Coronavirus Thread v.2

[lonestar]

the vaccines were never supposed to prevent infection, why are you using that bar?  They prevented being hospitalized, winding up on a ventilator and possibly dying. 

I don't think this has ever happened before in the entire history of this forum, but I agree 100% with XeRocks.  Anyone trying to argue it has not been a success is either not paying attention or too deep in their own bias to be anything close to objective.

OK wtf is going on? Now I'm scared...

[Ben_Jamin]

Let's use common sense. How many times have we all heard that the flu shot wasn't as affective as it was in other years because of variants?

It's no surprise at all but it still does lesson it for most.

Completely fine. But I've never had to take a flu shot to do anything in my life.

Well, you did to not catch the flu.


Actually, I can't believe I have to show my vax card to see Dream Theater.

Then you should've came to the Mesa, AZ show where everyone walked right in and there was no enforcement of mask policies.

Also, I am sure that reason is a cause for low turn-out and the band has likely noticed it. Mesa was pretty packed, and I thought it was a good turnout for a Dream Theater show.

My understanding was that the vaccine would help keep me from becoming sick. Not that it would stop the pandemic in its tracks.

the vaccines were never supposed to prevent infection, why are you using that bar?  They prevented being hospitalized, winding up on a ventilator and possibly dying. 

Was absolutely marketed as such in America. You still see people say that getting more COVID shots out there is an important part of getting COVID under control.

I've been following this from the beginning, got vaccinated early, and I've NEVER heard this from anyone ever except those who are claiming that it has been said.

From day 1 that I got my first shot...early on...it was made clear to me that it did not prevent infection or spread. It just made it so I had a far lesser chance of being hospitalized or dying.

EDIT - but I do consider that being a part of "getting it under control"

The main thing to get under control was not the virus. It was the stress on the hospitals that prevented people from getting seen and treated by a doctor in a timely manner. The demand of the sick did not meet the supply of doctors available to treat people.

The vaccine did it's job in preventing serious illness in people to the point where they won't go to a hospital Emergency Room and take up space for those non-Covid related emergencies where they need to be seen and treated as quickly as possible.

That's why I say if people really wanted to prevent the stress on the hospitals, people could be doing a lot more than just taking a vaccine, and actually start doing things that are known to help keep one healthy and away from the hospitals. People do a lot of things besides catching this virus that causes them to end up in the hospitals.

We humans live in a system of society that can not stop, one halt in the turn of the wheel can have devastating effects for many. This was proven with what was not available in the stores, and the times it took for us to get things like furniture. I had to wait 6 months for a dresser. And I personally find it hilarious how fragile this system truly is. Then we got these fundraiser pages not allowing certain donations to be sent, and then cryptocurrency is on the market now, which can actually take over the fiat currency of the almighty dollar. This pandemic did a lot more than just make people sick and die.

[ReaPsTA]

the vaccines were never supposed to prevent infection, why are you using that bar?  They prevented being hospitalized, winding up on a ventilator and possibly dying. 

I don't think this has ever happened before in the entire history of this forum, but I agree 100% with XeRocks.  Anyone trying to argue it has not been a success is either not paying attention or too deep in their own bias to be anything close to objective.

That depends on the standard by which you're judging success. I'm using the standard our own public health authorities used, which was to prevent infection.

https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1356387157678706697?lang=en - "#COVID19 vaccines keep you from getting COVID-19."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/02/01/dr-anthony-fauci-coronavirus-mutations-and-vaccinations-nr-sot-vpx.cnn - At about 1:20 Fauci says to take the Vaccine to not get infected

Also, do you remember how during the first half of 2021 a lot of conversation was had around what percentage of the population needed to get the shots in order for the US to have herd immunity? Herd immunity necessarily implies people not getting infected.

If you look around, you can absolutely find stuff talking about breakthrough infections. But those infections were considered rare (example: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/Articles/ID/2720/Cases-of-COVID-19-vaccine-breakthrough-confirmed-in-Washington-state - You can also find multiple scientific papers from the early 2021's that say the same thing). But you also have to look at how the equivocations about vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections were drowned out under the relentless messaging to get the shot, even if you already had COVID!

In trying to find the links documenting this (rather than just repeating what I remember), one of the narratives I saw Fauci put out was about how we needed to take the COVID shots in order to prevent new variants from spreading. But this was inherently absurd from the beginning, as new cold and flu variants appear every year and they have to update the flu shot every year in order to deal with them. So how is a shot based on an old version of the virus supposed to provide protection from the new one? With Delta it worked less well and with Omicron it appears to have worked barely at all. Again, another goal laid out by a US health authority that was not met.

I'm absolutely biased but I'm not making shit up.

[bosk1]

I'm using the standard our own public health authorities used, which was to prevent infection.

Then cherry picking that standard is your mistake. 

[ReaPsTA]

I'm using the standard our own public health authorities used, which was to prevent infection.

Then cherry picking that standard is your mistake.

So let's take a step back. Why do you think that's Cherry Picking?

[bosk1]

Because that just isn't the correct standard for measuring vaccine efficacy, and we know that vaccines do not complete prevent infection. 

[ReaPsTA]

Because that just isn't the correct standard for measuring vaccine efficacy, and we know that vaccines do not complete prevent infection.

Perhaps amusingly, I had to look back at the past ~page and figure out how we got here.

DTFan's post used the words "vaccination program", which I read as having to do with the marketing campaign and the political goals it was designed to achieve. I don't think that's so much Cherry Picking as interpretation based on what aspects of COVID are most salient to you.

[lonestar]

Vaccination program refers to a program of vaccination.

[Stadler]

My understanding was that the vaccine would help keep me from becoming sick. Not that it would stop the pandemic in its tracks.

the vaccines were never supposed to prevent infection, why are you using that bar?  They prevented being hospitalized, winding up on a ventilator and possibly dying. 

Was absolutely marketed as such in America. You still see people say that getting more COVID shots out there is an important part of getting COVID under control.

The State of Connecticut was running ads for a while with one of our top health officials saying exactly that.  "We can beat this", and using vaccines, masks, and social distancing as the tools to do so.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that the vaccines were most effective at lessening the SEVERITY of infection (as opposed to preventing infection) but let's not get so incredulous as to suggest that this was always a consistent message.    Those saying "the vaccines were successful" and those saying "let's question the narrative" can both be right. 

[Stadler]

I've only glossed over this discussion, so forgive me if this point was brought up earlier, but I think in this case, "autonomy over my body" is a horse of a different color because it's dismissive of the consequences. The fact that unvaccinated human bodies are basically petri dishes for mutations and are more likely to lead to vaccine-evading mutations puts everyone else at risk. It's the difference between choosing not to wear my seatbelt and choosing not to drink and drive.

As the primary advocate (here) of the "autonomy of body" argument, let me be clear: I'm not DISMISSIVE of consequences, I simply do not let them CONTROL.  Our most fundamental rights aren't "fundamental when it's easy!" rights.   "Free speech" is no challenge at all when it's some pop star singing about how some man treated her like crap.   "Abortion" is no challenge (for most) when we're talking rape, or some extenuating circumstance.   The challenge for all of us is when it HAS consequences we don't necessarily like or want.   For example, in the States, "hate" speech is technically protected speech, and I would argue that's the way it should be.  "Abortion" when simply the woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (depsite the "consequences" of having unprotected sex) is allowed under Roe, and I would argue that's the way it should be. There's no fundamental right anywhere on the planet that says we have the RIGHT to be optimally free from any "harm".

[WilliamMunny]

I've only glossed over this discussion, so forgive me if this point was brought up earlier, but I think in this case, "autonomy over my body" is a horse of a different color because it's dismissive of the consequences. The fact that unvaccinated human bodies are basically petri dishes for mutations and are more likely to lead to vaccine-evading mutations puts everyone else at risk. It's the difference between choosing not to wear my seatbelt and choosing not to drink and drive.

As the primary advocate (here) of the "autonomy of body" argument, let me be clear: I'm not DISMISSIVE of consequences, I simply do not let them CONTROL.  Our most fundamental rights aren't "fundamental when it's easy!" rights.   "Free speech" is no challenge at all when it's some pop star singing about how some man treated her like crap.   "Abortion" is no challenge (for most) when we're talking rape, or some extenuating circumstance.   The challenge for all of us is when it HAS consequences we don't necessarily like or want.   For example, in the States, "hate" speech is technically protected speech, and I would argue that's the way it should be.  "Abortion" when simply the woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (depsite the "consequences" of having unprotected sex) is allowed under Roe, and I would argue that's the way it should be. There's no fundamental right anywhere on the planet that says we have the RIGHT to be optimally free from any "harm".

Your point is well-said—I feel that this the crux of the 'bitter pill' I had to swallow when assessing my own feelings on the recent Rogan fiasco. Obviously, I'm not a fan of his schtick, but I feel that Spotify ultimately made the right call by leaving him be. As a one-time Journalism major, I get the importance of 'free speech,' and to Stadler's point, that often means stomaching a whole of speech that we don't like to hear. The 'body autonomy' argument is the same—I happily got the vaccine and booster, but had it been mandated, I suspect I would've bristled.

[jingle.boy]

I think the messages were pretty fucking clear right from the first trial results.  The vaccines are:

High efficacy at preventing infection
Higher efficacy at preventing hospitalization
Even higher efficacy at preventing ICU/death

As Bosk said, anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply wasn't paying attention.

Yes, Omicron lowered those efficacy rates - but the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

[lonestar]

I think the messages were pretty fucking clear right from the first trial results.  The vaccines are:

High efficacy at preventing infection
Higher efficacy at preventing hospitalization
Even higher efficacy at preventing ICU/death

As Bosk said, anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply wasn't paying attention.

Yes, Omicron lowered those efficacy rates - but the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

Curious to see how this gets selectively picked over...

[Stadler]

I think the messages were pretty fucking clear right from the first trial results.  The vaccines are:

High efficacy at preventing infection
Higher efficacy at preventing hospitalization
Even higher efficacy at preventing ICU/death

As Bosk said, anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply wasn't paying attention.

Yes, Omicron lowered those efficacy rates - but the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

Any chance we can tone down the proactive ad hominem?   We can debate this without it being "cherry-picking, gaslighting, or [not] paying attention".   At least where I am, the message WASN'T clear, and seemed to morph with the need of the moment.  I get - at least I think I do - the benefits and limitations of the vaccine.  I saw it first hand with my parents, both extremely vulnerable but who got COVID, and only had mild symptoms, I believe because they were vaccinated.  I am distrustful of the official narrative; I see too many people invested in the fight, the divisiveness, to trust that they are sticking to the objective facts as opposed to "spitting their truth". 

There was an undercurrent at the start, at least here in my blue state, that has persevered, and that is "whatever argument works".  Which is fine, but let's not pretend that it was a crystalized, concise, clear message from Day One that never wavered.

[ReaPsTA]

the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

At least as pertains to Delta and infection (not necessarily severe outcomes), this is incorrect - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Each group of people analyzed is in the tens of thousands. No small sample size issues.

[cramx3]

the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

At least as pertains to Delta and infection (not necessarily severe outcomes), this is incorrect - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Each group of people analyzed is in the tens of thousands. No small sample size issues.

I've read both natural immunity is better or worse than full vaccination.  I think the reality is both are probably fairly similar.  (my guess, since I read so much conflicting information).  They both offer protection and that protection wanes over time.  Also right under the headline of that article states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."  But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point. 

[ReaPsTA]

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

Will defer on this question. I think peer review inherently creates bad incentives for conforming with previous consensus but can't speak to the particulars of how it works.

But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point.

Two issues:

- The shots are not complication free
- A big part of the vaccine push was that you should take it even if you already had COVID, which given the research that's come out later is highly questionable. It also matters as pertains to mandates that don't take into account whether or not you already had the virus

I agree it's old and boring. I have no idea why COVID shots are mandated to do anything but here we are.

[Skeever]

I've read both natural immunity is better or worse than full vaccination.  I think the reality is both are probably fairly similar.  (my guess, since I read so much conflicting information).  They both offer protection and that protection wanes over time.  Also right under the headline of that article states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."  But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point.

This is where I'm skeptical of people who think they've got a better grip on the science than governing bodies such as the WHO and CDC. Sure those regulatory bodies may have to change their guidance as the situation develops, but I'm not about to put my money on stuff like what Reapsta has been sharing here, and what others showing a few sources here and there have offered. Being able to critique the status quo does not move me to betting on the 500 point underdog in any scenario, especially when a quick search on these types of articles reveals plenty of room for critique of its own.

[bosk1]

I think the messages were pretty fucking clear right from the first trial results.  The vaccines are:

High efficacy at preventing infection
Higher efficacy at preventing hospitalization
Even higher efficacy at preventing ICU/death

As Bosk said, anyone trying to argue otherwise is cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply wasn't paying attention.

Yes, Omicron lowered those efficacy rates - but the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

Well, not exactly.  The "message" itself was not clear, and that is what Reap is latching onto.  Various sectors of the federal, state, and local governments absolutely messaged it incorrectly, which is why there IS legitimate confusion.  Every level of government under the Biden administration has sent confusing, halfwitted, inaccurate messages that are just as, if not more, offbase than some of the messages during the Trump administration.  But my point is simply that, notwithstanding that, we KNOW, and it is crystal clear to anyone paying attention to what vaccines actually do, that the program has largely done what it should have, according to the data thus far.  It has been a success. 


@Stadler:  I'm not even sure what a "proactive ad hominem" is, but if you have to look for it to be proactive, it probably isn't an ad hominem. 

[hunnus2000]

the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

At least as pertains to Delta and infection (not necessarily severe outcomes), this is incorrect - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Each group of people analyzed is in the tens of thousands. No small sample size issues.

I've read both natural immunity is better or worse than full vaccination.  I think the reality is both are probably fairly similar.  (my guess, since I read so much conflicting information).  They both offer protection and that protection wanes over time.  Also right under the headline of that article states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."  But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point.

Exactly this. One scenario is about prevention and the other is about treatment. I know a gal at work whose young kids tested positive and then she got it. She's been clean for 2 weeks but is still struggling breathing and is foggy and tired all the time and she's only 28 was one time vaccinated but decided not to get the booster.

Bummer............

[bosk1]

- The shots are not complication free

No, but strictly speaking, nothing is.  Condoms are not "complication free."  And using one, even using one correctly, is not a guarantee that one will remain pregnancy free or STD free.  However, the odds of complications of any sort are staggeringly low, and the fact that "complications" can and do happen in extremely rare situation does not mean that they aren't effective or that the effectiveness doesn't somehow staggeringly, overwhelmingly outweigh the potential complications.

- A big part of the vaccine push was that you should take it even if you already had COVID, which given the research that's come out later is highly questionable. It also matters as pertains to mandates that don't take into account whether or not you already had the virus

I'm not speaking to the mandates, because I think I've already made my position on mandates clear.  But as far as a recommendation--whether someone should get vaccinated under those circumstances--I personally still it is a perfectly reasonable recommendation, given the data.  We know that people who have had covid have gotten it again, sometimes several times.  We also know of cases of the unvaccinated where early infections  were mild and subsequent infections were more severe.  And we also know of cases where early infections of the unvaccinated were mild, and person subsequently vaccinated, and subsequent infections were also mild.  In those cases, it is a lot harder to make grand proclamations about causation vs. merely correlation.  But correlation seems reasonable.  Not to mention the separate issue of the vaccines also reducing transmission somewhat.  Those benefits, to me, seem to clearly make subsequent vaccination a really good idea.

[Stadler]

@Stadler:  I'm not even sure what a "proactive ad hominem" is, but if you have to look for it to be proactive, it probably isn't an ad hominem.

I'm referencing the tactic of chilling further conversation down a particular path by preemptively calling it "gaslighting" or something else.

[Stadler]

the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

At least as pertains to Delta and infection (not necessarily severe outcomes), this is incorrect - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Each group of people analyzed is in the tens of thousands. No small sample size issues.

I've read both natural immunity is better or worse than full vaccination.  I think the reality is both are probably fairly similar.  (my guess, since I read so much conflicting information).  They both offer protection and that protection wanes over time.  Also right under the headline of that article states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."  But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point.

Exactly this. One scenario is about prevention and the other is about treatment. I know a gal at work whose young kids tested positive and then she got it. She's been clean for 2 weeks but is still struggling breathing and is foggy and tired all the time and she's only 28 was one time vaccinated but decided not to get the booster.

Bummer............

But just the fact that it's a question implies that we all have a fair shot at answering it how we see fit.  I personally, risked the complications.  Someone else in my life opted to take their chances on the two weeks of sick (which he was).  You shouldn't have the opportunity to answer that question for me.

[lonestar]

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

Will defer on this question. I think peer review inherently creates bad incentives for conforming with previous consensus but can't speak to the particulars of how it works.

Peer review is literally the backbone of the scientific process. You don't want the evaluation of expert peers in any field reviewing work for its validity and efficacy?

[Skeever]

I don't really buy that peer-review biases toward consensus. Anyone comments I've seen back from peer-review boards have been very substantial, pointing out flaws with methodology or control failures.

It's just a fact of life that consensus is slow to change. Consensus maybe a "lower case 't' truth", but it's still the best thing we have, and it takes a loooong time of people standing up and demonstrably saying "no that's not right" to change consensus. Doesn't mean it's not the safest bet for the time being.

[ReaPsTA]

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

Will defer on this question. I think peer review inherently creates bad incentives for conforming with previous consensus but can't speak to the particulars of how it works.

Peer review is literally the backbone of the scientific process. You don't want the evaluation of expert peers in any field reviewing work for its validity and efficacy?

What I want is replication. Without it, there might be some sort of... crisis

[jingle.boy]

the vaccines were ALWAYS better at preventing these three things than no vaccination ... and in many cases, "natural" immunity from infection (at least, in the long term).

At least as pertains to Delta and infection (not necessarily severe outcomes), this is incorrect - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Each group of people analyzed is in the tens of thousands. No small sample size issues.

I've read both natural immunity is better or worse than full vaccination.  I think the reality is both are probably fairly similar.  (my guess, since I read so much conflicting information).  They both offer protection and that protection wanes over time.  Also right under the headline of that article states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."  But would you rather get sick for a week or two and risk complications or take a shot or two for free?   This conversation is pretty old and boring at this point.

I defer to experts, but have heard that for a brief period (ie, about 6 months) natural antibodies can be more effective ... but they were found to eventually wane in the case of COVID - at least with Alpha and Delta.  Not sure there's data available around Omicron just yet.

As for that site Reapsta linked ... in their own "About" section, this is in bold letters.

"Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

This is what I reference as "cherry-picking".  Finding the data that supports one's ideas/view in obscure places.

[jingle.boy]

I think peer review inherently creates bad incentives for conforming with previous consensus but can't speak to the particulars of how it works.

You seem to be implying that you distrust (at best) or know better (at worst) than an entire medical and scientific community, and recognized best practice for decades.  Seems odd... but ok.

[ReaPsTA]

- The shots are not complication free

No, but strictly speaking, nothing is.  Condoms are not "complication free."  And using one, even using one correctly, is not a guarantee that one will remain pregnancy free or STD free.  However, the odds of complications of any sort are staggeringly low, and the fact that "complications" can and do happen in extremely rare situation does not mean that they aren't effective or that the effectiveness doesn't somehow staggeringly, overwhelmingly outweigh the potential complications.

- A big part of the vaccine push was that you should take it even if you already had COVID, which given the research that's come out later is highly questionable. It also matters as pertains to mandates that don't take into account whether or not you already had the virus

I'm not speaking to the mandates, because I think I've already made my position on mandates clear.  But as far as a recommendation--whether someone should get vaccinated under those circumstances--I personally still it is a perfectly reasonable recommendation, given the data.  We know that people who have had covid have gotten it again, sometimes several times.  We also know of cases of the unvaccinated where early infections  were mild and subsequent infections were more severe.  And we also know of cases where early infections of the unvaccinated were mild, and person subsequently vaccinated, and subsequent infections were also mild.  In those cases, it is a lot harder to make grand proclamations about causation vs. merely correlation.  But correlation seems reasonable.  Not to mention the separate issue of the vaccines also reducing transmission somewhat.  Those benefits, to me, seem to clearly make subsequent vaccination a really good idea.

In terms of vaccine safety, the following things are strong signal that something is wrong:

- Multiple countries banning Moderna use in under 30's. I've heard of a couple even going to under 30. I know it is engineered differently from Pfizer, but they are still fundamentally the same technology
- This data (https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf) from a randomized control trial of the Moderna shot. Where on page 68 the total deaths from both the vaccine and placebo group are the same (about 15k participants each). The incidences of certain adverse effects are far higher in the group data than the control group. For seemingly no value. And there is far more going on than just an enlarged heart
- I'm not sure how the DoD adverse events report is going to pan out (the claims within it are very bad, but it's still a bit of a fringe story), but I know that the response of "Well the data for the previous years was not accurate" is not remotely credible and makes me more likely to think the worst case scenario claims are true

Everything I'm saying is about Moderna because that's where data is available and that's what's scrutinized. The FDA fought in court to avoid releasing the Pfizer data, but finally that will come out. Will be interested in seeing what's revealed in those documents.

[Skeever]

I think peer review inherently creates bad incentives for conforming with previous consensus but can't speak to the particulars of how it works.

You seem to be implying that you distrust (at best) or know better (at worst) than an entire medical and scientific community, and recognized best practice for decades.  Seems odd... but ok.

Exactly the point I keep harping on, which has apparently gotten me on Reapsta's "ignore list".
And what's the alternative? Some guy on Youtube? Guys like Malone? Articles that have not yet met any industry standard?

But it hardly matters for people of a more libertarian bent.  Because it's not about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that we can work toward improving it (or them)". It's about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that people reject it and it can stop placing artificial limits on the competitive market". I guess that's more of a PR topic, though.

Back on the main topic, this is my third week back at the office and I just feel pretty done. Especially since I've already had COVID, as had the son I was desperately trying to protect. I'll keep getting boosters with my flu shot and wearing masks as long as asked, but I really feel the psychology of being told to go back to the office has worn on my a bit already, and I can imagine how that's the case for people who never had the ability to WFH. There's something that just really had me taking it more seriously when the company was saying "this is so important to us, we want you to work from home". I'm still following the guidance to the best of my ability, but working in an environment where that no longer plays is definitely having an effect on my willpower.

[ReaPsTA]

As for that site Reapsta linked ... in their own "About" section, this is in bold letters.

"Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

Okay so then read the study yourself. I think the methodology seems sound. Take a point in time where people are or are not vaccinated. See what outcomes happen over the next few months. They have a large sample size. The one thing you could pick apart is that they do controls for age and other health factors. I think this is wise, but you could argue they did it wrong, or weren't transparent enough in their methods, for whatever reason.

What if you read it yourself? What's your opinion?

This is what I reference as "cherry-picking".  Finding the data that supports one's ideas/view in obscure places.

In my experience, obscure places are the only place to find real information about anything. Even when operating under the best of intentions, there are uncomfortable/nuanced aspects of any field that don't translate well into broadly popular mainstream publications.

And please, can we stop with saying "cherry picking"? Either what I'm saying is broadly mis-representing some larger point or it is not. If it is, then why.

You seem to be implying that you distrust (at best) or know better (at worst) than an entire medical and scientific community, and recognized best practice for decades.  Seems odd... but ok.

Absolutely a matter of distrust. Even if they are good at science, everyone is subject to the incentives they operate under. I trust not the incentives under which mainstream science operates. To me a lot of what's happening with mRNA vaccine hype is string theory all over again.

Exactly the point I keep harping on, which has apparently gotten me on Reapsta's "ignore list".

Not my intention.

And what's the alternative? Some guy on Youtube? Guys like Malone? Articles that have not yet met any industry standard?

I'd trust either more than our public health authorities. But again I'd read multiple sources (that aren't deliberately lying to you) and draw your own conclusion.

In Googling this stuff I've seen links to studies that disagree with my opinion that don't seem to be written by liars. I find they tend to study from small sample sizes or weird obscure things in the data, but they do exist.

But it hardly matters for people of a more libertarian bent.  Because it's not about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that we can work toward improving it (or them)". It's about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that people reject it and it can stop placing artificial limits on the competitive market". I guess that's more of a PR topic, though.

In fairness, you've kind of got me. But the issue to me is that any consensus seeking organization by nature cannot reach a good result. Competition is inefficient but it's the only way, at a societal scale, to produce valuable/accurate results.

Back on the main topic, this is my third week back at the office and I just feel pretty done. Especially since I've already had COVID, as had the son I was desperately trying to protect. I'll keep getting boosters with my flu shot and wearing masks as long as asked, but I really feel the psychology of being told to go back to the office has worn on my a bit already, and I can imagine how that's the case for people who never had the ability to WFH. There's something that just really had me taking it more seriously when the company was saying "this is so important to us, we want you to work from home". I'm still following the guidance to the best of my ability, but working in an environment where that no longer plays is definitely having an effect on my willpower.

I got sent to do WFH in March of 2020. Would never want to go back to the office. Sorry they're sending you back.

Also agreed as to the aspect of "oh guys we care so much about COVID lol just kidding it's no longer profitable." My company was giving extra pay to certain workers during the height of COVID, then took away that extra pay as well as the extra time off even as it was talking about how we still need to fight the pandemic. Talking out of both sides of their mouths!

[XJDenton]

Denmark removed all restrictions 2 weeks ago and Sweden followed suit last week. Denmark is now at an all time high in cases and mortality. The absolute numbers in the latter case are reasonably small, but I hope that this does not come back to bite them in the arse.

[Stadler]

But it hardly matters for people of a more libertarian bent.  Because it's not about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that we can work toward improving it (or them)". It's about "take shots at the consensus (or regulations) so that people reject it and it can stop placing artificial limits on the competitive market". I guess that's more of a PR topic, though.

Funny enough, but there's someone here of a more libertarian bent.  I'm not interested in "taking shots" at anyone, and in fact that is what I'm trying to avoid.  For every "shot" from a libertarian bent, there's an equal and opposite "shot" from the consensus.  We're gaslighting. We're cherry-picking.  We're nose picking.  We're whatever.   

Back on the main topic, this is my third week back at the office and I just feel pretty done. Especially since I've already had COVID, as had the son I was desperately trying to protect. I'll keep getting boosters with my flu shot and wearing masks as long as asked, but I really feel the psychology of being told to go back to the office has worn on my a bit already, and I can imagine how that's the case for people who never had the ability to WFH. There's something that just really had me taking it more seriously when the company was saying "this is so important to us, we want you to work from home". I'm still following the guidance to the best of my ability, but working in an environment where that no longer plays is definitely having an effect on my willpower.

Willpower for what? Staying up with the protocols?  I know having been in the office last week for a couple days, and watching how most do (or don't) stick with the plan, I can tell you that in the group environment, it's difficult to stay disciplined.   And a week before that, we were in a group meeting and the entire group - 8-ish people - agreed that we were distanced enough and all vaccinated, and so we didn't require each other to wear masks. Someone else came in about halfway through the day and after about 45 minutes made an issue of the lack of masks.  It's hard to know what IS right versus what just "seems" right.

[lonestar]

The reason obscure places remain obscure is because they're usually populated by bullshit.

[jingle.boy]

As for that site Reapsta linked ... in their own "About" section, this is in bold letters.

"Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

Okay so then read the study yourself. I think the methodology seems sound. Take a point in time where people are or are not vaccinated. See what outcomes happen over the next few months. They have a large sample size. The one thing you could pick apart is that they do controls for age and other health factors. I think this is wise, but you could argue they did it wrong, or weren't transparent enough in their methods, for whatever reason.

What if you read it yourself? What's your opinion?

I'm grossly hesitant on the response of 'do your own research'.... I don't have to do my own research - I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm more of an expert than an entire global community with decades of experience, education, and expertise.

In my experience, obscure places are the only place to find real information about anything. Even when operating under the best of intentions, there are uncomfortable/nuanced aspects of any field that don't translate well into broadly popular mainstream publications.

What exactly is your experience / credentials?  Serious question, I'm not baiting, I'm genuinely curious.