7 ms·

Because it protects you and others around you from disease. Cowards will make up lies and excuses for not taking it, though. I suppose you have to decide who yo

by nope96 4y ago

Because it protects you and others around you from disease. Cowards will make up lies and excuses for not taking it, though. I suppose you have to decide who you trust, your doctor, or internet trolls. My guess is, if you ask your doctor, he or she will recommend you take it.

peteradio 4y ago
> Because it protects you After already having had Covid? I'm fit in my 30s. > and others around you from disease. Has this borne out in practice? > My guess is, if you ask your doctor, he or she will recommend you take it. Guess again.
- dekhn 4y ago
  honestly, it's just not worth arguing- some folks are going to be permanently convinced that the case for vaccination is much stronger than it really is. Like I said in other comments: the medical researcher community moved on and no longer believes that vaccines were nearly as effective as originally believed, for any criterion. We certainly aren't ever going to reach ongoing herd immunity so the most reasonable approach now is to identify people at greatest risk and spend more resources protecting them.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Fair enough but policy is still standing and being made based on these beliefs. Do you believe we will finally see reversals?
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. Most of the "reversals" have already been done, the rest is media noise.
  - didibus 4y ago
    There could still be vaccines that have the potential to be much more effective, like this one that's soon to enter Phase 1 human trial: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/sars-coronavirus-variant-vaccine-bjorkman https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/sars-coronavirus-variant-... I think it'll be interesting to follow further vaccine development in that sense. Also, I don't know why you say researchers no longer believes that vaccines missed the mark. Yes they didn't prevent reinfection of future variants, and that I think everyone was hoping they would and no longer believes that, but just recently this study was published: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... showing an estimate of 14 to 20 million lives saved by the vaccines just during the first year of vaccination. And while 80% of that is from direct protection, 20% is from indirect protection such as: > reducing the levels of burden placed on health-care systems, reducing the number of days that health-care capacity would have been exceeded and therefore contributing to an overall lower fatality rate from infection That said the study highlights the same conclusion as yours, people at greater risk should be prioritized since direct protection is much more effective, and also low income countries that are not able to get or pay for vaccines are disproportionately affected, it would make sense to send vaccines that are going to young healthy low risk individuals in high income countries to these lower income places.
    - belorn 4y ago
      What has been generally disproved is the concept of herd immunity. Initially this was what scientists and researchers had hoped would occur with vaccinations, and sadly for multiple reasons this did not happen. Vaccines does significant help in reducing the severity when a person get sick, which reduces the work load on the health care system and allowing the personal to focus their time and skill on people in worse conditions. That is great, but it changes the initial strategy in terms of application and goal.
      - didibus 4y ago
        True, though from my understanding, in some sense herd immunity was reached for the original strain and even delta, both of which are pretty much eradicated from the US. Those were the deadliest strains as well. What happened is that COVID started mutating much faster than expected in ways that it can avoid the immune system.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  BA.5 avoids the immunity you gained from Delta, Alpha, and the original. If you got COVID-19 this July-ish (when BA.5 was biggest), maybe you don't need a vaccine update. But given how much the virus has evolved, it only makes sense to update your body to the newest version that's out there. If the next big strain is from the BA.5 lineage (or closely related lines like Omicron), having your body trained on the new proteins / RNA should help a lot. ------ Fortunately, it's not as big a deal because original strain / original vaccine looks like it still prevents hospitalization and deaths. So this is strictly about reducing the spread of Omicron / BA.5 and related substrains.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > BA.5 avoids the immunity you gained from Delta, Alpha, and the original. Is this based on serology studies? Or are there studies that show sharp risk increase for my demographic? > Fortunately, it's not as big a deal because original strain / original vaccine looks like it still prevents hospitalization and deaths. So this is strictly about reducing the spread of Omicron / BA.5 and related substrains. That's exactly what I'm wondering. I personally don't worry for myself, if I saw something convincing that showed reduction in transmission, common good all that then I'd potentially do this for someone else. But I'm not interested in participating in free experimentation for big pharma.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2209479/suppl_file/nejmc2209479_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2209479/suppl_fi... Page 9 in the PDF clearly shows that original strain had the least protection, while BA.1/BA.2 (Omicron) had the most protection vs BA.5, but it was still possible to be reinfected. Yes, this includes your demographic. (Population 12-and-older for this study). ------- Delta was the first major strain that avoided immunity (IIRC: Gamma was also avoiding immunity to a greater degree than Delta, but Delta outcompeted Gamma). Omicron outcompeted Delta and also avoided immunity, and BA.5 is the mutant of Omicron that further avoids immunity. Getting your body used to the original strain (aka: your original infection and/or the original vaccine), plus this updated BA.5 specific booster shot, seems to only make sense. Especially because the vaccine is like, free? Your health insurance wants you to take it because it means less costs to them than if you got sick. ------ I should note that even if you don't get hospitalized or dead from the virus, there's still the chance of "long COVID", and other such complications if you get sick. So it still is to your personal benefit to get the vaccine IMO, especially since it targets the latest strain.
- nope96 4y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/01/cdc-fall-booster-shots/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/01/cdc-fall-bo... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended Thursday that millions of eligible Americans, including those as young as 12, get an updated omicron-targeting booster shot to bolster defenses against serious illness and death during a potential fall or winter rise in covid-19 cases. If you doctor is telling you not to get the booster, you need a better doctor.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    - nope96 4y ago
      Seriously, you need a better doctor. What did your doctor say, specifically? That you should not get the newest Covid booster? Have you ever been vaccinated? Calling me a jerk is rude. What's also rude? Refusing to get a vaccine that will protect you and others because you are afraid it will somehow hurt you.
      - purpleblue 4y ago
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Monica Gandhi who is a well known epidimeologist at UCSF and the furthest from an anti-vaxxer has said publicly she will not vax her kids with the COVID vaccine because there's no proof that it's needed for healthy children. No, she fucking didn't. Even the Daily Mail debunks your lies. Monica Gandhi, for all her faults, vaccinated her children. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10448853/Top-doctors-refuse-kids-shot-myocarditis-concerns.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10448853/Top-doctor... Both Gandhi and Offit, who have advocated for the vaccine and gotten themselves and their children vaccinated, claimed the CDC was premature in advising teens to get a COVID booster shot on January 5, with Gandhi saying, 'I am not giving my 12 and 14-year-old boys boosters.' Or as she wrote for the SF Chronicle: There should be no argument over whether vaccinating children against COVID is necessary; instead, our focus should be on the best way to do it. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Yes-kids-5-to-11-need-a-COVID-shot-say-doctors-16583436.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Yes-ki...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by nope96 4y ago

peteradio 4y ago

> Because it protects you After already having had Covid? I'm fit in my 30s. > and others around you from disease. Has this borne out in practice? > My guess is, if you ask your doctor, he or she will recommend you take it. Guess again.

dekhn 4y ago
honestly, it's just not worth arguing- some folks are going to be permanently convinced that the case for vaccination is much stronger than it really is. Like I said in other comments: the medical researcher community moved on and no longer believes that vaccines were nearly as effective as originally believed, for any criterion. We certainly aren't ever going to reach ongoing herd immunity so the most reasonable approach now is to identify people at greatest risk and spend more resources protecting them.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Fair enough but policy is still standing and being made based on these beliefs. Do you believe we will finally see reversals?
  - dekhn 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. Most of the "reversals" have already been done, the rest is media noise.
- didibus 4y ago
  There could still be vaccines that have the potential to be much more effective, like this one that's soon to enter Phase 1 human trial: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/sars-coronavirus-variant-vaccine-bjorkman https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/sars-coronavirus-variant-... I think it'll be interesting to follow further vaccine development in that sense. Also, I don't know why you say researchers no longer believes that vaccines missed the mark. Yes they didn't prevent reinfection of future variants, and that I think everyone was hoping they would and no longer believes that, but just recently this study was published: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... showing an estimate of 14 to 20 million lives saved by the vaccines just during the first year of vaccination. And while 80% of that is from direct protection, 20% is from indirect protection such as: > reducing the levels of burden placed on health-care systems, reducing the number of days that health-care capacity would have been exceeded and therefore contributing to an overall lower fatality rate from infection That said the study highlights the same conclusion as yours, people at greater risk should be prioritized since direct protection is much more effective, and also low income countries that are not able to get or pay for vaccines are disproportionately affected, it would make sense to send vaccines that are going to young healthy low risk individuals in high income countries to these lower income places.
  - belorn 4y ago
    What has been generally disproved is the concept of herd immunity. Initially this was what scientists and researchers had hoped would occur with vaccinations, and sadly for multiple reasons this did not happen. Vaccines does significant help in reducing the severity when a person get sick, which reduces the work load on the health care system and allowing the personal to focus their time and skill on people in worse conditions. That is great, but it changes the initial strategy in terms of application and goal.
    - didibus 4y ago
      True, though from my understanding, in some sense herd immunity was reached for the original strain and even delta, both of which are pretty much eradicated from the US. Those were the deadliest strains as well. What happened is that COVID started mutating much faster than expected in ways that it can avoid the immune system.
dragontamer 4y ago
BA.5 avoids the immunity you gained from Delta, Alpha, and the original. If you got COVID-19 this July-ish (when BA.5 was biggest), maybe you don't need a vaccine update. But given how much the virus has evolved, it only makes sense to update your body to the newest version that's out there. If the next big strain is from the BA.5 lineage (or closely related lines like Omicron), having your body trained on the new proteins / RNA should help a lot. ------ Fortunately, it's not as big a deal because original strain / original vaccine looks like it still prevents hospitalization and deaths. So this is strictly about reducing the spread of Omicron / BA.5 and related substrains.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > BA.5 avoids the immunity you gained from Delta, Alpha, and the original. Is this based on serology studies? Or are there studies that show sharp risk increase for my demographic? > Fortunately, it's not as big a deal because original strain / original vaccine looks like it still prevents hospitalization and deaths. So this is strictly about reducing the spread of Omicron / BA.5 and related substrains. That's exactly what I'm wondering. I personally don't worry for myself, if I saw something convincing that showed reduction in transmission, common good all that then I'd potentially do this for someone else. But I'm not interested in participating in free experimentation for big pharma.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2209479/suppl_file/nejmc2209479_appendix.pdf https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2209479/suppl_fi... Page 9 in the PDF clearly shows that original strain had the least protection, while BA.1/BA.2 (Omicron) had the most protection vs BA.5, but it was still possible to be reinfected. Yes, this includes your demographic. (Population 12-and-older for this study). ------- Delta was the first major strain that avoided immunity (IIRC: Gamma was also avoiding immunity to a greater degree than Delta, but Delta outcompeted Gamma). Omicron outcompeted Delta and also avoided immunity, and BA.5 is the mutant of Omicron that further avoids immunity. Getting your body used to the original strain (aka: your original infection and/or the original vaccine), plus this updated BA.5 specific booster shot, seems to only make sense. Especially because the vaccine is like, free? Your health insurance wants you to take it because it means less costs to them than if you got sick. ------ I should note that even if you don't get hospitalized or dead from the virus, there's still the chance of "long COVID", and other such complications if you get sick. So it still is to your personal benefit to get the vaccine IMO, especially since it targets the latest strain.
nope96 4y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/01/cdc-fall-booster-shots/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/01/cdc-fall-bo... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended Thursday that millions of eligible Americans, including those as young as 12, get an updated omicron-targeting booster shot to bolster defenses against serious illness and death during a potential fall or winter rise in covid-19 cases. If you doctor is telling you not to get the booster, you need a better doctor.
- peteradio 4y ago
  - nope96 4y ago
    Seriously, you need a better doctor. What did your doctor say, specifically? That you should not get the newest Covid booster? Have you ever been vaccinated? Calling me a jerk is rude. What's also rude? Refusing to get a vaccine that will protect you and others because you are afraid it will somehow hurt you.
    - purpleblue 4y ago
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Monica Gandhi who is a well known epidimeologist at UCSF and the furthest from an anti-vaxxer has said publicly she will not vax her kids with the COVID vaccine because there's no proof that it's needed for healthy children. No, she fucking didn't. Even the Daily Mail debunks your lies. Monica Gandhi, for all her faults, vaccinated her children. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10448853/Top-doctors-refuse-kids-shot-myocarditis-concerns.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10448853/Top-doctor... Both Gandhi and Offit, who have advocated for the vaccine and gotten themselves and their children vaccinated, claimed the CDC was premature in advising teens to get a COVID booster shot on January 5, with Gandhi saying, 'I am not giving my 12 and 14-year-old boys boosters.' Or as she wrote for the SF Chronicle: There should be no argument over whether vaccinating children against COVID is necessary; instead, our focus should be on the best way to do it. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Yes-kids-5-to-11-need-a-COVID-shot-say-doctors-16583436.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Yes-ki...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]