How has the coronavirus affected your personal life?

[dogofwar]

What is vital to having faith in research and guidance from institutions like the CDC or NIH or NASA is that there is a wall between the science side and the political side. And in all of these organizations, there is that wall.

This is why, for example, there was such a massive freak out when (politically appointed) communications people tried to interfere with the CDC's premier scientific publication (the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report or MMWR): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/09/tru...dc-to-alter-covid-reports-emails-reveal-.html

That's the thing: If scientists at the CDC (or a University or wherever) publish something, then we want the other scientists of the world to take a skeptical eye toward it. To challenge it and, if there are problems in the conclusions, methodologies, etc. to voice them. And other scientists, if applicable, to challenge those criticisms. That's the scientific method.

It's fanciful that each of us as individuals - including politicians - has the background, capacity, depth of understanding or to gather, evaluate and synthesize available information in a way that's valid and rigorous. That's why we have institutions like the CDC, NIH, etc.

We want political leaders (and citizens) who make decisions based on science... and not intuition, financial incentives, what someone says on cable news or social media, random YouTube videos, political ideology and all the rest.

That's not "bowing down" ... that's being informed and enlightened.

Sorry but I am not yet ready to bend down and worship the Center for Disease Control, or the Wuhan Lab for Novell Coronavirus Research.

Now, I am sure that a lot of fine folks work in both places.

But I don’t have a lot of faith in the people standing behind the people that run them.

Working Doctors, scientists, and engineers don’t run these places. Political appointees do.

Sorry but I am not yet ready to bend down and worship the Center for Disease Control, or the Wuhan Lab for Novell Coronavirus Research.

Now, I am sure that a lot of fine folks work in both places.

But I don’t have a lot of faith in the people standing behind the people that run them.

Working Doctors, scientists, and engineers don’t run these places. Political appointees do.

 

[dogofwar]

So what you're inferring is that vaccines are too dangerous for children. Which is the exact opposite conclusion of the article that you posted:

Until definitive links are made, health officials overwhelmingly recommend Covid-19 vaccinations for everyone ages 12 and older.... Vaccine safety experts are always on the lookout for a range of possible side effects following any new vaccine. Despite the increased number of reported myocarditis cases among young people, Shimabukuro said, no major red flags have been identified.

Also, there is no mention in the article of the FDA or an FDA warning. You made that up.

Still, the higher-than-normal incidence is worthy of further scrutiny. The CDC will hold a meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on June 18 to further look at the evidence and assess the risk of myocarditis following vaccination.

Risk of this type is really hard for people who aren't epidemiologists to get their arms around. Which is why the CDC has just such an Advisory Committee composed of the best scientists in this area from around the country to "look at the evidence and assess the risk" vs. the reward. Of the hundreds of millions of vaccination doses delivered, they identified 226 cases, most - 80% - got better on their own (vs. 100 cases, which are estimated to occur without the vaccine). Does that risk outweigh the benefits of vaccination (which are many)? The Advisory Board so far says yes.

We should all be happy that we're funding the collection and analysis of the data, though!

From the article:
Overall, 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination in people younger than age 30 have been confirmed, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said during a presentation to a Food and Drug Administration advisory group. Further investigation is needed, however, to confirm whether the vaccination was the cause of the heart problem.

Normally, fewer than 100 cases would be expected for this age group.
...

The vast majority of the cases were sent home following a visit to a hospital as of the end of May. It's unclear how many patients were admitted to the hospital, or, for example, were discharged following a visit to the emergency room. Fifteen patients remain hospitalized, with three in intensive care units. Two of the patients in the ICU had other health problems.

The CDC had information on the recovery of patients in 220 cases; in more than 80 percent of these cases, patients got better on their own.

Evidence grows stronger for Covid vaccine link to heart issue, CDC says (nbcnews.com)



Here is a link to the more recent story about heart issues that may be caused by vaccines. Not a for sure tie in yet is my understanding, but enough out of range numbers to get a warning soon to be made by the FDA.

 

[dogofwar]

Yeah, I guess a hundred thousand plus deaths (people under 65) isn't "significant" ?

Not that deaths are the only effect of the virus. Or that unvaccinated people can spread the virus to others. Or that new variants of the virus (like the Delta variant) aren't more deadly to younger people.

Your logic for people not getting vaccinated does not follow.

Data from 487,711 deaths. Age group was available for 487,675 (99%) deaths.

Age Group	Percentage of deaths	Count of deaths	Percent of US population
0-4 Years	<0.1	154	6
5-17 Years	0.1	308	16.3
18-29 Years	0.5	2,592	16.4
30-39 Years	1.2	5,981	13.5
40-49 Years	3	14,615	12.3
50-64 Years	15.2	74,078	19.2
65-74 Years	21.6	105,193	9.6
75-84 Years	27.4	133,636	4.9
85+ Years	31	151,118	2

Hello; Looked up some stats this morning. Not sure when the numbers were compiled but the above chart is the current one posted on a CDC information site. CDC COVID Data Tracker



The numbers reflect a similar breakdown as a few months ago. The numbers do not become significant until the age group of 50-64.

The last three groups together age 65 to 85 add up to 80% of the deaths.

The first four groups together age 0 to 49 adds up to 4.9% of the total deaths.

I am in the 65 -74 group. I got the vaccine because of the stats for old people. I also went and got an antibody test before getting the first shot which was negative. Had it been positive I would have skipped a vaccine shot.

I do not have children so my take on having a child under 17 vaccinated has no personal outcome. At 2/10ths of one percent the risk of death is very low. There are some reports of problems with possible connections to vaccines. Not yet clear to me how serious to take the reports, but as I understand it the CDC has issued a warning of some sort. I will look this up. Something to do with the heart is the latest I have heard. I also will look to see if any more has been decided about blood clots.



My personal take is if I was under 50 years of age and without co-morbidities, I might skip a vaccine. At 73 I figured the odds of problems with the vaccines might be less than an infection so I got the shots. Wish I had stopped at one shot since the second shot made me very ill for one day and I spent a second day resting up from being sick that first day. I guess I could have functioned the second day but had nothing pressing enough.

 

[skjl47]

Yeah, I guess a hundred thousand plus deaths (people under 65) isn't "significant" ?

Not that deaths are the only effect of the virus. Or that unvaccinated people can spread the virus to others. Or that new variants of the virus (like the Delta variant) aren't more deadly to younger people.

Your logic for people not getting vaccinated does not follow.

Hello; Again you spin and try to imply something I did not say. I made three comments about the chart. One about those over 65 had 80% of the deaths. Another that those under 49 had 5% of the deaths. I did in fact say the deaths started to be significant at the age of 50+.

The numbers reflect a similar breakdown as a few months ago. The numbers do not become significant until the age group of 50-64.

Take out the age 50-64 from the chart number and I get 23,650. Not any where near 100 thousand. So I caught you red handed in that ______________. ( members feel free to insert the better word. Lie may fit. misinformation may fit. Falsehood may fit. Spin may fit. You be the judge. )

Now let me say this so as to be clear. In a real sense any single death is a tragedy to an individual and that individuals loved ones. In a more perfect world I would not have any die from this virus. If I deserve to be criticized for the use of the term "significant", I can see grounds for that. Maybe I could have picked a better term. Members feel free to make suggestions.

As is the more usual tactic dogofwar picked a small piece of one of my posts and tried to make me look bad with a follow up reply. However this time he fudged for some reason. Perhaps he did not read for understanding and too quickly picked something to jump me about. Perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and took an underhanded approach with this very false spin. You members who have been following the thread lately have seen his style, make up your own mind.

Hello; About my logic for not getting vaccinated. I did get the shots. I am in a high risk age group with a couple of co-morbidities. Around the time the vaccines first became available the stats were becoming known as to who was most and least at risk. Had I been much younger and in better health I would have considered skipping the vaccines. There is a old saying. Do not put all your eggs in one basket. This can be applied to vaccines. If the vaccines turn out to have some, so far unknown, serious side effects, then it will good for the species that some among the least at risk did not have the vaccines.
To be even more specific those who had the infection and recovered naturally do not need the vaccine. They have immunity in a natural way. To add whatever risk those recovered may face with a vaccine is not logical.
There is a history of serious side effects with past vaccines. I am confident in this. Keep in mind these new vaccines are still so far on an emergency status. Seems to me there is sound logic for those least at risk and those naturally recovered to skip a shot. Some may want to wait and see how this is playing out. There is at least one vaccine with serious questions currently. The jury is still out. I was lucky in that I had one of the others, but a lot of folks di get a jab from that vaccine which currently is in question.
For what it is worth I understood I was taking a gamble when I had one of the vaccines. Maybe I will be among the lucky and that vaccine will never have issues for me. I do think anyone who does not think there is a potential risk is not being completely logical. I have an opinion and will state it.

 

[dogofwar]

OK - I misunderstood your post and included the 50-64 age group (which accounts for another ~75K deaths) with the group that you felt fell outside of the age groups that represented a "significant" enough number of deaths to warrant vaccination and other measures to protect them. It wasn't my intention.

But I still don't understand your point.

The 23,650 (now more like 27 or 28,000 and counting) Americans aged 0-49 years in that age group are already dead of COVID. Are you saying that the people in those younger age groups aren't worth protecting with vaccines moving forward?!

While the relative risk of death for these age groups - at least with past variants of COVID - is lower than, say, 80+ year old people, I think you're trying to make the point that the people in these age groups shouldn't get vaccinated (wear masks, social distance, etc.) because the risk of the vaccine itself and the burden of wearing a mask/social distancing is greater than the value of preventing them from contracting COVID (individually and to society) with some dying, needing to be hospitalized, infecting others, etc.

You've gone back to mischaracterizing the risks of vaccination (it's not a "gamble"; vaccines approved by the FDA through an emergency authorization undergo the exact same phased testing approvals as those approved through non-emergency paths; the serious reactions to the COVID-vaccines are exceedingly rare and the risks largely mitigated through monitoring for 15-30 mins after giving them) to try to make it seem as if there is far greater risk in getting vaccinated than there is.

That the risks of vaccination somehow outweigh the benefits is simply not the case. Which is why guidance from CDC and other credible scientific organizations is (with very narrow exceptions) that all people 12 year old and up should get vaccinated.

Hello; Again you spin and try to imply something I did not say. I made three comments about the chart. One about those over 65 had 80% of the deaths. Another that those under 49 had 5% of the deaths. I did in fact say the deaths started to be significant at the age of 50+.



Take out the age 50-64 from the chart number and I get 23,650. Not any where near 100 thousand. So I caught you red handed in that ______________. ( members feel free to insert the better word. Lie may fit. misinformation may fit. Falsehood may fit. Spin may fit. You be the judge. )

Now let me say this so as to be clear. In a real sense any single death is a tragedy to an individual and that individuals loved ones. In a more perfect world I would not have any die from this virus. If I deserve to be criticized for the use of the term "significant", I can see grounds for that. Maybe I could have picked a better term. Members feel free to make suggestions.

As is the more usual tactic dogofwar picked a small piece of one of my posts and tried to make me look bad with a follow up reply. However this time he fudged for some reason. Perhaps he did not read for understanding and too quickly picked something to jump me about. Perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and took an underhanded approach with this very false spin. You members who have been following the thread lately have seen his style, make up your own mind.

Hello; About my logic for not getting vaccinated. I did get the shots. I am in a high risk age group with a couple of co-morbidities. Around the time the vaccines first became available the stats were becoming known as to who was most and least at risk. Had I been much younger and in better health I would have considered skipping the vaccines. There is a old saying. Do not put all your eggs in one basket. This can be applied to vaccines. If the vaccines turn out to have some, so far unknown, serious side effects, then it will good for the species that some among the least at risk did not have the vaccines.
To be even more specific those who had the infection and recovered naturally do not need the vaccine. They have immunity in a natural way. To add whatever risk those recovered may face with a vaccine is not logical.
There is a history of serious side effects with past vaccines. I am confident in this. Keep in mind these new vaccines are still so far on an emergency status. Seems to me there is sound logic for those least at risk and those naturally recovered to skip a shot. Some may want to wait and see how this is playing out. There is at least one vaccine with serious questions currently. The jury is still out. I was lucky in that I had one of the others, but a lot of folks di get a jab from that vaccine which currently is in question.
For what it is worth I understood I was taking a gamble when I had one of the vaccines. Maybe I will be among the lucky and that vaccine will never have issues for me. I do think anyone who does not think there is a potential risk is not being completely logical. I have an opinion and will state it.

 

[skjl47]

But I still don't understand your point.

Hello; Yes I know. What may help is if someone else might chime in about it. Does anyone else have a problem understanding my point?

 

[skjl47]

mRNA inventor says young adults shouldn't have to get COVID vaccine (msn.com)
Hello; Apparently the fellow who came up with the the mRNA technique has an opinion about making young people take one of the new vaccines. He even states that he new vaccines are "experimental". I await what ever sort of dismissal will be used to diss the inventor of the process.

 

[Ulu]

A poster on a fish forum demands we not to listen to another poster on a fish forum, because he's just a poster on a fish forum.
Yet such an obvious troll imagines to be met on his terms?
He should seek victims elsewhere.

 

[dogofwar]

Again, what is your point?

Because someone who invented a technology that's now being used in a vaccine doesn't think that "there isn't enough data about the risks for <the 18-22 age bracket>" that his opinion should overrule the experts who are actually on the CDC's advisory group... and that people in that age group "should not be forced to get the vaccine"... which, of course, they're not?!

That Malone pioneered 'in-vitro RNA transfection' and also 'in-vivo RNA transfection' in 1987 and 1988... on frog embryos and mice" does not make him an epidemiologist or expert in coronaviruses.

Ironically, he's claiming that "the government is not being transparent about the risks' of the COVID-19 vaccine" after YouTube - which isn't the government - deleted a video where he discussed potential risks for young adults and teens, presumably because it presented misinformation and violated YouTube's terms of service.

Also ironically, he's says that "I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks in that cohort"... and that "the risk-benefit analysis is not being done' literally on the same day that "The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group <of the CDC Avisory Committee> discussed nearly 500 reports of the heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, in vaccinated adults under age 30" (i.e. doing the risk benefit analysis of what is being done.)

Malone might call the vaccines "experimental" but they're not. They're approved by the FDA under emergency use authorization, which requires the same evidence as traditional authorization. Perhaps he was being hyperbolic because he was on a cable TV news show known for spreading, among other falsehoods, vaccine misinformation.

mRNA inventor says young adults shouldn't have to get COVID vaccine (msn.com)
Hello; Apparently the fellow who came up with the the mRNA technique has an opinion about making young people take one of the new vaccines. He even states that he new vaccines are "experimental". I await what ever sort of dismissal will be used to diss the inventor of the process.

 

[dogofwar]

Nope. A poster on a fish forum says to base your opinions on epidemiology and vaccine science on what the CDC and other scientists say.. and not opinions of other people on fish forums, cable news commentators, social media nonsense and other less rigorous sources.

Pointing people to the CDC's COVID FAQs is like the worst job of trolling ever https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html

But please call me more names.

A poster on a fish forum demands we not to listen to another poster on a fish forum, because he's just a poster on a fish forum.
Yet such an obvious troll imagines to be met on his terms?
He should seek victims elsewhere.