And the same may be said for your case of Covid.
Keeps it interesting for sure.
Keeps it interesting for sure.
Vaccine Reluctance
100,321 Views |
741 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
I don't worry about either, FYI. Nor do I think people who have had covid need to rush to get this thing. You are already contributing to immunity.SoupNazi2001 said:Fitch said:
See there we fundamentally disagree. With a billion people vaccinated and 12+ months of data the experiment is over. That's like saying a car engine is still experimental because a new model came out. So far as I'm aware, the probability of severe reaction, let alone death, to any of the vaccines is incomparable minuscule relative to the already not very high odds of the same from natural infection, so I can't see how that's trading one set of unknowns for another.
It's interesting to observe people who had contracted it naturally, and had a minor case or no symptoms think they have as resilient an immune response as the two shot mRNA efficacy. I'd be keen to see the data on that.
I've had Covid and had an extremely mild case. I didn't stop jogging or working out during it. I know what Covid is and what my reaction is. Some of you are very confident in the first mRNA vaccine in history having no long term effects. You worry about long term effects from Covid but no one can say definitively there will be none from the vaccine because it has been out less than a year.
Both vaccination and natural immunity are playing out to be incredibly strong.
that said, if someone hasn't had covid, I think it's crazy to rather get the virus for fear of the unknown with the vaccine. Many people seem to be implying they'd rather take their chances with the virus, and I don't understand that. That's just me, though.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00141-3/fulltext
Appears just as efficacious as the vaccine, at least in this study.
Appears just as efficacious as the vaccine, at least in this study.
The unknown is what will be the effects of the vaccine 2-3 years down the road. Can you confidently answer that? With COVID, you point to the exceptions while ignoring the overwhelming majority who had very little (if any) symptoms and no lasting effects. > 1 year's worth of real world data to look at. Remember, Thalidomide was thought to be safe for pregnant women to take until the dots were connected several years after it was introduced.Fitch said:
See there we fundamentally disagree. With a billion people vaccinated and 12+ months of data the experiment is over. That's like saying a car engine is still experimental because a new model came out. So far as I'm aware, the probability of severe reaction, let alone death, to any of the vaccines is incomparable minuscule relative to the already not very high odds of the same from natural infection, so I can't see how that's trading one set of unknowns for another.
It's interesting to observe people who had contracted it naturally, and had a minor case or no symptoms think they have as resilient an immune response as the two shot mRNA efficacy. I'd be keen to see the data on that.
I can more confidently answer it than long term covid, yes. With the actual data to show for it.
The vaccine is purely speculation on long term issues. Covid actually has them.
The vaccine is purely speculation on long term issues. Covid actually has them.
COVID's long-term issues are still a small percentage of the overall cases. That's what you're not grasping. You're focusing on the exceptions, and you can't live like that.
you spend most of your days on these forums preaching (paraphrasing) I'll live however the F I want...so fair to say anyone/everyone else should life "like that" if they want to.aTm2004 said:
COVID's long-term issues are still a small percentage of the overall cases. That's what you're not grasping. You're focusing on the exceptions, and you can't live like that.
I'm not the one shaming people for the choices they make. I've been banned because I answered a question and then was attacked because my answer didn't follow the narrative staff has openly stated is defined for this board. COVID has emboldened a lot of people to believe they can dictate what choices others make, but they cannot. Many people believe the vaccine is best for them while many others do not. Instead of accepting that others are making the choices they feel is best for them, certain people are attacked for not making the choice they feel that person should make.aggiemike02 said:you spend most of your days on these forums preaching (paraphrasing) I'll live however the F I want...so fair to say anyone/everyone else should life "like that" if they want to.aTm2004 said:
COVID's long-term issues are still a small percentage of the overall cases. That's what you're not grasping. You're focusing on the exceptions, and you can't live like that.
All I've done on this thread is discuss my issues with the vaccine and why I believe people are hesitant to get it, and then have to defend it because others see no issue with it. That's kind of the point of the thread. If it's too much for you, kindly see your way out of it.
any auto-immune stuff associated with the mRNA vaccine should be picked up in the safety trials
especially adults
especially adults
Hell no! I can't promise tomorrow, but I go to bed thinking the sun will come up all the same and by all accounts the half life of the components of the vaccines is seconds or minutes. It's your immune system doing the lifting, not an ongoing dosage of an artificial organic molecule building up in the system.
Flip side is if (as seems somewhat probable) this was an artificially created disease from a Chinese virology lab, I'd prefer to have the vaccine that American scientists created to combat it using the part of the virus common to other coronaviruses than the who-knows-what that was in the original viral RNA.
Flip side is if (as seems somewhat probable) this was an artificially created disease from a Chinese virology lab, I'd prefer to have the vaccine that American scientists created to combat it using the part of the virus common to other coronaviruses than the who-knows-what that was in the original viral RNA.
I can't promise anything either. At the end of the day, we're all making the choice we feel is best for us.
Even if long-term issues from COVID are infrequent, we are not just talking about simple loss of small/taste. We are talking about neurological and cardiac issues that are 1) debilitating for the patient 2) extremely costly both for the health network, providers and individual and 3) put more of a strain on the health system that has to now find answers/solutions for the patients when there are none quite frankly because this has been an understudied area to date. Most patients who have experienced these type of issues prior to COVID with out viral infections were disregarded by the health community pretty much as fakers/whiners and its only now we are realizing its a true medical condition due to all of the cases from COVID.
To just excuse it off as only a small percent of cases is way oversimplifying it.... there will be people who have to go on disability because of these issues. You may think no big deal because it didn't happen to you or someone that you know, but if you did get an unlucky spin of the wheel and it was a complication like a poster on this very thread, it not only impacts your quality of life but its going to impact you financially for the rest of your life as well. Its not a game of Russian roulette that you should sign up for.
To just excuse it off as only a small percent of cases is way oversimplifying it.... there will be people who have to go on disability because of these issues. You may think no big deal because it didn't happen to you or someone that you know, but if you did get an unlucky spin of the wheel and it was a complication like a poster on this very thread, it not only impacts your quality of life but its going to impact you financially for the rest of your life as well. Its not a game of Russian roulette that you should sign up for.
You cannot confidently say that a vaccine that did not exist a year ago will not lead to something similar a year or two down the road. And once again, you're focusing on the very small minority of cases. People die or have life altering things happen to them while engaging in one of the following common things: driving, riding a bicycle, swimming, eating, hiking, mowing the lawn, walking down stairs, etc. You simply cannot focus on the very small percentage and make decisions off of it. If in a couple of years there aren't any issues with the vaccine, I'll probably get it. Even if there are issues, if they are a small minority of people, I will still most likely get it.
That's funny. Doctors direct experience equates to "jaded" views because in your LACK of experience they are wrong? Okay, good to get that straight, best to pretend these problems don't exist by persistently saying so as nobody experiencing long term effect has sought out your advice.aTm2004 said:You're taking to people with jaded views on it. They see the worse of it and assume it's that way for everyone, which it's not. They're not seeing or telling you about the countless others who had no or minimal issues and no long term effects. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a retired LEO who told me he had to learn early in his career to turn it off when he was off shift. When I asked him what he meant, he told me that he dealt with some of the worst people in the world, and he had to step out of his LEO mindset while he was off the job so he didn't see every guy as an alcoholic husband who abuses his wife and kids, didn't see every single mother as someone who allows their boyfriend to molest her daughter because he funds her drug habit, etc. He said he could remember in vivid detail the worst cases he was involved in but very few of the positive interactions he had with the public. I think we're seeing something similar from the medical community.Fitch said:
I've got an Aunt who is a long hauler and an uncle had to have monoclonal antibody treatment. Lots of family friends who spent days sick and at least two that progressed to pneumonia and lost 10+ lbs while their kids shrugged it off in a few days with nothing but a runny nose.
Said this on another thread but a doctor friend / old lady from A&M days knows a dozen people dead, two in their 30's and a 23 y/o nurse. In no way is that the common outcome or even remotely likely, but the odds aren't zero either.
Another friend is a rheumatologist and acknowledged they're seeing "a ton of people every week" with post covid issues presenting in every flavor under the sun months after recovering.
The point is, when all you see is the bad you forget about the good, which vastly outnumbers the bad.
Second take, the more infections there are, the more those percentages stack up which is why curtailing the spread matters.aTm2004 said:
Here's the actual CDC data...
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
Main thing to take from it:
Age 65+ account for 13.8% of cases, but 80.6% of deaths
50-64 account for 20.4% of cases and 14.8% of deaths
18-49 account for 53.8% of cases and 4.6% of deaths
0-17 account for 12.1% of cases and 0.1% of deaths
If a doctor does not have enough faith in the vaccine to go about their job without a mask, then I don't understand why there is outrage at those not wanting the vaccine.
If you go to a doctors office they have 100% of the staff vaccinated, temperature checking daily, and bathe in disinfectant. Yet, they still all wear masks when around each other in the office and insist on patients wear masks in room 1-on-1.
Who is really denying the science here?
If you go to a doctors office they have 100% of the staff vaccinated, temperature checking daily, and bathe in disinfectant. Yet, they still all wear masks when around each other in the office and insist on patients wear masks in room 1-on-1.
Who is really denying the science here?
This debate reminds me of the seat belt debate in the 1980's. Today we still have 5 -10% of people who don't wear them, but even they generally admit that it's a personal choice and not a wise health decision. At the beginning it was so contentious that legislators had enough momentum to get laws repealed, iirc. This Covid vaccine is interesting as a test case for how much the culture has changed, and for how effective our leaders are at communication. Remember, there will be another virus coming out soon. Maybe it will be more deadly. Maybe it will affect the young, like the Spanish flu. Maybe it will be a coronavirus, and the Covid vaccine will confer some immunity. A whole lot of maybes...my point is that if we can't get the public to do easy things that are safe, effective, and clear-cut, what will happen when there's a real and imminent crisis? There's probably a 10% group that wouldn't get any vaccine, even if ebola was ravaging the neighborhood. But this 30 - 40% resistance, heavily populated by college educated people, is pretty concerning. I get wanting to wait a while. I get it if you've already had Covid. But when I see the junk science that deliberately seeks to discredit the vaccine as being a benefit to public health, idk... it's discouraging to say the least.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
...and seeing that fully masked chamber of democrats sitting 10 feet apart, even though they are all vaccinated, sent the wrong message. But beyond that, forget about "messaging." What we need more of is TRUTH. The truth is that if you get your darned shot, you can have your life back. Why can't spineless leaders simply tell the truth?
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Amen sir.94chem said:
...and seeing that fully masked chamber of democrats sitting 10 feet apart, even though they are all vaccinated, sent the wrong message. But beyond that, forget about "messaging." What we need more of is TRUTH. The truth is that if you get your darned shot, you can have your life back. Why can't spineless leaders simply tell the truth?
I still see sick and infectious COVID patients about weekly, and I see many more people with upper respiratory infections that I don't know aren't COVID until hours or days later. It's not unusual for me to walk from a room with a sick kid who may have COVID to a 75 year old that didn't get a COVID vaccine and doesn't want one. Multiply that by dozens of instances per week with people that have all sorts of health problems that compromise their immune system. After all, sick people and unhealthy people are the ones in my office the most for obvious reasons.fightingfarmer09 said:
If a doctor does not have enough faith in the vaccine to go about their job without a mask, then I don't understand why there is outrage at those not wanting the vaccine.
If you go to a doctors office they have 100% of the staff vaccinated, temperature checking daily, and bathe in disinfectant. Yet, they still all wear masks when around each other in the office and insist on patients wear masks in room 1-on-1.
Who is really denying the science here?
Vaccines are about 90% at stopping spread of COVID. 90% may sound awesome to you, but when you have dozens of possible contaminations per week, 10% failure rate starts to look pretty bad. I unmask when I know the other people in the room have been vaccinated, but I put on my full PPE armor for sick people and still wear a mask around my unvaccinated patients.
But feel free to spout off about how you would do it different.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
You missed the entire point of what I am saying. If all you see is the bad, you begin to think that's how it is, when in reality, it's a very small percentage.bay fan said:That's funny. Doctors direct experience equates to "jaded" views because in your LACK of experience they are wrong? Okay, good to get that straight, best to pretend these problems don't exist by persistently saying so as nobody experiencing long term effect has sought out your advice.aTm2004 said:You're taking to people with jaded views on it. They see the worse of it and assume it's that way for everyone, which it's not. They're not seeing or telling you about the countless others who had no or minimal issues and no long term effects. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a retired LEO who told me he had to learn early in his career to turn it off when he was off shift. When I asked him what he meant, he told me that he dealt with some of the worst people in the world, and he had to step out of his LEO mindset while he was off the job so he didn't see every guy as an alcoholic husband who abuses his wife and kids, didn't see every single mother as someone who allows their boyfriend to molest her daughter because he funds her drug habit, etc. He said he could remember in vivid detail the worst cases he was involved in but very few of the positive interactions he had with the public. I think we're seeing something similar from the medical community.Fitch said:
I've got an Aunt who is a long hauler and an uncle had to have monoclonal antibody treatment. Lots of family friends who spent days sick and at least two that progressed to pneumonia and lost 10+ lbs while their kids shrugged it off in a few days with nothing but a runny nose.
Said this on another thread but a doctor friend / old lady from A&M days knows a dozen people dead, two in their 30's and a 23 y/o nurse. In no way is that the common outcome or even remotely likely, but the odds aren't zero either.
Another friend is a rheumatologist and acknowledged they're seeing "a ton of people every week" with post covid issues presenting in every flavor under the sun months after recovering.
The point is, when all you see is the bad you forget about the good, which vastly outnumbers the bad.
A recently published article in Nature used data from the VA system to track COVID-19 patients, including those non-hospitalized, for adverse outcomes six months after their infection. They find a higher death rate in infected v non-infected population and an excess of neurological/cardiac conditions in infected v non-infected as discussed above. This will probably be the largest and best tracked dataset we have for these type of numbers for some time. I've pasted below some findings from the article which you may not be able to access because its currently behind Nature's paywall (the scientific publishing system is extremely flawed and broken). I've put the first discussion paragraph first followed by paragraphs from the results section --
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03553-9
Quote:
In this study, we use a high dimensional approach to identify the spectrum of clinical abnormalities (incident diagnoses, incident medication use, and incident laboratory abnormalities) experienced by COVID19 survivors beyond the first 30 days of illness. The results suggest that beyond the first 30 days of illness, people with COVID-19 are at higher risk of death, health care resource utilization, and exhibit a broad array of incident pulmonary and extrapulmonary clinical manifestations including nervous system and neurocognitive disorders, mental health disorders, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, and signs and symptoms related to poor general wellbeing including malaise, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and anemia. Increased risk of incident use of several medication classes was also observed including pain medications (opioids and non-opioids), antidepressants, anxiolytics, antihypertensives, antihyperlipidemics, oral hypoglycemics, insulin, and other medication classes. Our analyses of pre-specified outcomes complement the high dimensional approach to identify specific post-acute sequalae with greater diagnostic resolution and reveal two key findings: a) the risk and associated burden of post-acute sequalae is evident even among those whose acute disease was not severe enough to necessitate hospitalization the segment that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, and b) the risk and associated burden increases across the severity spectrum of the acute COVID-19 infection (non-hospitalized, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care). Our comparative approach to examine post-acute sequalae in those hospitalized with COVID-19 vs. seasonal influenza (using a high dimensional approach and through examination of pre-specified outcomes) suggests substantially higher burden of a broad array of post-acute sequelae in those hospitalized with COVID-19 vs. seasonal influenza providing differentiating features of post-COVID-19 (both in magnitude of risk and breadth of organ involvement) from a post-influenza viral syndrome. The constellation of evidence suggests that 30-day survivors of COVID-19 exhibited increased risk of death and health resource utilization, and substantial burden of health loss (spanning pulmonary and several extrapulmonary organ systems) and highlights the need for a holistic and integrated multidisciplinary long-term care of COVID-19 survivors.
Beyond the first 30 days of illness, COVID-19 survivors had increased risk of death (HR 1.59 (1.46. 1.73)). We also estimated the adjusted excess burden due to COVID-19 per 1000 persons at 6-months based on the difference of estimated incidence rate between COVID-19 and all users of VHA. The excess death was estimated at 8.39 (7.09. 9.58) per 1000 COVID-19 patients at 6-months. Those with COVID-19 had a higher risk of outpatient care encounter (HR 1.20 (1.19, 1.21); excess burden 33.22 (30.89, 35.58) and at a greater frequency (0.47 (0.44, 0.49) additional encounter every 30 days) (Extended data table 2b and c).
At six months following a COVID-19 infection that did not result in a hospitalization in the first 30-days, excess burden of respiratory conditions was most common and included respiratory signs and symptoms (28.51 (26.40, 30.50) per 1000 COVID-19 patients at 6-months), respiratory failure, insufficiency, arrest (3.37 (2.71, 3.92)), and lower respiratory disease (4.67 (3.96, 5.28)). There was also evidence of high burden of incident use of bronchodilators (22.23 (20.68, 23.67)), antitussives and expectorants (12.83 (11.61, 13.95)), anti-asthmatics (8.87 (7.65, 9.97)), and glucocorticoids (7.65 (5.67, 9.50)).
The results showed excess burden of sleep wake disorders (14.53 (11.53, 17.36)) per 1000 COVID-19 patients at 6-months), anxiety and fear-related disorders (5.42 (3.42, 7.29)), and trauma and stress related disorders (8.93 (6.62, 11.09)). These findings were coupled with evidence of excess burden of incident use of non-opioid analgesics (19.97 (17.41, 22.40)), opioid analgesics (9.39 (7.21, 11.43)), antidepressants (7.83 (5.19, 10.30)) and benzodiazepines sedatives and anxiolytics (22.23 (20.68, 23.67)).
Excess burden of cardiovascular conditions included hypertension (15.18 (11.53, 18.62)) per 1000 COVID-19 patients at 6-months), cardiac dysrhythmias (8.41 (7.18, 9.53)), circulatory signs and symptoms (6.65 (5.18, 8.01)), chest pain (10.08 (8.63, 11.42)), coronary atherosclerosis (4.38 (2.96, 5.67)), and heart failure (3.94 (2.97, 4.80)). There was also evidence of excess burden of incident use of beta blockers (9.74 (8.06, 11.27)), calcium channel blockers (7.18 (5.61, 8.61)), loop diuretics (4.72 (3.59, 5.72)), thiazide diuretics (2.52 (1.37, 3.54)), and antiarrhythmics (1.28 (0.79, 1.67)).
To gain a better understanding of the spectrum of clinical manifestations in survivors of COVID-19 who got hospitalized, we undertook a comparative evaluation in a cohort of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 vs. those hospitalized with seasonal influenza (a well-known, well characterized respiratory viral illness). The hospitalized cohort included 13,654 people with COVID-19 and 13,997 people with influenza who survived at least 30 days after hospital admission (Supplementary Fig. 2a and b). The median follow-up and interquartile range were 150 (84, 217) and 157 (87, 220) days in the COVID-19 and influenza groups (Extended data table 1). Testing of a panel of negative outcome controls including neoplasms and accidental injuries yielded results consistent with a priori expectations (HR 0.98 (0.83, 1.16), and HR 1.02 (0.90, 1.15), respectively) (results of all the negative outcome controls are provided in extended data table 2a). Examination of standardized differences of all high dimensional variables (including those selected and those that were not selected in the models) in all outcome specific cohorts showed that more than 99.75% of standardized differences were <0.1 after adjustment (Supplementary Fig. 4a and b), resulting in similar distributions of baseline characteristics in each group after adjustment (Supplementary table 6). Beyond the first 30 days of illness, COVID-19 survivors who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 had increased risk of death (HR=1.51 (1.30, 1.76)); excess death was estimated at 28.79 (19.52, 36.85) per 1000 persons at 6-months. Those with COVID-19 exhibited a higher risk of outpatient care encounter (HR 1.12 (1.08, 1.17), excess burden 6.37 (4.01, 9.03)) and with greater frequency (1.45 (1.28, 1.63) additional encounters every 30 days) (Extended data table 2b and c). Compared to those hospitalized with seasonal influenza, and beyond the first 30 days of illness, COVID-19 survivors who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 had a higher burden of a broad array of pulmonary and extrapulmonary systemic manifestations including neurologic disorders (nervous system disorders (19.78 (12.58, 26.19) per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients) and neurocognitive disorders (16.16 (10.40, 21.19)), mental health disorders (e.g. mental and substance use conditions 7.75 (4.72, 10.10)), metabolic disorders (e.g. disorders of lipid metabolism 43.53 (28.71, 57.08)), cardiovascular disorders (e.g. circulatory signs and symptoms (17.92 (10.73, 24.35)), gastrointestinal disorders (e.g. dys****ia (19.28 (12.75, 25.13)), coagulation disorders (14.31 (10.08, 17.89)), pulmonary embolism (18.31 (15.83, 20.25)), and other disorders including malaise and fatigue (36.49 (28.13, 44.15)), and anemia (19.08 (10.58, 26.81)) (Extended data Fig. 2a-f, Extended data Fig. 3a-c, and supplementary table 7-10). Analyses of risk and burden of clinical manifestations which additionally adjusted for severity of the acute infection yielded consistent results in both direction and magnitude of estimates (Extended data Fig. 4a-f, extended data Fig. 5a-c, and supplementary table 11-14). A high dimensional comparative evaluation of 6-months outcomes in a cohort of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 (N=13,654) vs. those hospitalized for other causes (N=901,516) yielded consistent results (Extended data Fig. 6a-f, extended data Fig. 7a-c, and supplementary table 15-18).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03553-9
Reasonable take...prioritize vaccinating and protecting those 65+, then vaccinate those 50+, and open the country up so we can go about our lives. There is ZERO reason, other than political, that children should not have been in a classroom this year.bay fan said:Second take, the more infections there are, the more those percentages stack up which is why curtailing the spread matters.aTm2004 said:
Here's the actual CDC data...
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
Main thing to take from it:
Age 65+ account for 13.8% of cases, but 80.6% of deaths
50-64 account for 20.4% of cases and 14.8% of deaths
18-49 account for 53.8% of cases and 4.6% of deaths
0-17 account for 12.1% of cases and 0.1% of deaths
Preach. I can't tell you how much time I've had to waste convincing high-risk people that they should get the vaccine. Literally hours per week that should be an automatic. And even then, about a third of those people still decline. It's somewhat maddening that we have several safe, effective, and free vaccines for a potentially deadly disease with no proven treatments, and people just can't be bothered. I know of one person who died of COVID after refusing to get the vaccine and a few others hospitalized for the same reason. It boggles the mindQuote:
A whole lot of maybes...my point is that if we can't get the public to do easy things that are safe, effective, and clear-cut, what will happen when there's a real and imminent crisis? There's probably a 10% group that wouldn't get any vaccine, even if ebola was ravaging the neighborhood. But this 30 - 40% resistance, heavily populated by college educated people, is pretty concerning. I get wanting to wait a while. I get it if you've already had Covid. But when I see the junk science that deliberately seeks to discredit the vaccine as being a benefit to public health, idk... it's discouraging to say the least.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Took my 5 year old to the pediatrician a few weeks ago for an ear infection (thought it was swimmer's ear and that's what it was), and they tried to make him put a mask on. He wouldn't because it pulled on his ear. The nurse told me he had to wear a mask, so I asked her if they make kids with sore throats chug a glass of water before they go back. She rolled her eyes and took us back.fightingfarmer09 said:
If a doctor does not have enough faith in the vaccine to go about their job without a mask, then I don't understand why there is outrage at those not wanting the vaccine.
If you go to a doctors office they have 100% of the staff vaccinated, temperature checking daily, and bathe in disinfectant. Yet, they still all wear masks when around each other in the office and insist on patients wear masks in room 1-on-1.
Who is really denying the science here?
You say it's safe but there are a lot of people who are reluctant for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. Also, we're trying to force people to get a vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large majority of people. It's not a virus wiping out 30% of the population.94chem said:
A whole lot of maybes...my point is that if we can't get the public to do easy things that are safe, effective, and clear-cut, what will happen when there's a real and imminent crisis? There's probably a 10% group that wouldn't get any vaccine, even if ebola was ravaging the neighborhood. But this 30 - 40% resistance, heavily populated by college educated people, is pretty concerning. I get wanting to wait a while. I get it if you've already had Covid. But when I see the junk science that deliberately seeks to discredit the vaccine as being a benefit to public health, idk... it's discouraging to say the least.
Let's not pretend this is rational. When this started, we had tons of healthy people taking and wanting to take hydroxychloroquine for prevention, which we know is dangerious and has very poor evidence for effectiveness, if any. I have yet to have a single sick patient decline any experimental COVID treatments that have poor evidence, whether it be ivermectin, bamlanivimab, plasma, or remdesivir. This despite the fact that we have no idea the short or long term risks of some of these treatments. Yet here we have a very effective, safe (at least short term), and free vaccine, and those same people willing to break the law to get hydroxychloroquine won't go near the vaccine to literally save their lives.Quote:
You say it's safe but there are a lot of people who are reluctant for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. Also, we're trying to force people to get a vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large majority of people. It's not a virus wiping out 30% of the population.
Based on that, it's easy to say that vaccine hesistancy for most isn't some carefully calculated risk based on the plethora of available scientific and epidemiological data. It's purely emotional and driven by misinformation.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The bolded is my point. Short term. You're not able to step back and understand that people are looking long-term, and nothing in the available numbers justifies them taking a long term risk. Also, when this started, we were not sure what we were dealing with and everyone was in a panic. We're more than a year into this with solid data available for everyone to make an educated decision on what they feel is best for themselves. If they're doing something you don't feel is safe for them, give them your opinion and support their decision to do what they feel is best, and if you're not able to accept and understand that, then you need to find a new profession, IMO.ramblin_ag02 said:Let's not pretend this is rational. When this started, we had tons of healthy people taking and wanting to take hydroxychloroquine for prevention, which we know is dangerious and has very poor evidence for effectiveness, if any. I have yet to have a single sick patient decline any experimental COVID treatments that have poor evidence, whether it be ivermectin, bamlanivimab, plasma, or remdesivir. This despite the fact that we have no idea the short or long term risks of some of these treatments. Yet here we have a very effective, safe (at least short term), and free vaccine, and those same people willing to break the law to get hydroxychloroquine won't go near the vaccine to literally save their lives.Quote:
You say it's safe but there are a lot of people who are reluctant for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. Also, we're trying to force people to get a vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large majority of people. It's not a virus wiping out 30% of the population.
Based on that, it's easy to say that vaccine hesistancy for most isn't some carefully calculated risk based on the plethora of available scientific and epidemiological data. It's purely emotional and driven by misinformation.
It seems there are still a lot of people, and docs, stuck in March 2020 mindset.
That's very short sighted. Some people do things for others. Doctors who have some of highest risk of exposure repeatedly see Covid positive people and though the vaccine is very effective, still 5% do get it. They have a duty to the other patients they see (perhaps you) who may not be vaccinated to take very precaution to not be a vector of spread precisely because they do understand the science.fightingfarmer09 said:
If a doctor does not have enough faith in the vaccine to go about their job without a mask, then I don't understand why there is outrage at those not wanting the vaccine.
If you go to a doctors office they have 100% of the staff vaccinated, temperature checking daily, and bathe in disinfectant. Yet, they still all wear masks when around each other in the office and insist on patients wear masks in room 1-on-1.
Who is really denying the science here?
If your take is they don't trust the vaccine that's really off base.
I agree that is is emotional but I am not sure it is about misinformation in all cases.Quote:
It's purely emotional and driven by misinformation.
Some people are just creating a massive, undefined "what if" medium to long term risk inside there head to counter-balance the much more quantifiable and very legitimate, very documented risks of COVID. The are also trying to downplay the risk of COVID to zero in their personal case.
I have asked myself several times if I missing something and if that a rational way of thinking. My big conclusion after talking with as many medical pros as I could and researching it to a silly degree was that there is almost zero basis for worries longer term complications based on vaccine history. Most every complication from any vaccine occurred at the latest a few months after its introduction and in most cases the incidence of complications was more rare than the disease itself and usually mimicked complications from whatever disease was trying to be eradicated.
So folks that are worried about complications from MRNA vaccines are betting on something completely new happening to them for no explainable reason and I can't view that as a reasonable approach.
I also don't see a reasonable basis to think their is a long-term risk besides pure fear of the unknown. Is there something specific that you have read about or seen that would cause you to think this could happen?Quote:
The bolded is my point. Short term. You're not able to step back and understand that people are looking long-term, and nothing in the available numbers justifies them taking a long term risk.
The thing is, doctors also see those that recover just fine to a much larger extent then you. You act like they can't process their experiences and form informed opinions. Your opinion literally has nothing to offer over that of a medical professional. Please stop.aTm2004 said:You missed the entire point of what I am saying. If all you see is the bad, you begin to think that's how it is, when in reality, it's a very small percentage.bay fan said:That's funny. Doctors direct experience equates to "jaded" views because in your LACK of experience they are wrong? Okay, good to get that straight, best to pretend these problems don't exist by persistently saying so as nobody experiencing long term effect has sought out your advice.aTm2004 said:You're taking to people with jaded views on it. They see the worse of it and assume it's that way for everyone, which it's not. They're not seeing or telling you about the countless others who had no or minimal issues and no long term effects. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a retired LEO who told me he had to learn early in his career to turn it off when he was off shift. When I asked him what he meant, he told me that he dealt with some of the worst people in the world, and he had to step out of his LEO mindset while he was off the job so he didn't see every guy as an alcoholic husband who abuses his wife and kids, didn't see every single mother as someone who allows their boyfriend to molest her daughter because he funds her drug habit, etc. He said he could remember in vivid detail the worst cases he was involved in but very few of the positive interactions he had with the public. I think we're seeing something similar from the medical community.Fitch said:
I've got an Aunt who is a long hauler and an uncle had to have monoclonal antibody treatment. Lots of family friends who spent days sick and at least two that progressed to pneumonia and lost 10+ lbs while their kids shrugged it off in a few days with nothing but a runny nose.
Said this on another thread but a doctor friend / old lady from A&M days knows a dozen people dead, two in their 30's and a 23 y/o nurse. In no way is that the common outcome or even remotely likely, but the odds aren't zero either.
Another friend is a rheumatologist and acknowledged they're seeing "a ton of people every week" with post covid issues presenting in every flavor under the sun months after recovering.
The point is, when all you see is the bad you forget about the good, which vastly outnumbers the bad.