8 ms·

CDC Director: U.S. may change “fully vaccinated” definition as boosters roll out

27 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

dangle1 5y ago
Taking into account booster recommendations would be the best kind of correct, but is going to further increase the complexity and dilemmas associated with nonmedical personnel being asked to screen individuals' vaccination status.
- pbak 5y ago
  I really don't see the problem with it being acceptable to be asked to police my neighbor. See something, say something. /s
sva_ 5y ago
I wonder if we'll see a kind of 'vaccine as a service' economy, in which our immune systems require regular maintenance to active threats (more so than flu shots.) Not looking forward to it.
- version_five 5y ago
  Accenture and IBM and all the other bottom tier software configuration consultancies must be foaming at the mouth at all the opportunities to implement tracking of increasingly confusing sets of rules for who is allowed to go into the office. The main thing (other than violate peoples rights) that these things accomplish is create work for legacy enterprise software companies.
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    Can we store it in a mainframe? Asking for a friend
    - smokelegend 5y ago
      Where there is a will, There is a government contractor lurking in the shadows ready to pounce.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Perhaps Germany could reuse some of the IBM technology they bought 88 years ago for a similar purpose.
        LinuxBender 5y ago
        QR codes on the arms this go around?
        version_five 5y ago
        Its obviously of a different magnitude, but it's interesting (scary) to see the parallel that once a state wants to do something, regardless of the morality, companies line up with proposals on how to do it, without any thought for if they should be helping repress people or violate their rights. I hope when we wake up from our collective delusion the companies that are enabling this will be held accountable, I also know there is no chance of that
- proc0 5y ago
  There's nothing to wonder. It's in the "health pass" specs from WHO, which I reviewed. It leaves space for future treatments. If you see what's going on in parts of Europe and Australia, it's pretty obvious what the intentions are.
  - mannanj 5y ago
    You, my friend, sound like a pro nazi, conspiracy theorist, trump supporter, anti vAx, murderer. Don’t ever doubt my beloved authority figures again: they are the only ones who can find me the answer to return to Normal. What do you think, that you’re some kind of critical thinker or something? I think we should leave that to the ones who are qualified to do so.
    - dang 5y ago
      Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we ban that sort of account. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - pbak 5y ago
    Indeed, And the health pass of today will be part of the carbon/health/credit/social pass of tomorrow. See initiative by GAVI/B&M Gates/Mastercard in Africa.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
The CDC once again continues to bungle its messaging, which is only going to fuel vaccination controversy and anti-vaxxer talking points. According to the CDC, "The COVID-19 vaccines approved and authorized in the United States continue to be effective at reducing risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death."[1] Walensky has repeated this[2]: > “The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe — as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given," Walensky said. > "They are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant," she added. If you have vaccines for which the initial series is "highly effective" at reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization and death, why would you tell people that you're considering changing the definition of "fully vaccinated" to exclude individuals who have received the initial series? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-s... [2] https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidance-boosters-mix-and-match-902c873a-e0ee-4dd7-808a-924e415463fa.html https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidance-boosters-mix-and-match-90...
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  Well none of the push for mandates or vaccine passports or other such nonsense makes much sense if the vaccines don't prevent spread and only provide an individual benefit of reduced risk. I mean, although many people are able to hold a blatant contradiction like this in their heads without experiencing cognitive dissonance, you can't really sell "we need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" without inherently casting doubt on the vaccines' efficacy against severe disease.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    While I personally have reservations about mandates/passports for being able to travel domestically, eat at restaurants, etc., in terms of things like international travel, which is a privilege, there is a valid argument for treating people with no immunity differently as they are at a higher risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death. Those can cause high costs that are borne by others. But yes, statements like the one about protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated have been head-scratching, which goes back to my point about how the CDC and other authority figures continue to bungle the messaging and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm fully vaccinated but am not sold on getting a booster because I'm not in a high-risk group and understand the current science to indicate that the initial series I received continues to significantly reduce my risk of illness, hospitalization and death. Of the friends and family I've discussed boosters with, most say they have similar thinking. I find it hard to believe that somebody who has not yet been vaccinated will see Walensky's comment about the "fully vaccinated" definition possibly changing and suddenly feel eager to get the initial series.
ajvs 5y ago
Question for the vaccinated: would you accept it if your government mandated annual COVID shots or they'll rescind your current freedoms (right to be employed, to use public transport, supermarkets, eat and drink venues, etc)? I'm vaccinated and even though my country hasn't got you're-not-allowed-to-do-anything-unless-you're-vaccinated authoritarianism like Lithuania for example, I would want off this ride if things go in that direction.
- chadlavi 5y ago
  Get a vaccine jackass.
  - dang 5y ago
    Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mannanj 5y ago
  Just curious: Why is this only a question for the vaccinated? Do the unvaccinated have some quality that makes their answers to this unreasonable or untrustable?
  - version_five 5y ago
    Not the gp, but I think their point is that the usual divide that's made out is vaccinated/ unvaccinated as if that decision puts you automatically in a camp. When the actual relevant distinction is authoritarian vs pro choice (or whatever you want to call it if there is a more neutral way) and the gp is pointing out that the "vaccinated" are not all in the papers please camp, they may just have decided it was right for them on the balance of evidence
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Blackstrat 5y ago
What is the probability that one will catch COVID at all AND if one does, what is the probability of serious illness or death FROM COVID not with COVID? Spend some time on the CDC website and quit listening to bureaucrats, politicians and the media.

27 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

Taking into account booster recommendations would be the best kind of correct, but is going to further increase the complexity and dilemmas associated with nonmedical personnel being asked to screen individuals' vaccination status.

pbak 5y ago
I really don't see the problem with it being acceptable to be asked to police my neighbor. See something, say something. /s

sva_ 5y ago

I wonder if we'll see a kind of 'vaccine as a service' economy, in which our immune systems require regular maintenance to active threats (more so than flu shots.) Not looking forward to it.

version_five 5y ago
Accenture and IBM and all the other bottom tier software configuration consultancies must be foaming at the mouth at all the opportunities to implement tracking of increasingly confusing sets of rules for who is allowed to go into the office. The main thing (other than violate peoples rights) that these things accomplish is create work for legacy enterprise software companies.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  Can we store it in a mainframe? Asking for a friend
  - smokelegend 5y ago
    Where there is a will, There is a government contractor lurking in the shadows ready to pounce.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Perhaps Germany could reuse some of the IBM technology they bought 88 years ago for a similar purpose.
      - LinuxBender 5y ago
        QR codes on the arms this go around?
      - version_five 5y ago
        Its obviously of a different magnitude, but it's interesting (scary) to see the parallel that once a state wants to do something, regardless of the morality, companies line up with proposals on how to do it, without any thought for if they should be helping repress people or violate their rights. I hope when we wake up from our collective delusion the companies that are enabling this will be held accountable, I also know there is no chance of that
proc0 5y ago
There's nothing to wonder. It's in the "health pass" specs from WHO, which I reviewed. It leaves space for future treatments. If you see what's going on in parts of Europe and Australia, it's pretty obvious what the intentions are.
- mannanj 5y ago
  You, my friend, sound like a pro nazi, conspiracy theorist, trump supporter, anti vAx, murderer. Don’t ever doubt my beloved authority figures again: they are the only ones who can find me the answer to return to Normal. What do you think, that you’re some kind of critical thinker or something? I think we should leave that to the ones who are qualified to do so.
  - dang 5y ago
    Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we ban that sort of account. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- pbak 5y ago
  Indeed, And the health pass of today will be part of the carbon/health/credit/social pass of tomorrow. See initiative by GAVI/B&M Gates/Mastercard in Africa.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

The CDC once again continues to bungle its messaging, which is only going to fuel vaccination controversy and anti-vaxxer talking points. According to the CDC, "The COVID-19 vaccines approved and authorized in the United States continue to be effective at reducing risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death."[1] Walensky has repeated this[2]: > “The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe — as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given," Walensky said. > "They are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant," she added. If you have vaccines for which the initial series is "highly effective" at reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization and death, why would you tell people that you're considering changing the definition of "fully vaccinated" to exclude individuals who have received the initial series? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-s... [2] https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidance-boosters-mix-and-match-902c873a-e0ee-4dd7-808a-924e415463fa.html https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidance-boosters-mix-and-match-90...

AndrewBissell 5y ago
Well none of the push for mandates or vaccine passports or other such nonsense makes much sense if the vaccines don't prevent spread and only provide an individual benefit of reduced risk. I mean, although many people are able to hold a blatant contradiction like this in their heads without experiencing cognitive dissonance, you can't really sell "we need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" without inherently casting doubt on the vaccines' efficacy against severe disease.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  While I personally have reservations about mandates/passports for being able to travel domestically, eat at restaurants, etc., in terms of things like international travel, which is a privilege, there is a valid argument for treating people with no immunity differently as they are at a higher risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death. Those can cause high costs that are borne by others. But yes, statements like the one about protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated have been head-scratching, which goes back to my point about how the CDC and other authority figures continue to bungle the messaging and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm fully vaccinated but am not sold on getting a booster because I'm not in a high-risk group and understand the current science to indicate that the initial series I received continues to significantly reduce my risk of illness, hospitalization and death. Of the friends and family I've discussed boosters with, most say they have similar thinking. I find it hard to believe that somebody who has not yet been vaccinated will see Walensky's comment about the "fully vaccinated" definition possibly changing and suddenly feel eager to get the initial series.

ajvs 5y ago

Question for the vaccinated: would you accept it if your government mandated annual COVID shots or they'll rescind your current freedoms (right to be employed, to use public transport, supermarkets, eat and drink venues, etc)? I'm vaccinated and even though my country hasn't got you're-not-allowed-to-do-anything-unless-you're-vaccinated authoritarianism like Lithuania for example, I would want off this ride if things go in that direction.

chadlavi 5y ago
Get a vaccine jackass.
- dang 5y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mannanj 5y ago
Just curious: Why is this only a question for the vaccinated? Do the unvaccinated have some quality that makes their answers to this unreasonable or untrustable?
- version_five 5y ago
  Not the gp, but I think their point is that the usual divide that's made out is vaccinated/ unvaccinated as if that decision puts you automatically in a camp. When the actual relevant distinction is authoritarian vs pro choice (or whatever you want to call it if there is a more neutral way) and the gp is pointing out that the "vaccinated" are not all in the papers please camp, they may just have decided it was right for them on the balance of evidence
Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Blackstrat 5y ago

What is the probability that one will catch COVID at all AND if one does, what is the probability of serious illness or death FROM COVID not with COVID? Spend some time on the CDC website and quit listening to bureaucrats, politicians and the media.