8 ms·

I think this reporting is dancing around the issue, that the vaccine supply is most concentrated in countries that have essentially reached their maximum vaccin

I think this reporting is dancing around the issue, that the vaccine supply is most concentrated in countries that have essentially reached their maximum vaccination percentage. By not providing access to those developing or smaller countries, larger countries are shooting themselves in the proverbial global foot. I don’t think countries like the US and Canada aren’t trying to do that, I just think these experts would like more of a conscious effort. I also think this advice feels like a slap to healthcare workers like myself who desperately want to continue taking care of patients as safely as possible. When your coworkers can spread virus more easily due to less immunity, being unvaccinated, etc, it would be more reassuring to continue to have stronger immunity to continue seeing patients. I don’t have the luxury of waiting for a patient to test negative before seeing them in the emergency room or clinic.

hanselot 5y ago
I fail to see why Dr Robert Malone is being ignored during this pandemic. If we are going to invoke the "my piece of paper is bigger than yours argument", I think he wins.
ianhawes 5y ago
If you are continually exposed to COVID-19, wouldn’t you effectively be “re-upping” your immune system every time there is additional exposure?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- leeter 5y ago
  No, exposure to the virus is like exposure to combat. You may not die, but the likelihood goes up the more time you spend exposed to it and the more of it you get exposed to. To keep with that metaphor a vaccine is like a war game, it won't kill you but it's not the real thing either. But if you've done it you're better off than if you hadn't.
  - ds206 5y ago
    This doesn't make sense. Do you have a source that says repeated exposure increases your odds of serious disease?
    - leeter 5y ago
      Repeated exposure increases your chances of disease not serious disease. Increased Viral load increases chances of serious disease. Apologies if that didn't come across clearly.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Have they tested levels of anti-bodies? Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots?
- incrudible 5y ago
  > Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots? Desperation. This is a case of politicians overpromising on something they could not deliver. Science will have to take a back seat.
  - oezi 5y ago
    Efficacy of Pfizer Biontech wears down after 6 months. So because they were early, they are the first to need boosters.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  >sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Or, it is public health advice based on science, looking at what they believe would be the most effective policy globally. They aren’t saying it does or doesn’t affect the level of antibodies. They aren’t arguing that it is effective or ineffective at boosting an individual’s immunity. You seem to be fundamentally confused about what they are talking about. >“Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations”
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I’m just not sure what it means to say that global policy is based on science. They didn’t run an observational study a sample of other globes to see which decisions correlated with better performance; they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls?
Ambolia 5y ago
Seems more an acknowledgement that zero-Covid is never ever going to happen. At which point not sure if vaccinating outside of risk populations or to control hospitalizations if they are too high makes any sense.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > not sure if vaccinating outside of risk populations or to control hospitalizations if they are too high makes any sense Based on this logic, flu shots are useless. As is any treatment without guaranteed success, i.e. most medicine. (Note: prioritising vaccinating when hospitals fill up is programmatically, repeatedly peaking the healthcare system. It will do to it what repeatedly flooring the gas and hard braking will to a car.)
  - logifail 5y ago
    > flu shots are useless (I've been struggling with the following sentence for several minutes but here goes): flu vaccines aren't widely distributed - never mind recommended - for healthy young people. Countries appear to prioritise flu vaccine for older and/or more vulnerable people.[0] [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vac...
    - belltaco 5y ago
      On that page NHS seem to make a cost tradeoff for free flu vaccine since they have to pay the costs. From the CDC >Who should get a flu vaccine this season? >Everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine every season with rare exceptions. Vaccination is particularly important for people who are at higher risk of serious complications from influenza. A full listing of people at Higher Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications is available. >Flu vaccination has important benefits. It can reduce flu illnesses, doctors’ visits, and missed work and school due to flu, as well as prevent flu-related hospitalizations and deaths. >Different flu vaccines are approved for use in different groups of people. >There are flu shots approved for use in children as young as 6 months old and flu shots approved for use in adults 65 years and older.
Thlom 5y ago
The US has not met their maximum vaccination percentage. According to the graph I get in Google the US is stuck on around 50% fully vaccinated. Considering the head start they had on most of the world and the vaccine supplies this can't be described as anything other than a complete and utter failure on all levels.
- delecti 5y ago
  > Considering the head start they had on most of the world and the vaccine supplies this can't be described as anything other than a complete and utter failure on all levels. That's probably why the GP comment described it as "their"(our) maximum vaccination percentage. The vaccine and virus have both been politicized too much, and too many people are obstinately refusing it as a result.
  - bedhead 5y ago
    It feels like more and more people whom I would consider very partisan (either side) simply act out of spite nowadays. Whatever the other side wants, well, we're just going to unconditionally fight it. You saw this accelerate after Trump won with "Resist", an ethos that literally means to defy regardless of circumstances. And now you see the right's version of "Resist" by avoiding vaccinations. Why? Because screw them, that's why. This is just more the feeling I get about society. It's very frustrating. I also think places like the CDC made enormous tactical errors by doing things like celebrating certain political protests, or changing language from "mothers" to "birthing people", etc. They tried to score cheap political points while sowing seeds of total distrust in the process. Just a massive mistake, all downside no upside.
    - Kevin_S 5y ago
      It's pretty insane to read "both sides" at this point. The idea that democrats and republicans are equal in this way is absurd.
      - scottLobster 5y ago
kurthr 5y ago
I mostly agree, but these experts need to calculate how many shots this really is (~150Mil) and then look at how many shots are still needed in the rest of the world (~10Bil). So if everyone who had a single shot also got a booster, it would increase this time by 1.5 (or less since distribution and production rates increase with time)? Prioritizing the elderly in developing nations (rather than the wealthy and politically connected) and speeding vaccine production (likely Adenovirus rather than MRNA due to encapsulation and cold-chain bottlenecks) would have order of magnitude larger effects on deaths than preventing booster shots. The number of wasted shots is closing in on the number likely to be administered. Delaying immunization school children for the school year (barring much higher than expected immune side effects in unpublished data) is likely going to be another own-goal for the FDA/CDC.
cameldrv 5y ago
> I don’t have the luxury of waiting for a patient to test negative before seeing them in the emergency room or clinic. Agreed that it makes total sense for HCWs to get a booster, but also why are you seeing patients before they test negative? Every patient could be getting a $5 antigen test as they walk in the door. The fact that this is not being done is just one more missed opportunity.

hanselot 5y ago

I fail to see why Dr Robert Malone is being ignored during this pandemic. If we are going to invoke the "my piece of paper is bigger than yours argument", I think he wins.

ianhawes 5y ago

If you are continually exposed to COVID-19, wouldn’t you effectively be “re-upping” your immune system every time there is additional exposure?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
leeter 5y ago
No, exposure to the virus is like exposure to combat. You may not die, but the likelihood goes up the more time you spend exposed to it and the more of it you get exposed to. To keep with that metaphor a vaccine is like a war game, it won't kill you but it's not the real thing either. But if you've done it you're better off than if you hadn't.
- ds206 5y ago
  This doesn't make sense. Do you have a source that says repeated exposure increases your odds of serious disease?
  - leeter 5y ago
    Repeated exposure increases your chances of disease not serious disease. Increased Viral load increases chances of serious disease. Apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Have they tested levels of anti-bodies? Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots?

incrudible 5y ago
> Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots? Desperation. This is a case of politicians overpromising on something they could not deliver. Science will have to take a back seat.
- oezi 5y ago
  Efficacy of Pfizer Biontech wears down after 6 months. So because they were early, they are the first to need boosters.
542354234235 5y ago
>sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Or, it is public health advice based on science, looking at what they believe would be the most effective policy globally. They aren’t saying it does or doesn’t affect the level of antibodies. They aren’t arguing that it is effective or ineffective at boosting an individual’s immunity. You seem to be fundamentally confused about what they are talking about. >“Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations”
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I’m just not sure what it means to say that global policy is based on science. They didn’t run an observational study a sample of other globes to see which decisions correlated with better performance; they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls?

Ambolia 5y ago

Seems more an acknowledgement that zero-Covid is never ever going to happen. At which point not sure if vaccinating outside of risk populations or to control hospitalizations if they are too high makes any sense.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> not sure if vaccinating outside of risk populations or to control hospitalizations if they are too high makes any sense Based on this logic, flu shots are useless. As is any treatment without guaranteed success, i.e. most medicine. (Note: prioritising vaccinating when hospitals fill up is programmatically, repeatedly peaking the healthcare system. It will do to it what repeatedly flooring the gas and hard braking will to a car.)
- logifail 5y ago
  > flu shots are useless (I've been struggling with the following sentence for several minutes but here goes): flu vaccines aren't widely distributed - never mind recommended - for healthy young people. Countries appear to prioritise flu vaccine for older and/or more vulnerable people.[0] [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vac...
  - belltaco 5y ago
    On that page NHS seem to make a cost tradeoff for free flu vaccine since they have to pay the costs. From the CDC >Who should get a flu vaccine this season? >Everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine every season with rare exceptions. Vaccination is particularly important for people who are at higher risk of serious complications from influenza. A full listing of people at Higher Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications is available. >Flu vaccination has important benefits. It can reduce flu illnesses, doctors’ visits, and missed work and school due to flu, as well as prevent flu-related hospitalizations and deaths. >Different flu vaccines are approved for use in different groups of people. >There are flu shots approved for use in children as young as 6 months old and flu shots approved for use in adults 65 years and older.

Thlom 5y ago

The US has not met their maximum vaccination percentage. According to the graph I get in Google the US is stuck on around 50% fully vaccinated. Considering the head start they had on most of the world and the vaccine supplies this can't be described as anything other than a complete and utter failure on all levels.

delecti 5y ago
> Considering the head start they had on most of the world and the vaccine supplies this can't be described as anything other than a complete and utter failure on all levels. That's probably why the GP comment described it as "their"(our) maximum vaccination percentage. The vaccine and virus have both been politicized too much, and too many people are obstinately refusing it as a result.
- bedhead 5y ago
  It feels like more and more people whom I would consider very partisan (either side) simply act out of spite nowadays. Whatever the other side wants, well, we're just going to unconditionally fight it. You saw this accelerate after Trump won with "Resist", an ethos that literally means to defy regardless of circumstances. And now you see the right's version of "Resist" by avoiding vaccinations. Why? Because screw them, that's why. This is just more the feeling I get about society. It's very frustrating. I also think places like the CDC made enormous tactical errors by doing things like celebrating certain political protests, or changing language from "mothers" to "birthing people", etc. They tried to score cheap political points while sowing seeds of total distrust in the process. Just a massive mistake, all downside no upside.
  - Kevin_S 5y ago
    It's pretty insane to read "both sides" at this point. The idea that democrats and republicans are equal in this way is absurd.
    - scottLobster 5y ago

kurthr 5y ago

I mostly agree, but these experts need to calculate how many shots this really is (~150Mil) and then look at how many shots are still needed in the rest of the world (~10Bil). So if everyone who had a single shot also got a booster, it would increase this time by 1.5 (or less since distribution and production rates increase with time)? Prioritizing the elderly in developing nations (rather than the wealthy and politically connected) and speeding vaccine production (likely Adenovirus rather than MRNA due to encapsulation and cold-chain bottlenecks) would have order of magnitude larger effects on deaths than preventing booster shots. The number of wasted shots is closing in on the number likely to be administered. Delaying immunization school children for the school year (barring much higher than expected immune side effects in unpublished data) is likely going to be another own-goal for the FDA/CDC.

cameldrv 5y ago

> I don’t have the luxury of waiting for a patient to test negative before seeing them in the emergency room or clinic. Agreed that it makes total sense for HCWs to get a booster, but also why are you seeing patients before they test negative? Every patient could be getting a $5 antigen test as they walk in the door. The fact that this is not being done is just one more missed opportunity.