Did you Get the COVID Vaccine

[ShockerFever]

33-4. This is going well.

[WstateU]

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Was that a Double Dose?

[C0|dB|00ded]

There is a certain business in town that all their employees are vaccinated (some with their 3rd shot) and are required to wear masks. So far 10 out of ~30 employees have tested positive for covid.

If you have not gotten covid, you will.

Ignore everything this person just said.

Recent vaccination, or past vaccination + booster affects nearly all Covid outcomes from preventing infection to preventing death.

There is no scenario outside of a few very rare situations where you are better off not being vaccinated.

And "getting Covid" is a helluva lot different than testing positive for it due to waning immunity from an old vaccination.

If it's been >5-6 mos. since you've been vaxxed, do not hesitate to get the booster shot.

[C0|dB|00ded]

You’re 100% wrong if you think there is scientific consensus on this. There is bureaucratic consensus. I work with over 300 scientists on a daily basis. You would benefit from listening to the nuanced conversations on this.

We’ve done mask studies and vaccination efficacy studies, and pondered policy decisions. When you get into the nuance, what you find is that there are some policies that make sense (though not all), but almost all are over sold.

If you’re curious, I’ve contributed to 100s of the 1000s of pages of documents that have been submitted to the FDA and CDC on vaccine efficacy either as the author or subject matter expert.

You can continue to be whatever kind of expert you want as long as you don't start coloring outside the lines of air filtration. The second you cross over into epidemiological research is the second you need to wave for the lifeguard.

;)

[ShockerFever]

Ignore everything this person just said.

Recent vaccination, or past vaccination + booster affects nearly all Covid outcomes from preventing infection to preventing death.

There is no scenario outside of a few very rare situations where you are better off not being vaccinated.

And "getting Covid" is a helluva lot different than testing positive for it due to waning immunity from an old vaccination.

If it's been >5-6 mos. since you've been vaxxed, do not hesitate to get the booster shot.

So in Kansas, that means lie, correct?

[Kel Varnsen]

Ignore everything this person just said.

Recent vaccination, or past vaccination + booster affects nearly all Covid outcomes from preventing infection to preventing death.

There is no scenario outside of a few very rare situations where you are better off not being vaccinated.

And "getting Covid" is a helluva lot different than testing positive for it due to waning immunity from an old vaccination.

If it's been >5-6 mos. since you've been vaxxed, do not hesitate to get the booster shot.

Ignoring evidence when presented is not good, but completely on brand for you.

[ShockerFever]

Ignoring evidence when presented is not good, but completely on brand for you.

One trick pony with a one track mind thanks to the MSM media.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

You’re 100% wrong if you think there is scientific consensus on this. There is bureaucratic consensus. I work with over 300 scientists on a daily basis. You would benefit from listening to the nuanced conversations on this.

We’ve done mask studies and vaccination efficacy studies, and pondered policy decisions. When you get into the nuance, what you find is that there are some policies that make sense (though not all), but almost all are over sold.

If you’re curious, I’ve contributed to 100s of the 1000s of pages of documents that have been submitted to the FDA and CDC on vaccine efficacy either as the author or subject matter expert.

It sounds like you’re a scientist or somehow involved in the science on this particular subject, so thank you for your work.

The point I was trying to make was that there does seem to be a consensus from the medical community (I tend to lump the science and medical communities together and I shouldn't). A good friend of mine is a PhD and viral scientist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus who has said from the beginning to wear a mask and get vaccinated. My niece-in-law, who was raised by staunch anti-vaxer anti-mask anti-government anti-everything Republicans and is now in residency, thinks if you don’t wear a mask or get vaccinated, you’re “a retard” (her words, and I don’t necessarily agree with that). My personal doctor, my wife’s doctor, my wife's OB-GYN, our kids’ pediatrician, our friend who's an MD, basically every medical professional I know personally or know only because they have produced information I've seen, has advised to wear a mask during the pandemic and now to get vaccinated. I know that’s all anecdotal, so I’ll offer that you can't even get into a hospital, a doctor’s office, or a clinic without a mask--presumably because the medical community recognizes and promotes their efficacy. Of course there is disagreement and debate among the scientific community--that's to be expected. My general rule of thumb in life is that when a whole bunch of people smarter than me give me advice, I probably should follow that.

You seem to know what you're doing, so my beef isn't with you. It's with people who share a YouTube video from somebody’s cousin Earl who lives in a van down by the river and claims this is all a plot by the college educated elite and the “gummint” to take away our rights. I don't think by “nuanced” you meant “overcomplicated," but overcomplicating is exactly what so many people end up doing when they argue every minute point, don't believe experts because what they advise disagrees with their politics, or over analyze data in which they have no training to truly understand those nuances and the underlying context.

As for "bureacratic consensus"--what do you expect? Honestly? Of course Dr. Fauci and/or the CDC is going to error on the side of caution and recommend policies that do no harm even if there's debate on if they'll work because NOT making that recommendation is irresponsible. Some of the communication, especially from the CDC, has been confusing and they absolutely deserve that criticism. But being technically correct is not always the best policy. My firm’s CEO recently quarantined himself at home because his vaccinated wife got COVID. He’s vaccinated and he tested negative twice and still stayed home. He’s a Republican and an opponent of mask/vaccine mandates, so I asked him why he stayed home (Luckily, I’m the COO so I can do things like that and not get fired, lol) and he explained that he’s trying to set a good example for the employees and demonstrate how seriously they should take situations like this. Some would say our CEO was concerned about “optics.” But that’s what good leaders do.

So how and why is it so surprising, revolting, or disappointing that some policies are "oversold"? Of course they are. Duh. That's their job. There's a reason the highway department has big metal gates blocking I-70 in western KS when it snows. There's a reason seat belts are in cars. There's a reason chemicals and aspirin bottles have child resistant caps. Jesus people, there's no conspiracy to take away your rights, there's no boogie man, and no one is out to get you. People are just trying to do their damn jobs. Our society is in a bad place these days because 1) so many of us are living in a paranoid delusion fantasy and suspicious of everyone else, and 2) so many folks just want to do whatever THEY want and to hell with everyone else.

Apologies for the long post.

[wufan]

You can continue to be whatever kind of expert you want as long as you don't start coloring outside the lines of air filtration. The second you cross over into epidemiological research is the second you need to wave for the lifeguard.

;)

So you even know what epidemiologists do? They make statistical models for one. If I make a statistical model, am I out of my depth?

[Dark Lord]

When you are the Dark Lord, you need not any vaccine

[wufan]

It sounds like you’re a scientist or somehow involved in the science on this particular subject, so thank you for your work.

The point I was trying to make was that there does seem to be a consensus from the medical community (I tend to lump the science and medical communities together and I shouldn't). A good friend of mine is a PhD and viral scientist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus who has said from the beginning to wear a mask and get vaccinated. My niece-in-law, who was raised by staunch anti-vaxer anti-mask anti-government anti-everything Republicans and is now in residency, thinks if you don’t wear a mask or get vaccinated, you’re “a retard” (her words, and I don’t necessarily agree with that). My personal doctor, my wife’s doctor, my wife's OB-GYN, our kids’ pediatrician, our friend who's an MD, basically every medical professional I know personally or know only because they have produced information I've seen, has advised to wear a mask during the pandemic and now to get vaccinated. I know that’s all anecdotal, so I’ll offer that you can't even get into a hospital, a doctor’s office, or a clinic without a mask--presumably because the medical community recognizes and promotes their efficacy. Of course there is disagreement and debate among the scientific community--that's to be expected. My general rule of thumb in life is that when a whole bunch of people smarter than me give me advice, I probably should follow that.

You seem to know what you're doing, so my beef isn't with you. It's with people who share a YouTube video from somebody’s cousin Earl who lives in a van down by the river and claims this is all a plot by the college educated elite and the “gummint” to take away our rights. I don't think by “nuanced” you meant “overcomplicated," but overcomplicating is exactly what so many people end up doing when they argue every minute point, don't believe experts because what they advise disagrees with their politics, or over analyze data in which they have no training to truly understand those nuances and the underlying context.

As for "bureacratic consensus"--what do you expect? Honestly? Of course Dr. Fauci and/or the CDC is going to error on the side of caution and recommend policies that do no harm even if there's debate on if they'll work because NOT making that recommendation is irresponsible. Some of the communication, especially from the CDC, has been confusing and they absolutely deserve that criticism. But being technically correct is not always the best policy. My firm’s CEO recently quarantined himself at home because his vaccinated wife got COVID. He’s vaccinated and he tested negative twice and still stayed home. He’s a Republican and an opponent of mask/vaccine mandates, so I asked him why he stayed home (Luckily, I’m the COO so I can do things like that and not get fired, lol) and he explained that he’s trying to set a good example for the employees and demonstrate how seriously they should take situations like this. Some would say our CEO was concerned about “optics.” But that’s what good leaders do.

So how and why is it so surprising, revolting, or disappointing that some policies are "oversold"? Of course they are. Duh. That's their job. There's a reason the highway department has big metal gates blocking I-70 in western KS when it snows. There's a reason seat belts are in cars. There's a reason chemicals and aspirin bottles have child resistant caps. Jesus people, there's no conspiracy to take away your rights, there's no boogie man, and no one is out to get you. People are just trying to do their damn jobs. Our society is in a bad place these days because 1) so many of us are living in a paranoid delusion fantasy and suspicious of everyone else, and 2) so many folks just want to do whatever THEY want and to hell with everyone else.

Apologies for the long post.

Thanks for the reply!

I think you are missing some nuance in the discussion. On masking, you will find a near consensus on n95 masks. They work well for this! Anything less than an n95 gives you as an individual negligible protection, yet that is the policy. If you look at masking on a population level, you will see a small, but statistically significant decrease in the spread of Covid. For instance, if you mask and I mask and we both get a 5% reduction in viral shedding, then we’ve reduced the risk slightly. Over a population, that reduces the spread, but if one of us has Covid, we are almost guaranteed to pass it.

The rest of this post has to wait until after the game.

[WuDrWu]

When you are the Dark Lord, you need not any vaccine

Dynamite drop in.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Thanks for the reply!

I think you are missing some nuance in the discussion. On masking, you will find a near consensus on n95 masks. They work well for this! Anything less than an n95 gives you as an individual negligible protection, yet that is the policy. If you look at masking on a population level, you will see a small, but statistically significant decrease in the spread of Covid. For instance, if you mask and I mask and we both get a 5% reduction in viral shedding, then we’ve reduced the risk slightly. Over a population, that reduces the spread, but if one of us has Covid, we are almost guaranteed to pass it.

The rest of this post has to wait until after the game.

That is fascinating information, so thank you for that. It confirms my understanding that the cloth mask I've been using for the past 18 or so months probably wasn't doing a substantial amount of good. I'm no mathematician or statistician (I'm just a humble CPA), but if we both get a 5% reduction individually, does that mean collectively we get a 10% reduction? Assuming it's you, me, and another dude having a conversation in close contact, we're all three masked up, and dude #3 has COVID, I understand my chances are reduced by 5%. So if my chance of getting it unmasked was 50%, then wearing a mask reduces my risk to 47.5%--I get that (so 5% of 50% is 2.5%, not a straight reduction of 5% down to 45%, right?). But what about our collective risk? Say there's a 60% chance one of us gets COVID from dude #3--if we're both masked does that risk go down to 57%, 54%, or something else entirely?

At any rate, I try to put myself in the shoes of someone like, oh, I don't know, the Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States. My advice will influence whether a million people die or if 250,000 people die. If masks help prevent some spread, even as small as 5%, isn't that something? And masks don't hurt anyone. They're a (god awful) inconvenience, but they're just that--an inconvenience. Why wouldn't I mandate them? After all, a 5% reduction is better than no reduction and unmitigated spreading. Something is better than nothing--and that has been my understanding of the messaging from the beginning.

But, yes, you're right in that some policies are oversold. But I strongly contend there has been egregious overreaction to those oversold policies. Certainly, public figures deserve some of the blame themselves for this--their bad behavior (here's looking at you, Bill and Hillary) and confusing messaging have no doubt eroded public trust in our institutions. At the same time, we have a political ideology now in this country which is built almost entirely on the concept that government is inherently crooked and our public and democratic institutions are corrupt beyond repair--unless that government and those institutions are (of course) run by members of that same ideology. Certain members of this ideology stoke the flames of discord with outlandish and baseless claims of corruption and fraud, which in turn makes it impossible for other public figures to govern. So now we have an entire block of the population that believes that every policy, regulation, and law supported by the opposite political tribe is another step in a secret socialist plot to strip them of their freedom and their rights. This, in turn, leads those people into a quasi-anarchist, hyper-individualistic bubble where they ask only what they can do for themselves instead of what they can do for their country and fellow man. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous paranoid delusion crap, but some people have bought into it and it's now everyone's reality. Welcome to today's America; what a fun party.

[wufan]

For statistical reduction in passing the virus, if one is 5% then 2 is slightly less than 10%, but for practical purposes, you could call it a 10% reduction. That said, it’s not that cut and dry; it’s actually somewhere between a 0 and 15% reduction depending on the material and fit. Then you have to take into account the air flow, barrier and distance. The safe, unmasked distance is about 30 foot, again depending on air flow (it’s much closer outdoors).

Just considering masking, if it’s 5% reduction in particles, and all three people are masked, and one has C19, the other two individuals will take in 90.25% of the particles they would take in without a mask. How much is C19 guy shedding and how many viral particles you have to take in to be infected is unknown (at least to me). If it’s 20% of the shed particles, and you only reduced it by 10%, you’ve taken in 90% of the particles and you’re going to get Covid no matter what. However if you have to inhale 95% of the particles and you are masked, you would virtually never get it (this isn’t the case).

So, when you start to consider airflow, outdoor masks provide 0 protection over just being outdoors. On an airplane, which has a continuous air exchange, also near 0% additional protection. The air exchange provides all the protection you could want.

So why would ANY policy ever require you to mask outdoors or on an airplane?

Then, looking at statistical outcomes should you become ill; young healthy people shake this off. They also shed at a much lower rate (though no one knows the true rate) meaning they don’t really spread the virus. Shouldn’t that be considered in who must mask? If you just wear an n95 mask, it doesn’t matter what anyone else is or isn’t wearing. That’s you protecting yourself.

How about masking while walking into a restaurant then removing it when you sit down? That’s 0% effective.

Now some people have high risk tolerance, and some have low. Making n95s cheap and available to those that want them is the only policy that makes sense IMO.