8 ms·

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 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.
  - mannanj 5y ago
    Does natural immunity (from a past instance of catching COVID), or demonstrated from a Test, count as “people with no immunity”?
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      People with natural immunity should be considered to have immunity. The science clearly shows that their immunity is not inferior and is perhaps superior to those with vaccine-based immunity. It's crazy to me that we're even having a debate about whether natural immunity should count as immunity.
  - version_five 5y ago
    Just as another data point, I probably will get a booster shot if they're available for my demographic (and it's just the same Pfizer shot I've already had two of). But it would only be under real duress that I'd prove to someone other than my doctor that I'd had it. The point to me is individual choice, and limits on what kind of information the state can compel from you. Generally I think the vaccines (even if they don't work to well) are not a big deal.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    For international travel I would accept mandatory testing and quarantine. It is entirely sensible solution to problem, also I don't think vaccination status should make difference until we have sterilizing vaccine.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    > people with no immunity So immunocompromised people? The rest of us have immunity.
  - throwaway-38nmm 5y ago
    > 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. One thing that I think is getting lost in all of these discussions is that it's okay for there to be a range of comfort levels. But a range implies there are boundaries, somewhere. I got a booster shot of Moderna a little over a month ago, by lying to the clinic and telling them it was actually my first dose. (This is why I'm on a throwaway account, btw.) I'm aware this was kind of risky, because third doses haven't been well studied in my age cohort. And I also got really ill for a day! I wouldn't recommend that anyone else jump ahead of the FDA guidelines like this—but it was something I wanted to do. I'm being very bad about masking and social distancing right now, and I'm in close contact with a lot of children, so I really wanted to do something extra to protect them. At the other end of the spectrum, I think it's totally okay for anyone who is vaccine-skeptical, for whatever reason, to take a wait and see approach. But there eventually comes a point when a majority of the public has actually gone ahead and been guinea pigs for you, and you're just needlessly endangering people.
- bsder 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. Perhaps you'd prefer overrun ICU units so people die of treatable diseases because nobody can find a bed? Vaccines absolutely benefit everybody even if they just reduce severity but don't contain spread (and I don't concede that point).
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    The "overrun ICUs" thing is a canard, and to the extent it's true is mostly the fault of our having slashed the number of hospital beds over the past decades under the imperatives of for-profit healthcare. Prior to 2020 you can find all kinds of examples of hospitals being overwhelmed by bad flu outbreaks. It's been 20 months and hundreds of billions spent on pandemic response -- where is the added hospital capacity? Not sure if this applies to you, but I also just can't take seriously anyone who professes great concern about ICU capacity while also supporting the mass termination of any nurses who won't take the vaccine.
    - bsder 5y ago
      > and to the extent it's true is mostly the fault of our having slashed the number of hospital beds over the past decades under the imperatives of for-profit healthcare. I don't disagree with this. Unfortunately, the anti-vax people are almost a 1:1 Venn diagram with the people who are all-in on for-profit healthcare. So, you can complain about this, but you can't use it as justification for anti-vax accommodation since it is caused by the same group of people. > but I also just can't take seriously anyone who professes great concern about ICU capacity while also supporting the mass termination of any nurses who won't take the vaccine. Prophylaxis is an expected minimum thing for the sake of patients. Any nurse who will not wash her hands between operations should be fired even if there is a nursing shortage. If someone is not willing to follow medical prophylaxis, they shouldn't be in medicine.
smokelegend 5y ago
How about 5yrs from now, will the 17th booster shot still be as affective? Writing is on the wall, but sure, believe their corporate greed has nothing in play on this.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > How about 5yrs from now, will the 17th booster shot still be as affective? ...yes? Why wouldn't it be? (Although I truly can't imagine any scenario where you end up with so many booster shots, only the flu is like that and it's a different shot every year, because the flu is a very unusual virus.)
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > because the flu There's not just "one flu".
- smt88 5y ago
  Five years from now, we'll be taking a Covid vaccine for whatever the prevalent variant is (exactly like we already do for the flu). The only difference is that, if you don't take your flu vaccine every year, you're much less likely to be hospitalized or die.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    The flu is a completely different virus. In fact, what we call "the flu" is actually several different influenza viruses, so your flu shot isn't targeting just one virus, it's targeting multiple influenza viruses. The rate of mutation of these viruses is very different than that of SARS-CoV-2. The reason there's a different flu shot every year is that the efficacy of last year's vaccine against the current influenza viruses will likely be too low to provide adequate protection, not just against infection but against serious illness. This again is because of how much the influenza viruses mutate in a short period of time. Currently, the data indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are holding up very well in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death for all SARS-CoV-2 variants. This is the reason why the boosters that were approved are the same vaccine, not a new variant-specific one. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity, and it is clear that the neutralizing antibodies produced immediately after vaccination wane quickly, which allows vaccinated individuals to still become infected. Unless and until you see a drop in the efficacy against severe illness, hospitalization and death, this idea that we will or should be taking COVID vaccines indefinitely every year is hard to justify with science.

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.
- mannanj 5y ago
  Does natural immunity (from a past instance of catching COVID), or demonstrated from a Test, count as “people with no immunity”?
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    People with natural immunity should be considered to have immunity. The science clearly shows that their immunity is not inferior and is perhaps superior to those with vaccine-based immunity. It's crazy to me that we're even having a debate about whether natural immunity should count as immunity.
- version_five 5y ago
  Just as another data point, I probably will get a booster shot if they're available for my demographic (and it's just the same Pfizer shot I've already had two of). But it would only be under real duress that I'd prove to someone other than my doctor that I'd had it. The point to me is individual choice, and limits on what kind of information the state can compel from you. Generally I think the vaccines (even if they don't work to well) are not a big deal.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  For international travel I would accept mandatory testing and quarantine. It is entirely sensible solution to problem, also I don't think vaccination status should make difference until we have sterilizing vaccine.
- unanswered 5y ago
  > people with no immunity So immunocompromised people? The rest of us have immunity.
- throwaway-38nmm 5y ago
  > 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. One thing that I think is getting lost in all of these discussions is that it's okay for there to be a range of comfort levels. But a range implies there are boundaries, somewhere. I got a booster shot of Moderna a little over a month ago, by lying to the clinic and telling them it was actually my first dose. (This is why I'm on a throwaway account, btw.) I'm aware this was kind of risky, because third doses haven't been well studied in my age cohort. And I also got really ill for a day! I wouldn't recommend that anyone else jump ahead of the FDA guidelines like this—but it was something I wanted to do. I'm being very bad about masking and social distancing right now, and I'm in close contact with a lot of children, so I really wanted to do something extra to protect them. At the other end of the spectrum, I think it's totally okay for anyone who is vaccine-skeptical, for whatever reason, to take a wait and see approach. But there eventually comes a point when a majority of the public has actually gone ahead and been guinea pigs for you, and you're just needlessly endangering people.
bsder 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. Perhaps you'd prefer overrun ICU units so people die of treatable diseases because nobody can find a bed? Vaccines absolutely benefit everybody even if they just reduce severity but don't contain spread (and I don't concede that point).
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  The "overrun ICUs" thing is a canard, and to the extent it's true is mostly the fault of our having slashed the number of hospital beds over the past decades under the imperatives of for-profit healthcare. Prior to 2020 you can find all kinds of examples of hospitals being overwhelmed by bad flu outbreaks. It's been 20 months and hundreds of billions spent on pandemic response -- where is the added hospital capacity? Not sure if this applies to you, but I also just can't take seriously anyone who professes great concern about ICU capacity while also supporting the mass termination of any nurses who won't take the vaccine.
  - bsder 5y ago
    > and to the extent it's true is mostly the fault of our having slashed the number of hospital beds over the past decades under the imperatives of for-profit healthcare. I don't disagree with this. Unfortunately, the anti-vax people are almost a 1:1 Venn diagram with the people who are all-in on for-profit healthcare. So, you can complain about this, but you can't use it as justification for anti-vax accommodation since it is caused by the same group of people. > but I also just can't take seriously anyone who professes great concern about ICU capacity while also supporting the mass termination of any nurses who won't take the vaccine. Prophylaxis is an expected minimum thing for the sake of patients. Any nurse who will not wash her hands between operations should be fired even if there is a nursing shortage. If someone is not willing to follow medical prophylaxis, they shouldn't be in medicine.

smokelegend 5y ago

How about 5yrs from now, will the 17th booster shot still be as affective? Writing is on the wall, but sure, believe their corporate greed has nothing in play on this.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> How about 5yrs from now, will the 17th booster shot still be as affective? ...yes? Why wouldn't it be? (Although I truly can't imagine any scenario where you end up with so many booster shots, only the flu is like that and it's a different shot every year, because the flu is a very unusual virus.)
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > because the flu There's not just "one flu".
smt88 5y ago
Five years from now, we'll be taking a Covid vaccine for whatever the prevalent variant is (exactly like we already do for the flu). The only difference is that, if you don't take your flu vaccine every year, you're much less likely to be hospitalized or die.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  The flu is a completely different virus. In fact, what we call "the flu" is actually several different influenza viruses, so your flu shot isn't targeting just one virus, it's targeting multiple influenza viruses. The rate of mutation of these viruses is very different than that of SARS-CoV-2. The reason there's a different flu shot every year is that the efficacy of last year's vaccine against the current influenza viruses will likely be too low to provide adequate protection, not just against infection but against serious illness. This again is because of how much the influenza viruses mutate in a short period of time. Currently, the data indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are holding up very well in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death for all SARS-CoV-2 variants. This is the reason why the boosters that were approved are the same vaccine, not a new variant-specific one. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity, and it is clear that the neutralizing antibodies produced immediately after vaccination wane quickly, which allows vaccinated individuals to still become infected. Unless and until you see a drop in the efficacy against severe illness, hospitalization and death, this idea that we will or should be taking COVID vaccines indefinitely every year is hard to justify with science.