn't factual and is actually fear porn?
wilmwolf80 said:
We will never reach 2/3 fully vaccinated. Maybe get close if they start bringing it to people or going through primary care doctors, but otherwise, it's not going to happen
What do you feel is the primary reason we'll never get to 66%?
packgrad said:Mormad said:packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Death/hospitalization/serious illness.
I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.
At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?
A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)
So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.
And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.
And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.
Mormad, always appreciate your posts, perspective and your sharing of information... wondered if you could share Cone's current covid numbers, ER, admitted, ICU, tubed, daily deaths etc. like you did for us last fall and winter? Would be interesting to compare from then to now, and if you have seen any distinct trend changes in age groups.
In the bigger picture, all I can control vacination-wise is myself and my immediate family... we've done our part as we were asked, but as of a couple of days ago now, I'm done with the mask and have yet to experience any pushback of any type (not even any weird looks) from anybody out in the public realm anywhere. I'm moving on with my life from here on. Cooper can say whatever he wants, but it's not the reality out there anymore. People have moved on down here at the coast, and businesses aren't going to turn away consumers over a now completely unneeded mask mandate. The only thing he can control business-wise are his ABC Stores... and I'm sure that they'll continue to enforce it until the very end...
I get and respect your opinion, and if you feel the need to vaccinate you mr children you should. I agree it should not be mandated. It's clear what direction we are headed with that as the propaganda arm of the government has already started pressing for it, and the necessary medical associations are standing in line as well.
Ordinarily we wouldn't rush a vaccine for children in particular for a disease that poses such minimal risk to children, but these are not ordinary days. We can mock concerns about long term problems from the vaccines because we have no idea if there will be any, and we can certainly rest assured they will be swept under the rug for the foreseeable future by the propaganda arm of the government.
Ordinarily we wouldn't rush a vaccine for children in particular for a disease that poses such minimal risk to children, but these are not ordinary days. We can mock concerns about long term problems from the vaccines because we have no idea if there will be any, and we can certainly rest assured they will be swept under the rug for the foreseeable future by the propaganda arm of the government.
Mormad said:packgrad said:Mormad said:packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Death/hospitalization/serious illness.
I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.
At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?
A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)
So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.
And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.
And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.
TheStorm said:More fear porn... at least you are consistent.Civilized said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Actually, we are only at 50% with one shot, not fully vaccinated. To your point about herd immunity and people getting only a mild case. I brought this up to my brother months ago and his response was simple. At the hospital he works at, they have actually had more deaths occur from people with mild cases not dieing from covid per say but dieing later on from the blood clots covid caused them. Basically, get the shot and avoid the risk of that. A "mild case" that only affects a "small portion" could potentially be eliminated by getting a shot.
Risks of COVID go far beyond dying too.
Lingering symptoms or true Long-haul COVID ain't no fun either. Better than dying, but not awesome and much more probable than dying too. Vaccination decreases those risks also.
I've got an idea for you Storm.
It's a crazy idea I know, but why don't you stop following me around from thread to thread doing nothing but making ad hominem attacks? Instead of lying about what I've posted over the last year why don't you quote specifically what I posted and respond to what I've actually said instead of lying about what I've said and/or making me out to be some liberal boogeyman?
This would require that you stop with the "not a Democrat," "we know who you really are" type bull**** and I'm pretty sure you're incapable of this but why don't you give it the old college try?
Between discussions with my Aunt, who is a director of public health for a county in western NC, the declining vaccination rates and the closing of mass vaccination sites reported in this thread, and my own knowledge of human behavior, I just don't see it happening.Mormad said:wilmwolf80 said:
We will never reach 2/3 fully vaccinated. Maybe get close if they start bringing it to people or going through primary care doctors, but otherwise, it's not going to happen
What do you feel is the primary reason we'll never get to 66%?
There was always going to be a segment of the population that is hesitant to get vaccinated, much less with a newly created vaccine, due to cultural reasons, religious reasons, political reasons, etc. At 50%, I feel that pretty close to every adult in the state that has a strong desire to be vaccinated has received the vaccine at this point or is scheduled to, particularly in population centers. There may be some folks that want it in more rural areas that haven't gotten it, and maybe further efforts in that direction will get it over the hump. I will just be very surprised if we get there as a state. Maybe in a few months I'll be proven wrong.
Just a guy on the sunshine squad.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
The Gatekeeper.
Homer Dumbarse.
StateFan2001 will probably respond to this because he isn't smart enough to understand how ignore works.
This just isn't true. We have long term data on every single molecule that is in these vaccines. We just put them together into one syringe. The long term risk, using your term, is essentially zero. We have had all of this technology for years. It just has not worked very well so far for the influenza virus, but worked very well for COVID.packgrad said:
I get and respect your opinion, and if you feel the need to vaccinate you mr children you should. I agree it should not be mandated. It's clear what direction we are headed with that as the propaganda arm of the government has already started pressing for it, and the necessary medical associations are standing in line as well.
Ordinarily we wouldn't rush a vaccine for children in particular for a disease that poses such minimal risk to children, but these are not ordinary days. We can mock concerns about long term problems from the vaccines because we have no idea if there will be any, and we can certainly rest assured they will be swept under the rug for the foreseeable future by the propaganda arm of the government.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is not promoting the vaccine for political reasons. Take politics out of it. They see the benefits of vaccination that Mormad and I see on a daily basis. I would not listen to the media, politicians, as they will clearly anger you and I, but these specific medical associations are following the data very closely. The AAP is not recommending mandating the COVID vaccine for children either. It is recommended to have that discussion with your child's pediatrician just as it is with most of our other vaccines. You can almost consider this fear porn in the other direction.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,266
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
I have seen some discussion among doctors on Twitter over the past few days over the question of vaccinating the younger population. Some doctors suggest the risk is so low that the vaccines should be sent to countries with much higher risk and surges (India and Bangladesh as an example). Their view is the risk is so much lower for kids that these available vaccines would be better used by those countries.Mormad said:packgrad said:Mormad said:packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Death/hospitalization/serious illness.
I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.
At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?
A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)
So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.
And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.
And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.
Some others have argued (you mentioned this as well) that vaccines for kids should not be mandated. I did see something on Twitter last night that said public schools will not be able to require vaccination, since the vaccine was only approved under EUA. Of course, private schools would be able to require vaccination, just as many private universities are doing now.
We also know some teacher's unions are saying the vaccination of kids is a prerequisite for the reopening of schools in the Fall. In my view, this is where politics and power are superseding science with regards to the safety of reopening schools. The science is clear and it says schools can reopen safely and there are some doctors I follow that suggest schools can reopen with no masking requirements as well. I also saw a study this week showing how the plexiglass some schools are using to isolate students in classrooms is actually increasing cases, by decreasing the airflow in a classroom.
I do wonder, of the kids who died with Covid that you cite, how many had other health issues that put them at higher risk? In NC, I do know that early in the pandemic, of the ones who died with Covid, most aged 18 and under had preexisting health conditions. At one time it was 6 out of 7 of the deaths. For this reason, I do believe it is critical for any kids with health issues that put them at higher risk to Covid get the vaccine and having these vaccines could be lifesaving to them. If a kid is active, healthy, and has no known health concerns, it is really up to the parents to make a decision on vaccination and if they chose not to do so, it is a reasonable decision.
Last, we should not be considering the vaccination of kids as a way to offset the older population that choose to not be vaccinated. They are not the same and should not be considered as an offset to reach the 66% target for removing the indoor mask mandates. According to Cohen, they are still discussing how to handle the accounting for the less than 17 year old vaccinations. I think it is possible the 66% target will be increased to account for the fact kids aged 12-16 can now be vaccinated. Additionally, the risk profile for the older population is very different and the vaccination of kids should not be considered a substitute for the vaccination of older adults.
wilmwolf80 said:Between discussions with my Aunt, who is a director of public health for a county in western NC, the declining vaccination rates and the closing of mass vaccination sites reported in this thread, and my own knowledge of human behavior, I just don't see it happening.Mormad said:wilmwolf80 said:
We will never reach 2/3 fully vaccinated. Maybe get close if they start bringing it to people or going through primary care doctors, but otherwise, it's not going to happen
What do you feel is the primary reason we'll never get to 66%?
There was always going to be a segment of the population that is hesitant to get vaccinated, much less with a newly created vaccine, due to cultural reasons, religious reasons, political reasons, etc. At 50%, I feel that pretty close to every adult in the state that has a strong desire to be vaccinated has received the vaccine at this point or is scheduled to, particularly in population centers. There may be some folks that want it in more rural areas that haven't gotten it, and maybe further efforts in that direction will get it over the hump. I will just be very surprised if we get there as a state. Maybe in a few months I'll be proven wrong.
Absolutely agree with every word of that
I was gonna say, "because people are stupid," and then just let the site argue about which side is stupid, but your response is better.
packgrad said:
I get and respect your opinion, and if you feel the need to vaccinate you mr children you should. I agree it should not be mandated. It's clear what direction we are headed with that as the propaganda arm of the government has already started pressing for it, and the necessary medical associations are standing in line as well.
Ordinarily we wouldn't rush a vaccine for children in particular for a disease that poses such minimal risk to children, but these are not ordinary days. We can mock concerns about long term problems from the vaccines because we have no idea if there will be any, and we can certainly rest assured they will be swept under the rug for the foreseeable future by the propaganda arm of the government.
The medical associations are standing in line to what?
We do have an idea if they will be long-term side effects. Short term effects are a proxy for long-term effects. The past pattern of vaccines that have had harmful effects is not that they have little or no serious short term effects and then catastrophic long-term effects down the road that were not somewhat foreseeable or recognizable early with proper oversight. It was that testing and approval processes were woefully inadequate and did not reveal side effects that would've been caught early if the testing had been conducted with the same rigor that Covid vaccine testing has been.
Covid vaccine testing was compressed but the quantity of data was massive and not at all comparable to past harmful vaccination attempts.
Do you really think it's possible for there to be significant negative and unreported long-term effects, due to MSM complicity with the government?
A large number of children or families that suffered catastrophic negative consequences from the vaccine would not be able to get their story out?
Fear porn definitely goes both ways, my friend
How about a better idea and you two take it to a private message? This thread has been of great interest to a lot of people and posting previous quotes to prove a point or defend yourself significantly takes away from what has been a great thread.Civilized said:TheStorm said:More fear porn... at least you are consistent.Civilized said:RunsWithWolves26 said:
Actually, we are only at 50% with one shot, not fully vaccinated. To your point about herd immunity and people getting only a mild case. I brought this up to my brother months ago and his response was simple. At the hospital he works at, they have actually had more deaths occur from people with mild cases not dieing from covid per say but dieing later on from the blood clots covid caused them. Basically, get the shot and avoid the risk of that. A "mild case" that only affects a "small portion" could potentially be eliminated by getting a shot.
Risks of COVID go far beyond dying too.
Lingering symptoms or true Long-haul COVID ain't no fun either. Better than dying, but not awesome and much more probable than dying too. Vaccination decreases those risks also.
I've got an idea for you Storm.
It's a crazy idea I know, but why don't you stop following me around from thread to thread doing nothing but making ad hominem attacks? Instead of lying about what I've posted over the last year why don't you quote specifically what I posted and respond to what I've actually said instead of lying about what I've said and/or making me out to be some liberal boogeyman?
This would require that you stop with the "not a Democrat," "we know who you really are" type bull**** and I'm pretty sure you're incapable of this but why don't you give it the old college try?
Mormad said:
Fear porn definitely goes both ways, my friend
It's been one day. Give them time. Fear porn would be saying 67% of mild cases of Covid cause blood clots. Surprisingly our fact checkers have steered clear of that gem.
Covid vaccine testing for children was not massive. Fact check wrong.
TheStorm said:
Mormad, always appreciate your posts, perspective and your sharing of information... wondered if you could share Cone's current covid numbers, ER, admitted, ICU, tubed, daily deaths etc. like you did for us last fall and winter? Would be interesting to compare from then to now, and if you have seen any distinct trend changes in age groups.
Our numbers are way way down (but remember we suuuuuucked at the beginning). We have pure bell curves. I got a recent email with the data... I'll work on posting some numbers in a few.
packgrad said:Mormad said:
Fear porn definitely goes both ways, my friend
It's been one day. Give them time. Fear porn would be saying 67% of mild cases of Covid cause blood clots. Surprisingly our fact checkers have steered clear of that gem.
The numbers I've seen are 13.7% to 31%, but i can't speak to the validity of the numbers from his particular site. But even 13% ain't no joke if you know anything about venous or arterial thrombosis. Read the comeback story of the ncsu women's soccer player?
Daviewolf83 said:I have seen some discussion among doctors on Twitter over the past few days over the question of vaccinating the younger population. Some doctors suggest the risk is so low that the vaccines should be sent to countries with much higher risk and surges (India and Bangladesh as an example). Their view is the risk is so much lower for kids that these available vaccines would be better used by those countries.Mormad said:packgrad said:Mormad said:packgrad said:statefan91 said:
Either vaccination or natural is fine, so why not eliminate basically any risk via vaccination than worry about them getting infected?7 reasons why think immunity to COVID from vaccination or infection will be long-lived (and why I continue to marvel that CEOs of companies who stand to make profit from boosters get to message that boosters needed; instead, please donate vax to India).
— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) May 8, 2021
1. Memory B cells: pic.twitter.com/1uccZMsdbU
Get your kids vaccinated. I don't care. The "science and data" show they are at essentially zero risk, but go ahead. It should not be required like the state run media is pushing for.
Zero risk of what?
Death/hospitalization/serious illness.
I get what you're saying. I know if my kids get covid, their chance of getting really sick is low. That gives me a certain confidence and sense of ease on a personal level.
At least 297 kids (as of March) have succumbed to covid. That's 297 devastated families. That's only 0.48% of all cause mortality in kids this past year, and 1.34% of US kids aged 4-14. That's essentially zero i guess, but what if the vaccine makes it ACTUALLY zero? Do you think those 297 families don't wish every single second of their lives that their kids had access to a vaccine prior to the illness that had essentially zero chance of killing their babies?
A relatively much higher percentage are hospitalized. Of those, a reasonable percentage have disease requiring ICU care (published rates as high as 33%). MIS-C, while rare and but one possible complication, is real and a high percentage die or have neurologic sequelae. Kaiser health news just published data about admission rates on 20000 kids that was pretty eye opening. The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing for vaccine availability for children. I suspect they have a good reason. If my kids can get a shot that ACTUALLY reduces this risk to zero, why wouldn't i want them to have it? Because it's gonna give them autism? Because it's gonna make them sterile? Because somebody is getting rich off the shots? Because it's being given by the Establishment to intentionally harm them? Because the left is pushing for it? Because kids die of other stuff too? I mean, geez man, i felt silly just typing that. (I know you haven't argued those points, but some here have)
So let's stick to "science and facts" as we understand the disease today. There is clear benefit to vaccination. This benefit becomes clearer with each passing day. The potential of severe harm of vaccination appears to be quite small and for the most part theoretical. Especially when compared to 500,000 boxed adults and 297 children gone. 5-10% of kids with only mild or "asymptomatic" disease report fatigue, headache, cough for 6-8 weeks post-infection. Some vaccinated kids report a sore arm, fatigue, fever for 12 hours and their risk of death/hospitalization/severe disease ACTUALLY approaches zero. Seems a pretty clear choice to me. The risk of the vaccine is still lower than the risk of disease even for youngish people who believe they are healthy, and the early benefits seem clear.
And so, yeah i get and respect your point, but i still like my odds with vaccination better than my odds without, no matter how small the perceived relative risk.
And, no, i don't think they should be mandated. But, obviously, i believe vaccination should be encouraged.
Some others have argued (you mentioned this as well) that vaccines for kids should not be mandated. I did see something on Twitter last night that said public schools will not be able to require vaccination, since the vaccine was only approved under EUA. Of course, private schools would be able to require vaccination, just as many private universities are doing now.
We also know some teacher's unions are saying the vaccination of kids is a prerequisite for the reopening of schools in the Fall. In my view, this is where politics and power are superseding science with regards to the safety of reopening schools. The science is clear and it says schools can reopen safely and there are some doctors I follow that suggest schools can reopen with no masking requirements as well. I also saw a study this week showing how the plexiglass some schools are using to isolate students in classrooms is actually increasing cases, by decreasing the airflow in a classroom.
I do wonder, of the kids who died with Covid that you cite, how many had other health issues that put them at higher risk? In NC, I do know that early in the pandemic, of the ones who died with Covid, most aged 18 and under had preexisting health conditions. At one time it was 6 out of 7 of the deaths. For this reason, I do believe it is critical for any kids with health issues that put them at higher risk to Covid get the vaccine and having these vaccines could be lifesaving to them. If a kid is active, healthy, and has no known health concerns, it is really up to the parents to make a decision on vaccination and if they chose not to do so, it is a reasonable decision.
Last, we should not be considering the vaccination of kids as a way to offset the older population that choose to not be vaccinated. They are not the same and should not be considered as an offset to reach the 66% target for removing the indoor mask mandates. According to Cohen, they are still discussing how to handle the accounting for the less than 17 year old vaccinations. I think it is possible the 66% target will be increased to account for the fact kids aged 12-16 can now be vaccinated. Additionally, the risk profile for the older population is very different and the vaccination of kids should not be considered a substitute for the vaccination of older adults.
This is a great post and deserves discussion, Davie. This takes the points I've made to a deeper level that I'd like to address when i get a chance. In short, i agree with you as usual... Thanks for your insightful input. I'll add more later
Featured Stories
See All
OBSERVATIONS FROM THE GAME: NC State Falls at TCU
by Rob McLamb
12:00
4h ago
534
IPS IN 5: Center Position The Difference In TCU Loss
by James Henderson
15:32
7h ago
459
PREGAME HOOPS TALK: NC State vs. Colgate
by James Henderson
3:12
23h ago
1.1k
Wes Moore: "We've Got to Find a Way to Bridge the Gap"
by Rob McLamb
12:01
1d ago
925
IPS IN 5: Important Weekend For ACC Men's Basketball
by James Henderson