Same with mine -- but the plans were also developed prior to the Biden exec order. I'd suspect lawyers are scrambling to determine how that could impact and ways around it to avoid having to pay for testing (ie, remote workers not in scope for requirements, etc). I noticed a lot of the documentation in our FAQs about the workplace have been updated with generic language referring to that exec order.statefan91 said:I don't think your company is late, I work for a Fortune 100 company and they always had targeted after Labor Day for return to work / travel, however that's been pushed back and they're taking a "hybrid" approach and letting each business decide internally while working with their clients.dogplasma said:
My company recently issued a voluntary survey of employee vaccine status. No one is going to be let go for being unvaxxed or not responding, but the results, it's said, may be used to decide how to conduct onsite business. I'm not opposed but it seems a little late in the game for this, frankly. I guess the timing of this response was limited by FDA approval.
There are multiple groups of highly trained employees where I work who have to work onsite - no option. If they were to have a Covid outbreak in those groups, it could be costly for the company and potentially also have other effects. These groups have not been required to get vaccines, which is somewhat surprising to me. (I'm not in those groups - I have the option to work remote, although I choose not to.)
Coronavirus
2,622,197 Views |
20307 Replies |
Last: 11 hrs ago by Werewolf
In the same boat with my company (small EHR consulting firm). I have said it a few times on this thread, but they have always deferred to clients with regards to vaccinations/flu shots/etc. This was the first time they had an "official" policy, but it was still worded more in the way of "its not mandatory yet, but probably will be in the future". I believe we are in the 90% vaccination rate overall. I do know we are in a "wait and see" pattern with regards to Biden's executive orderPackchem91 said:Same with mine -- but the plans were also developed prior to the Biden exec order. I'd suspect lawyers are scrambling to determine how that could impact and ways around it to avoid having to pay for testing (ie, remote workers not in scope for requirements, etc). I noticed a lot of the documentation in our FAQs about the workplace have been updated with generic language referring to that exec order.statefan91 said:I don't think your company is late, I work for a Fortune 100 company and they always had targeted after Labor Day for return to work / travel, however that's been pushed back and they're taking a "hybrid" approach and letting each business decide internally while working with their clients.dogplasma said:
My company recently issued a voluntary survey of employee vaccine status. No one is going to be let go for being unvaxxed or not responding, but the results, it's said, may be used to decide how to conduct onsite business. I'm not opposed but it seems a little late in the game for this, frankly. I guess the timing of this response was limited by FDA approval.
There are multiple groups of highly trained employees where I work who have to work onsite - no option. If they were to have a Covid outbreak in those groups, it could be costly for the company and potentially also have other effects. These groups have not been required to get vaccines, which is somewhat surprising to me. (I'm not in those groups - I have the option to work remote, although I choose not to.)
Its tough timing, because I'd guess the EO will end up in the Supreme Court? So companies will be twirling to know exactly what to do until then?FlossyDFlynt said:In the same boat with my company (small EHR consulting firm). I have said it a few times on this thread, but they have always deferred to clients with regards to vaccinations/flu shots/etc. This was the first time they had an "official" policy, but it was still worded more in the way of "its not mandatory yet, but probably will be in the future". I believe we are in the 90% vaccination rate overall. I do know we are in a "wait and see" pattern with regards to Biden's executive orderPackchem91 said:Same with mine -- but the plans were also developed prior to the Biden exec order. I'd suspect lawyers are scrambling to determine how that could impact and ways around it to avoid having to pay for testing (ie, remote workers not in scope for requirements, etc). I noticed a lot of the documentation in our FAQs about the workplace have been updated with generic language referring to that exec order.statefan91 said:I don't think your company is late, I work for a Fortune 100 company and they always had targeted after Labor Day for return to work / travel, however that's been pushed back and they're taking a "hybrid" approach and letting each business decide internally while working with their clients.dogplasma said:
My company recently issued a voluntary survey of employee vaccine status. No one is going to be let go for being unvaxxed or not responding, but the results, it's said, may be used to decide how to conduct onsite business. I'm not opposed but it seems a little late in the game for this, frankly. I guess the timing of this response was limited by FDA approval.
There are multiple groups of highly trained employees where I work who have to work onsite - no option. If they were to have a Covid outbreak in those groups, it could be costly for the company and potentially also have other effects. These groups have not been required to get vaccines, which is somewhat surprising to me. (I'm not in those groups - I have the option to work remote, although I choose not to.)
Yep - I'm in Consulting too and we're dealing with personal travel preference, client on-site requirements for travel, client on-site requirements for vaccinations, personal vaccination status (but that's all HR related so we can't get into it fully). Lots of additional complexities to being able to complete projects that were already challenging to deliver on.FlossyDFlynt said:In the same boat with my company (small EHR consulting firm). I have said it a few times on this thread, but they have always deferred to clients with regards to vaccinations/flu shots/etc. This was the first time they had an "official" policy, but it was still worded more in the way of "its not mandatory yet, but probably will be in the future". I believe we are in the 90% vaccination rate overall. I do know we are in a "wait and see" pattern with regards to Biden's executive orderPackchem91 said:
Same with mine -- but the plans were also developed prior to the Biden exec order. I'd suspect lawyers are scrambling to determine how that could impact and ways around it to avoid having to pay for testing (ie, remote workers not in scope for requirements, etc). I noticed a lot of the documentation in our FAQs about the workplace have been updated with generic language referring to that exec order.
My wife's company which is owned by Allied Universal (3rd largest global employer behind Amazon and Walmart) are now requiring all employees to be vaccinated
COVID-19 data thru 9/15 » https://t.co/pv8AVIs8Gj
— Mecklenburg County (@MeckCounty) September 17, 2021
11.2% of tests are coming back positive, a slight decrease. Average case count has increased slightly.
In the last 14 days, 54 people have died. 46% were under 60. Please, get vaccinated » https://t.co/bbM98hFqjl pic.twitter.com/QUXVBbj3nN
Mecklenburg County’s percent positivity rate is starting to fall. pic.twitter.com/Do4amrbYrS
— Joe Bruno (@JoeBrunoWSOC9) September 17, 2021
Remember, there are no conspiracies and there are no coincidences...TheStorm said:The end game is 100% about Mail-in voting and Ballot harvesting... in fact, Fauci's Wuhan lab is probably toiling away working on that next variant. None of this is by accident either.BBW12OG said:
It's all part of the "end game." As long as the lefties are in power the elections are going to "require" the safest of measures. Mail-in voting. Ballot harvesting.
Got to keep the sheep in the herd.
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 fully vaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 fully vaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,265
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
Average age creeping up almost across the board from your last update.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
Not to nitpick, but in your ICU group, should that be 4 vaccinated?PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
NEW: A unanimous vote from the FDA’s external panel of experts recommended a third Pfizer dose only for adults 65 and over or those who face high risks because of their jobs or underlying illnesseshttps://t.co/g2A0hsj0B0
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 17, 2021
Hopefully they focus on the older groups with the booster recommendation and we get approval for 5-11yr olds in the next month.
Yes, typo there. Thanks! Fixed it in the original post.
Odd, given those are the most likely to be vaxxed age groups.
Jtbridges317
Joined:
Jul 25, 2017
Posts:
354
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gotta get that booster if you want that social security check or medicaid, just dont pay attention that both programs are will most likely be insolvent sooner rather than later
PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 fully vaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
Any other relevant characteristics besides age and vax status? Sex, race, and obesity come to mind.
if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”
—Jack Handey
—Jack Handey
As a family of Moderna-vaccinated folks, am happy to see this data.sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
Yep. "Science". Boost children in the next month too for "science". It will be better then.
We need to start taking a serious look into therapeutics. We have too many doctors using these "so called" half baked concoctions, with excellent results. Either quit the demonization of these concoction or come up with something that works!Wayland said:Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
The reason I'm saying this is that people were fead a load of crap regarding the vaccines. Yes, they appear to work; however, no one talked about continuous boosters! I'm not sure the majority of people are going to fall for this thinking regarding boosters. If they don't, then the numbers will go up as these vaccines wear off.
Wayland said:Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
I don't really get what you're trying to get across here. You do realize that 93% =/= 100%, right? So your anecdotal thought is useless when you're living with someone who is apparently in the 7% instead of the 93%.
I don't remember them overpromising anything either. I always heard that the vaccines were to reduce the severity of infection, not prevent it or eradicate the virus entirely. Have you heard differently from the vaccine manufacturers?
That restrictions are useless at this point.griff17matt said:Wayland said:Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
I don't really get what you're trying to get across here. You do realize that 93% =/= 100%, right? So your anecdotal thought is useless when you're living with someone who is apparently in the 7% instead of the 93%.
I don't remember them overpromising anything either. I always heard that the vaccines were to reduce the severity of infection, not prevent it or eradicate the virus entirely. Have you heard differently from the vaccine manufacturers?
I am annoyed that we continue to jump through all these hoops that aren't actually doing anything to stop the spread.
We all going to get the 'Ro, eventually.
Vaccines are available to potentially mitigate severe symptoms.
Time to move on with life.
Here you go, Cary...caryking said:We need to start taking a serious look into therapeutics. We have too many doctors using these "so called" half baked concoctions, with excellent results. Either quit the demonization of these concoction or come up with something that works!Wayland said:Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
The reason I'm saying this is that people were fead a load of crap regarding the vaccines. Yes, they appear to work; however, no one talked about continuous boosters! I'm not sure the majority of people are going to fall for this thinking regarding boosters. If they don't, then the numbers will go up as these vaccines wear off.
https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2021/09/16/nhrmc-launches-mab-infusion-center-for-covid-positive-high-risk-patients/
Fauci knew "FOR SURE"Quote:
Fauci goes on to say, "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94%, 95% in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease..."
At the time of the December CNN interview, Pfizer was the only vaccine that had received Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, and Moderna's vaccine was just days away from receiving that clearance. Clinical trials showed the Moderna vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in people 18 and older, and the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
Fauci then says the vaccines offer "almost a 100% in protecting you for severe disease."
Clinically recognized disease is any symptoms. At the end of August, 35% of cases in Wake County were vaccinated. Statewide they claim the number is 17-18%... I have no idea how many of those count as 'clinically recognized'.
But I know a crap ton of vaccinated people who have gotten symptomatic COVID and I am watching these numbers creep down and definition of effectiveness oddly change (like the definition of a number of other things during this pandemic).
Like I said... I am great with the fact that the vaccines appear to reduce severe disease... but the initial pitch was 95% symptom free and 100% severe... and that is just not true.
So are we actually holding to the 93% against 'clinically recognized' or has that goalpost moved to 'severe'?
Amen brother!Wayland said:That restrictions are useless at this point.griff17matt said:Wayland said:Wayland said:sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
I live with a just past 4 month 2 dose Moderna vaxed breakthrough symptomatic case, so I have some anecdotal thoughts to where you can put your 93% outperform at 6 months.
Edit: Hotter off the presses
Not saying that it isn't great that vaccines appear to reduce severe illness, and that they shouldn't be heavily recommended.
But they are a big over promise, under deliver in the effectiveness that was originally touted... And saying anything else is just trying to gaslight us.
I don't really get what you're trying to get across here. You do realize that 93% =/= 100%, right? So your anecdotal thought is useless when you're living with someone who is apparently in the 7% instead of the 93%.
I don't remember them overpromising anything either. I always heard that the vaccines were to reduce the severity of infection, not prevent it or eradicate the virus entirely. Have you heard differently from the vaccine manufacturers?
I am annoyed that we continue to jump through all these hoops that aren't actually doing anything to stop the spread.
We all going to get the 'Ro, eventually.
Vaccines are available to potentially mitigate severe symptoms.
Time to move on with life.
Wayland said:Fauci knew "FOR SURE"Quote:
Fauci goes on to say, "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94%, 95% in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease..."
At the time of the December CNN interview, Pfizer was the only vaccine that had received Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, and Moderna's vaccine was just days away from receiving that clearance. Clinical trials showed the Moderna vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in people 18 and older, and the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
Fauci then says the vaccines offer "almost a 100% in protecting you for severe disease."
Clinically recognized disease is any symptoms. At the end of August, 35% of cases in Wake County were vaccinated. Statewide they claim the number is 17-18%... I have no idea how many of those count as 'clinically recognized'.
But I know a crap ton of vaccinated people who have gotten symptomatic COVID and I am watching these numbers creep down and definition of effectiveness oddly change (like the definition of a number of other things during this pandemic).
Like I said... I am great with the fact that the vaccines appear to reduce severe disease... but the initial pitch was 95% symptom free and 100% severe... and that is just not true.
So are we actually holding to the 93% against 'clinically recognized' or has that goalpost moved to 'severe'?
As we know, this situation and what we know about it is constantly evolving.
Back when data on effectiveness started coming out, there was no highly contagious Delta, or at least no widespread Delta.
Also, effectiveness of all vaccines does wane moderately over time. How much of just the natural declination of effectiveness against infection are we seeing?
With Covid we have had both misinformation and also "best available information at the time" that eventually gets superseded as our understanding of situation deepens and as the situation continues to evolve.
It's understandable to be intolerant of the former but we should all try to have patience with the latter when we can.
Then they need to stop saying the know **** 'for sure'.Civilized said:Wayland said:Fauci knew "FOR SURE"Quote:
Fauci goes on to say, "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94%, 95% in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease..."
At the time of the December CNN interview, Pfizer was the only vaccine that had received Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, and Moderna's vaccine was just days away from receiving that clearance. Clinical trials showed the Moderna vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in people 18 and older, and the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
Fauci then says the vaccines offer "almost a 100% in protecting you for severe disease."
Clinically recognized disease is any symptoms. At the end of August, 35% of cases in Wake County were vaccinated. Statewide they claim the number is 17-18%... I have no idea how many of those count as 'clinically recognized'.
But I know a crap ton of vaccinated people who have gotten symptomatic COVID and I am watching these numbers creep down and definition of effectiveness oddly change (like the definition of a number of other things during this pandemic).
Like I said... I am great with the fact that the vaccines appear to reduce severe disease... but the initial pitch was 95% symptom free and 100% severe... and that is just not true.
So are we actually holding to the 93% against 'clinically recognized' or has that goalpost moved to 'severe'?
As we know, this situation and what we know about it is constantly evolving.
Back when data on effectiveness started coming out, there was no highly contagious Delta, or at least no widespread Delta.
Also, effectiveness of all vaccines does wane moderately over time. How much of just the natural declination of effectiveness against infection are we seeing?
With Covid we have had both misinformation and also "best available information at the time" that eventually gets superseded as our understanding of situation deepens and as the situation continues to evolve.
It's understandable to be intolerant of the former but we should all try to have patience with the latter when we can.
Just like the myth of masks actually having an impact on the pandemic. NC's whole 3Ws propaganda bull**** was bad public health messaging. The only message that should have come from NC DHHS was "If you are sick, stay the **** home". That is it....
W -> Wash?? Great advice in general... doesn't move the needle on an aerosolized virus.
W -> Wait 6 feet apart?? This thing is floating through the air. "Wait" your ass at home if you are sick or at risk.
W -> Wear a mask. Please, this is possibly the biggest public health lie of all time. That cloth masks did ANYTHING against the spread of an aerosolized virus is such comedy and so many hubris filled public officials have stuck their necks out on this, they can't walk it back. I am not talking nuanced N95 fitted masks in proper scenarios. I am talking the BS that we have kids walking around with rags on their faces and pretending it is ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING. And this lie has been repeated so many times, it is ****ing Stockholm syndrome out there.
How many high risk people were needlessly exposed because they thought a bull**** cloth mask did anything? When they probably should have just stayed isolated during the worst of it?
I am sick of the BS public health propaganda of them spewing a bunch of crap that they know 'for sure'.
Deliver the message plainly, truthfully, and with a modicum of humility. Don't add the special sauce, anecdotes, fear tactics, celebrities, shame, etc...
I am sick of the BS celebrating when the 'wrong' people get the virus. Or that the virus has been moralized, like if you got it, you were being bad.
My wife was the was one of the ones who did everything right. Got vaxxed as soon as was allowed. Always wore masks because it was asked of her. Minimized indoor activity. Never had a known close contact with a COVID positive. And lightning still struck her, not because she did anything wrong, but because viruses are going to virus.
And none of this means the pandemic isn't deadly serious. But the policy response has been AWFUL and we continue to double down on things that just don't work. Instead of just moving on and moving forward and trying to fix all the other stuff we broke by attacking a virus with myopic ineffective policies and ignoring the broader damage they caused.
Joined:
Feb 8, 2018
Posts:
4,265
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
sf59 - Question for you. There is a theory that Moderna is performing slightly better due to the fact the protocol was to space doses 4 weeks apart instead of 3 weeks apart for the Pfizer vaccine. In the UK and Canada, they saw even better results spacing doses 12 weeks apart, so it is thought spacing of the original two doses had a positive effect.sf59 said:if we follow the science and leave out politics, this is where we should land.Daviewolf83 said:PackPA - Thanks for the continued insight. At a high level, this detail does seem to indicate a booster for those aged 65+ may be necessary.PackPA2015 said:
Your weekly update on our hospital system:
295 hospitalized; average age 59
263 unvaccinated; average age 58
32 fully vaccinated; average age 69
61 in ICU; average age 56
57 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 unvaccinated; average age 64
47 on vents; average age 56
43 unvaccinated; average age 55
4 vaccinated; average age 64
some more pertinent vaccine and booster news hot off the press this evening:
-moderna continues to outperform pfizer and J&J. Over all protection is 93% and remains there for at least 6 months, where as pfizer and J&J sharply drop off after only 4 months. this data is being pulled from the US, and is not reliant on the Israeli data.
-for 65+ and vulnerable, the moderna booster window will be at month 8. the booster will likely be a 50mcg dose, which is a half dose compared to the original shots. this half dose booster pumps immunity 1.7 times above original levels with minimal adverse reactions.
-this evening, an FDA advisory panel did recommend pfizer boosters for vulnerable and 65+, but not for the vaccinated healthy. This is what we have also seen in Moderna data and why many are against any form of mandated boosters. the WH in particular has jumped the gun on pushing universal boosters. its interesting to see who follows science and who ignores it
Has this been studied and if so, can you share any information.
For me, Moderna and Pfizer do not matter, since I received J&J and there has been very little information on boosters or if I should consider switching to a single dose of Moderna or Pfizer for my next dose. Right now, I do not plan to get any boosters. I am active and healthy, with no known or obvious health conditions that put me at risk. I am confident may T-Cells and B-Cells will protect me in the chance I become infected.
Indeed. We've been treated to a wide assortment of moving goal posts since early 2020.
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/paul-murray/covid19-outbreak-has-seen-endless-moving-goalposts/video/8f60f1da2a132671bcb10308a90fd028
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/paul-murray/covid19-outbreak-has-seen-endless-moving-goalposts/video/8f60f1da2a132671bcb10308a90fd028
Just because CDC MMWRs usually have holes large enough to drive a truck through. Here is an interesting discussion on this week's effectiveness news. Certainly can't vouch for this guy and didn't realize that the new effectiveness info came from MMWR.... basically every CDC MMWR up to this point has been trash science. Not saying this one is... but as far as reliable sources for studies, CDC MMWR is about at the bottom.
MMWR is used to drive narrative not present objective science.
MMWR is used to drive narrative not present objective science.
5. Even worse, exposure by region was changing over time. (See data on cases in kids from https://t.co/v9z17HX6jG.)
— David Dowdy (@davidwdowdy) September 18, 2021
So, if vax is least effective where exposure is most intense, Pfizer immunity could look like it's waning - just b/c in the South, exposure was rising (Mar-Aug). pic.twitter.com/9qWNMpB7VK
I feel like our society is simply not as healthy as those people that made those figures thought. Then to top that off, with the virus came closed gyms and hiked up unhealthy eating/heavy alcohol drinking. It is proven that people that exercise 3 or more times a week have much better immune systems, so maybe those figures would be closer to those numbers otherwise...also, I dont think 100 percent is a number thrown around loosely in the world of medicine, so you may have seen a number close to that but doubt anyone would be throwing around "100 percent" in any type medicine.Wayland said:Fauci knew "FOR SURE"Quote:
Fauci goes on to say, "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94%, 95% in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease..."
At the time of the December CNN interview, Pfizer was the only vaccine that had received Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, and Moderna's vaccine was just days away from receiving that clearance. Clinical trials showed the Moderna vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in people 18 and older, and the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
Fauci then says the vaccines offer "almost a 100% in protecting you for severe disease."
Clinically recognized disease is any symptoms. At the end of August, 35% of cases in Wake County were vaccinated. Statewide they claim the number is 17-18%... I have no idea how many of those count as 'clinically recognized'.
But I know a crap ton of vaccinated people who have gotten symptomatic COVID and I am watching these numbers creep down and definition of effectiveness oddly change (like the definition of a number of other things during this pandemic).
Like I said... I am great with the fact that the vaccines appear to reduce severe disease... but the initial pitch was 95% symptom free and 100% severe... and that is just not true.
So are we actually holding to the 93% against 'clinically recognized' or has that goalpost moved to 'severe'?
Even with a vaccine, you do have to have a good immune system. (or halfway decent at least lol)
See Fauci, Anthony quote above.MayorStoner said:I feel like our society is simply not as healthy as those people that made those figures thought. Then to top that off, with the virus came closed gyms and hiked up unhealthy eating/heavy alcohol drinking. It is proven that people that exercise 3 or more times a week have much better immune systems, so maybe those figures would be closer to those numbers otherwise...also, I dont think 100 percent is a number thrown around loosely in the world of medicine, so you may have seen a number close to that but doubt anyone would be throwing around "100 percent" in any type medicine.Wayland said:Fauci knew "FOR SURE"Quote:
Fauci goes on to say, "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94%, 95% in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease..."
At the time of the December CNN interview, Pfizer was the only vaccine that had received Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, and Moderna's vaccine was just days away from receiving that clearance. Clinical trials showed the Moderna vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in people 18 and older, and the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
Fauci then says the vaccines offer "almost a 100% in protecting you for severe disease."
Clinically recognized disease is any symptoms. At the end of August, 35% of cases in Wake County were vaccinated. Statewide they claim the number is 17-18%... I have no idea how many of those count as 'clinically recognized'.
But I know a crap ton of vaccinated people who have gotten symptomatic COVID and I am watching these numbers creep down and definition of effectiveness oddly change (like the definition of a number of other things during this pandemic).
Like I said... I am great with the fact that the vaccines appear to reduce severe disease... but the initial pitch was 95% symptom free and 100% severe... and that is just not true.
So are we actually holding to the 93% against 'clinically recognized' or has that goalpost moved to 'severe'?
Even with a vaccine, you do have to have a good immune system. (or halfway decent at least lol)
See the Political Panic Muppet Walensky, Rochelle.
"vaccinated people DO NOT carry the virus .... DON'T get sick" <- That is a definitive statement lacking nuance.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus.” pic.twitter.com/9W1SHecSEm
— The Recount (@therecount) March 30, 2021
The reason she remains employed is she is malleable to political will .. she is an embarrassment to the CDC (which in itself is an embarrassment).
Featured Stories
See All
COMMIT ALERT: JUCO DL AJ Prim Picks NC State
by P.J. Williams
6:55
6h ago
487
IPS IN 5: Wolfpack Women Getting It Done On The Recruiting Trail
by James Henderson
IPS FILM ROOM: Why Is NC State Shooting So Many Mid Range Shots?
by Jake McSwain
8:43
1d ago
699
THE WALK THROUGH VAULT: What Went Wrong On The Safety
by Phillip Danford
2027 INTRO: OL Carter Jones
by P.J. Williams